Making Room for All
Friday, October 30, 2009 at 12:04AM When I confessed my faith this evening at a worship service at Central Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, I read with those gathered the answer to the first question of the Heidelberg Catechism with a new appreciation. Surrounded by a larger than usual proportion of homosexuals to heterosexuals, I recited “I belong—body and soul, in life and in death—not to myself but to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ....” In this worship service at a conference titled “Making Room for All,” I welcomed this continuing dialogue on homosexuality in the Reformed Church in America.
Before the worship service, we heard a brief history of Room for All, an organization that grew out of a group of friends supportive of Norm Kansfield, who was deposed from the office of Professor of Theology at New Brunswick Seminary and suspended from the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament by the General Synod of 2005 for having presided over the marriage of his daughter Ann and his daughter-in-law Jennifer.
The Rev. Louis Lotz urged churches to seriously engage the subject of homosexuality, to study what scripture says and does not say about homosexuality, and to use discernment and dialog, appreciating differences without tearing ourselves apart.
Judy Parr
Holland, MI
Reader Comments (53)
Hello Judy,
The “dialogue” in the RCA seems to be segmenting into three distinct camps: passionately progressive, apathetic, and passionately resistant.
I affirm that each group (I’m passing by the apathetic in my analysis), passionately progressive and passionately resistant, hold to core convictions based on analysis of the biblical record.
Each side, having carefully considered and constructed a biblical framework, sees the other view as catastrophic, and is confident that the future of Christianity, the glory of God, and the credibility of Jesus are at stake if the other side were to prevail.
This is my working conclusion: The two sides are so fundamentally opposed (because of the core convictions mentioned above) that it is untenable for them to remain side-by-side (in the same denomination) in good conscience.
So, who is going to leave the room?
If the room is open wide for all to enter then the passionately resistant will have to leave because of biblical conviction. If the room is blocked and segments of people are banned, then the passionately progressive will have to leave because of core biblical conviction. [This is of enormous importance]
It looks like the conversation will end when one group sets the tone for life in the room...
Both groups agree that the room should include all sinners…saints need not apply (nor do they exist). Murder’s, addicts, liars, thieves, idolaters are all welcome into the room, but we agree they can’t continue to actively embrace a life of “God sanctioned” murder, addiction, lying, stealing or idolatry. The tension enters because RCA members disagree on how to live in light of human sexuality. Simply put, we don’t agree on how to live together in the same house based on passionate, profound, core convictions.
I’d like feed back on my conclusion: is it accurate to say that these two groups can not remain in the same room over an extended period of time?
Passionatley progressive: because it’s a issue of injustice to block people from God
Passionatley resistant: because it’s an affront to the gospel and leads people to sin
So, is there truly room for all without crushing core convictions?
Answer- no.
There is not room for all and both sides should agree…
Jeremy,
Is it seriously your position that those holding opposing and passionate views can't stay "in the same room" with one another? I consider my (what I believe to be biblical) view of "saints" to be fundamentally opposed to the Roman Catholic position (which they believe to be biblical). The same could be said about the historic (albeit not modern) Roman Catholic -vrs- Protestant understanding of Faith or even the authority of the Church in the mediation/process of salvation. The differences get at core theological, soteriological and biblical understandings.... and yet I eagerly and willingly worship "in the same room" with Roman Catholics.
I do believe it is possible (and even, good) to be in the same room with those I have fundamental differences with. I believe it's possible (and good) to worship with them; I believe it's possible (and good) to live in community with them. I believe it's possible (and good) to be engaged with them on topics that I believe myself to have developed biblical and intelligent positions on.
We are (or at least should be) long past the days when remaining in the same room together, requires everyone agree on everything.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim,
I’m afraid you’ve missed the entire thrust of my post…My comments are directed at the single issue of human sexuality (at the direction of the original post) and in no way reflect a rejection of differing opinions in the church on other topics. We need to sit down in Holland and chat…it would clear up this type of misunderstanding in the future.
I’m using the word “room” as ongoing communion in the church (as used in my discussion on all types of sinners is the “room” and when I said “in the same denomination”). I’m not using the word “room” as a term for discussion on issues of adiophra.
On the issue of human sexuality, it is my position that the opposing sides cannot stay in communion with one another because it would corrupt each side’s conscience. I’m not saying they can’t have a discussion for a period of time, I’m simply saying at some point they need to agree to disagree and move on. (Is that fair?)
How can an inclusive member of “room for all” remain silent when in their mind the church bars children of God from His fellowship? It’s one thing to work with someone who differs on issues of adiophra (i.e. music, color of the carpet, building style, gathering time, length of prayer, eschatology, etc…) but how does one work in good conscious when the church bars people from God? Likewise, how can someone on the other side work indefinitely with people who allow, foster, and encourage sin and reject the healing power of the gospel? In issues such as this, it is simply not tenable to the conscience to stay in this system indefinitely.
Lets make this practical…Question, how would it work in the church you serve to have both pro and con on the issue of sexuality in the same congregation, consistory, and pulpit? How would it work to have a pastor promoting homosexuality with a congregation and consistory that reject it? How would this be tenable over the long haul?
I think you’ve taken my comments in an uncharitable direction. I also believe it is possible to be “in the same room” with those I have fundamental difference with. I’m in the room right now…I also believe it is not fair or good for the conscience for both groups to go on indefinitely while the lives of people hang in the balance. In the area of human sexuality, we must make clear decisions and move on in accord with our conscience (both pro and con).
As I asked above and now ask you specifically, how can these two groups function together?
Passionatley progressive: because it’s a issue of injustice to block people from God
Passionatley resistant: because it’s an affront to the gospel and leads people to sin
I think I’m being charitable to both groups in this situation and have laid out a realistic analysis of a difficult family struggle.
I look forward to hearing your reaction,
Jeremy,
Actually, I didn't miss your point at all, I simply didn't buy it - that's not uncharitable, it's disagreement. As much as people (on both "sides," for that matter) might disagreet, I can't believe that divergent positions on sexuality are more fundamentally incapable of remaining "in the same room" than the topics I mentioned in my post (which are, frankly, far more core soteriological questions, not adiaphora).
What do I mean by "in the room?" I don't mean discussing - there's a place for discussion, and there's a place where discussion is, frankly, unhelpful. I mean recognizing one another as children of God and being willing to worship alongside one another, even when that means believing that the other is wrong on something we think is important, even very important.
Is it possible for those on the Consistory and in the pulpit to have intensely differing views on things each think are extremely important (even, when those things are basic questions of God's plan for humanity)? Certainly! I am unquestionably clear on my view of women in ministry (and I unapologetically advocate for it) - equally as clear as some of the elders in my congregation are in the opposite direction; neither of us believe this to be adiaphora or on the same level as carpet color, etc). We've been able to live, worship and minister alongside of one another for almost a decade thus far. Is it easy? Not always. Do we each always find our "side" affirmed? Certainly not! But it is possible, and generally speaking, I believe it's God's intent.
To be fair, on a theoretical level, I am willing to admit that at times the difficulty of living "in the same room" isn't probably worth the cost. That's a different question however - it's not a question of whether we can remain "in the same room" but rather, whether the cost of "remaining in the same room" is worth the price we (the Church) has to pay to do so.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim
I thought you were misunderstanding my intent, but it’s now clear you understand and simply disagree. Thanks for being so straightforward and candid in your comments.
I’ll be honest, I didn’t think many people would be willing to find middle ground on the issue of human sexuality within the confines of the same denomination, classis, consistory, or pulpit. I’m interested to see if members of room-for-all and people on the other end of the spectrum feel comfortable with your middle road approach.
I’m not sure what you think the bible teaches on human sexuality but it sounds like you would be willing to work with, even if you disagree, an active homosexual, bi-sexual or transgender minister as your assistant or lead pastor and advise others to resist quibbling over the issue. (Is that a fair takeaway from your desire for unity/peace?)
Here’s my dilemma with the logic behind your thought process:
If human sexuality is flexible, then the church MUST allow all homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgender individuals in committed relationships to lead and serve in the church. Period! No exceptions or conscience clauses…
If human sexuality is defined by the historic understanding of scripture, then the church MUST work towards loving correction and repentance for practicing homosexual, bi-sexual or transgender individuals.
To chart a middle ground would be to promote unbiblical exclusion in the church or to promote unbiblical inclusion and tolerance of sin. Now, if scripture is unclear on this issue then you bring up a gray area…so, is scripture clear on this issue or not?
My conscience (guided by scripture) tells me this is a theologically untenable position (middle road) and on a theoretical level (as you mentioned), it seems preposterous.
I’d like the board to jump in at this point and offer some insight. Is the middle road (on homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgender lifestyles) an acceptable option ?
Jeremy,
You're putting words in my mouth (I don't believe I actually make any judgments about human sexuality being "flexible," for example). My point was merely that it's possible to live, worship and minister with people whom we powerfully disagree with - even views that differ on core questions of faith and salvation (which I don't believe the current discussion is, as much as it is sometimes presented that way). It is possible to be "in the same room."
I'm not really promoting a "middle position" either - a middle position assumes it's possible to come up with a compromise that both "sides" agree with. I don't honestly believe that's going to happen any time soon (although I'm certainly open to being wrong).
I'm suggesting that God's love for us, which unites us - by the work of the Holy Spirit - with Christ and with one another in Christ is bigger and more powerful than the hatred we naturally (but, frankly, as a result of our sin) have for those we disagree with and cannot coerce into agreeing with us.
In other words: God's love (and the divine desire to have people live in ever-increasing communion with both himself and one another) is more powerful than human hatred (and the desire to split, schism, coerce or otherwise manipulate one another).
We in the Reformed tradition are rather famous for our willingness to split and schism. We have a history of pretending that everything is a core issue worthy of division. I believe that grieves God. At it's core, I believe the fundamental question is whether or not Jesus is the Christ and whether or not each of us - to an increasing degree, throughout the course of our lives - seeks to understand and live-out what that means.
"What that means" unquestionably has a corporate aspect to it but, in the end, is usually done according to individual timelines. The church has changed very few positions over the course of my 3 1/2 decades. I, on the other hand, through biblical study and the guidance of God's Spirit, have changed dramatically. I'd guess that my changes have not always been in the same areas nor always in the same direction as others in their mid-30s. I expect most of those things will be nuanced, some of theme changed, and a few even reversed in the coming years as I seek to greater understand God's plan for humanity.
Because I believe we "work out our salvation" in various ways throughout life, I'm willing even, to live in community with those who don't agree with the most fundamental truths of the faith (although I hope and pray they eventually will). Since that's true, there are few things I'm not willing to live with at some level.
The fundamental question here isn't homosexuality. The question is whether the Church is an institution that demands unanimity as a prerequisite for being "in the same room." Notice I said "the Church" - whatever we decide, it is obvious Jesus didn't require that. The gospels show Jesus loving and healing people who - in the end - didn't become faithful. He was "in the same room" with them, eating... drinking... often even advocating on their behalf. Indeed, at least one of them - whom he washed and communed with - ministered with him and still ended up betrayed him. To be increasingly Christ like is to seek to emulate him, even in that.
Anyhow, I have sermons to write... :-) And, to be honest, I have to admit I'm sick of everything around here being about homosexuality. There are "bigger fish to fry."
Grace and Peace,
`tim
PS. Although I've already hit "Create Post" on the previous note, I think I should admit that this kind of discussion is probably what an online friend of mine calls "Teal Deer" territory. When I asked her what that meant, she said "Teal Deer"="tl; dr" --> "too long; didn't read."
Once we've journeyed to the online land of the Teal Deers, we start picking apart and arguing about snippets and phrases rather than looking at the overarching points and themes people are trying to make. Such things are usually, if not always, unhelpful so let me be clear as to my key point: Jesus seemed willing to be "in the same room" (eating, worshiping, traveling, healing, communing, even ministering) with people of intensely divergent (and even, occasionally, sinful) views; we do well to strive for nothing less. This doesn't diminish the power of the gospel nor does it threaten the scriptures or dis-empower God. Hope that helps :-)
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim, Jeremy, anyone still reading.......
The Formulary/promise that ministers make at ordination/installation says..
I believe the gospel of the grace of
God in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments and as expressed in the Standards of the Reformed Church in
America. I accept the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and life. I accept the
Standards as historic and faithful witnesses to the Word of God.
I promise to walk in the Spirit of Christ, in love and fellowship within the
church, seeking the things that make for unity, purity, and peace. I will submit
myself to the counsel and admonition of the classis, always ready, with
gentleness and reverence, to give an account of my understanding of the
Christian faith. I will conduct the work of the church in an orderly way and
according to the Liturgy and the Book of Church Order.
The formulary sets out to give us a common starting point, the gospel of grace, the Old and New Testament, and the Standards as historical and faithful witnesses. No where does it tell us how to interpret these.
What the Formualry does do is demand that we stay in the same room, "walk in the Spirit of Christ , in love and fellowship, seeking those things that make for unity, purity and peace." We need to stay in the same room seeking these things...even if they aren't experienced while in the same room.
The last part that I would like to bring up before this post becomes a Teal Deer, is that we need to be ready to give, "an account of my understanding" of the scriptures. I am the chair of my Classis human support committee and as we examine students I look not to see if they agree with me but if they understand the common starting point that we all have and that they can then give an account of how they interpret it.
For me, at or near the core of what it means to be a minister in the RCA is a willingness to start of the same place "gospel of grace, OT, NT and historical standards" that then stay in the same room, "walking in fellowship and love seeking those things that make for unity purity and peace" ready to always give an account of my understanding of the Christian Faith.
This post has ended up being a teal deer to say I mostly agree with Tim, (no surprise.)
Justin
Tim, and Judy
May i ask you why ex-gays are never invited into the discussion? Why are they not invited?
Have you heard or read of either Christopher Yuan (christopheryuan.com) or Joe Dallas?
Blessings ><>
Mick, I can't speak for Judy (I don't think we've ever met), but I fail to understand why you'd ask me that question. This is an open forum (anyone is invited to participate). Secondly, the question of whether or not someone can be "rehabilitated" out of homosexuality is entirely unrelated to every point I've tried to make.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim, my humble apologies that i have offended you.
After 35 years in the "same room" during which the RCA membership remains a "house divided" regarding homosexuality, may i suggest something to avoid Jeremy's trainwreck.
The Dialogue on homosexuality should take place Between Gays and Ex-Gays, And the rest of us in the church would do well to simply Listen. Then just perhaps the church body would know how to minister to those of glbt orientation in truth and in love.
Blessings <><
Mick,
Don't worry, you didn't offend me; I'd be in the wrong line of work if I were offended that easily! :-)
You make an interesting suggestion - can I tweak it a bit?
My concern with that approach is that the church often has very important things to say about situations that they little or no personal experience with. Reformed polity is based on the belief that the Holy Spirit works powerfully in assembly - that means that the assembly is often called to speak (wisely and with discernment) into situations where particular individuals may have little or no experience (or where they may be unable to "step back" away from their own experience enough to make wise decisions on a larger scale).
I would follow the spirit of your suggestion though. If I were setting up a "information panel" to best help the assemblies make their future decisions with wisdom and knowledge (which, of course, I'm not!), I'd ask for there to be intelligent and well-spoken representation from a diverse group of people who live and promote what they believe to be faithful, chaste lives and ask them to help the body understand what them means to them and how they figure that out biblically, theologically, and pastorally.
All-too-often we (i.e. the church) assume gay=promiscuous, or gay=liberal, or gay=biblically illiterate or even that homosexuality is all about sex. All of which besides being untrue, forces us to try comparing apples and oranges. If we took this approach, assemblies then, could make an "open and affirming" or a "non-inclusive" decision, but they'd at least be making their decision biblically, theologically, and pastorally (which is their role) rather than on visceral reaction.
I think you and I agree that the Reformed faith is inconsistent with some hermeneutics and that some positions are not faithful to our understanding of scripture and theology. We simply don't agree with all biblical, theological or pastoral decisions others make - even when those "others" are really smart people (sometimes even smarter than we are!) At least, if we did this, we wouldn't be assuming the only choices are either straight-marriage or gay-promiscuity.
What do you think?
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Hi Judy: Could you elaborate on this "new understanding" you experienced while at the Room For All Conference with so many homosexuals present and why you "welcome this continuing dialogue on homosexuality in the Reformed Church of America?" Why is talking about homosexuality so important to you?
Thanks for the feedback, God bless you.
KD
I follow the RCA blogs sporadically and realize how centered they are on the issue of homosexuality, but what concerns me is the seemingly repeated attempts by some to "out" others on their beliefs about this subject. For example, I am looking at the responses Rev. Ten Clay has made about this particular post, and I don't see any evidence of him holding a "middle of the road" view on this issue, yet there is a whole response by Mr Visser focused on his assertion that this is what Rev. Ten Clay has done. In fact, as I am carefully reading Rev Ten Clay's posts I realized that I have no idea what his "stance" is, nor do I believe that this somehow diminishes his comments on the subject. And while I do not necessarily agree with everything Rev. TenClay has stated, I do agree that the RCA has other issues than homosexuality that threaten to divide us (or "bigger fish to fry"), and working on improving the process for how we take theological stances, communicate within our denomination, and how we as Christians first (and members of the RCA second) engage the world around us are far more important than the issue of homosexuality alone. So, going back to the spirit of the original post, there needs to be a way for us to begin (or return to) "appreciating differences without tearing ourselves apart."
Anonymous,
How is what I wrote "outing" Tim:
"I’m not sure what you think the bible teaches on human sexuality but it sounds like you would be willing to work with, even if you disagree, an active homosexual, bi-sexual or transgender minister as your assistant or lead pastor and advise others to resist quibbling over the issue. (Is that a fair takeaway from your desire for unity/peace?)"
In the future, please read the people you disagree with as carefully as you read the people you like...
This quote drives at the main thrust of everything I've said and asked, mainly, how do people think we can move forward on this issue without tearing the RCA apart. I don't think it's possible, from both perspectives, Tim disagrees. This is hardly "outing" Tim.
Anonymous,
You are right, these blogs have a history of being obcessed with homosexuality.
You are also right, there are litigious overtones to many of the conversations on these blogs (indeed, also in the RCA as a whole). Many of the posts have a "gotcha" sense to them. It is one of the reasons I (and a number of people I know) only speak in generalities, especially here. Even though I'd argue my positions are fully orthodox, I know - from experience - that there are those who will take them out of context and misuse them.
In any case, I thank you.
Grace and peace,
`tim
Tim,
Who's version of Orthodoxy and from what time period?
I have been studying the Apostle's Creed for a current sermon series and have found that "orthodoxy" has changed over time, especially in regards to the creed...
(this is a blatant attempt to change the subject...sort of....)
Justin
(And don't worry Tim if I catch you in a Gottcha moment I will hold it against you forever....)
Justin...
Now there's a good question. How do we define Orthodoxy? My answer (which I don't claim is in any way original or creative) is that Orthodoxy, for those of us who are part of the confessional church, is adhering to the faith of the scriptures as focused by our creeds, confessions, catechism and liturgy. I'll be the first to admit that they don't provide a singular voice but I do believe they are compatible with one another. These are the things I (and every other minister in the RCA) have committed myself to and integrity expects me to uphold (even though there are parts of them that I occasionally struggle with).
Orthodoxy isn't as precise for other office holders (Elders & Deacons) and "members" of the RCA - they vow to a less focused commitment to the scriptures.
That suggests, I think, that Orthodoxy is not a realm of theological thought with clear boundaries. There are extremely broad definitions of Orthodoxy in Christianity (Christ is Lord); slightly more focused (the scriptures are good); more focused (the scriptures are the only rule for faith and life), and even more precise (the scriptures are the only rule for faith and life and the creeds, confessions, catechism and liturgy are, while historic, accurate in the way they interpret the them).
How's that to get the conversation going?
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Why limit the dialog on homosexuality to gays and ex-gays talking to each other with the rest of us listening in? At the Making Room for All conference, I learned much from persons of both homosexual and heterosexual orientations. The intent was to focus on making Room for All in the RCA, and that would include room for ex-gays as well. The registration form had no line for indicating orientation or ex-gay status. Perhaps some ex-gays attended and participated with the rest of us.
Over the years, I’ve heard much talk about the need to minister to LGBTs. I hadn’t realized how patronizing this can sound to homosexual Christians. As the mother of a lesbian unemployed pastor pointed out to me this week, the intent to minister to LGBTs can come across as sounding as though THEY need something WE straight folks can give them. Perhaps the best way of ministering is to consider sexual orientation as something that becomes invisible by our being clothed in Christ, just as Paul had described being in Christ as erasing distinctions between Jew and Greek, slave and free, and male and female (Gal 3:26-29).
Today my husband and I helped to rebox for shipping several dozen stoles that were displayed during the conference. They are some of more than one-thousand stoles contributed during the recent twenty years by LGBTs to the “Shower of Stoles Project.” As we carefully folded the stoles, we saw that each one had a number, and we read many of the brief notes about their former owners. We were deeply moved to realize that each stole had been worn by someone whose ordained ministry had been cut short—whose vocation was rejected by the policies and actions of those in several Christian denominations who feared that differences in sexual orientation (when made public) somehow threaten the Body of Christ that is the Church.
Today is Reformation Day. For nearly twenty centuries the Body of Christ has suffered from misguided attempts to purify the Church by amputating its members. As we heard in today’s concluding worship service at the Making Room for All conference, it’s time for another reformation.
Judy Parr
Holland, MI
Tim
One would expect that listening to an Gay/Ex-Gay Conversation might influence one's view(s) of Orthodoxy; and perhaps weaken Jeremy's camps.
Hmmm, which hour is the "bewitching hour" on Halloween?
Blessings ><>
Judy,
In this new reformation are we having a person in a relationship (married) with a person of the same sex pastor and lead a church? Or are we finally becoming accepting of a person who has same sex attraction but is celibate and allowing that person to be open about his/her feelings and still allowing them to lead and pastor in the local church as long as they stay celibate?
Justin Visser
Hudsonville, MI
Dear All: "Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. We then who are strong ought to bear with the scruples of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; but as it is written, 'The reproaches of those who reproached You fell on Me'. Forwhatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be likeminded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus, that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God".
Romans 14:22-15:7 NKJV
God bless the Lord's Day, after Reformation Day.
KD
Mick and Tim,
If you’re serious about a conversation between gay/ex-gay Christians, you could come over for dinner sometime and interact with 2 active “gay Christians” and 2 “ex-gay Christians” who see this issue from very different perspectives. I love all four of these gentleman, as brothers in Christ, and they play an active role in my life.
I hope it’s clear that this discussion is not an academic exercise on parsing theology or looking to drive a wedge (“trainwreck”) in the church. I want these men, and all people, to honor God with their lives and embrace the full implications of the gospel.
Ananoymus and Tim…Please don’t paint me with a broad brush as someone who’s looking to “out” people or create division. It’s an incredibly simplistic approach and has little value beyond trying to minimize my thoughts/motives on this blog…
Here’s hoping the RCA takes this seriously for God’s glory and our neighbors good.
[p.s. - I’m serious about the conversation]
As Jeremy' s first post stated:
"I’d like feed back on my conclusion: is it accurate to say that these two groups can not remain in the same room over an extended period of time?"
Passionatley progressive: because it’s a issue of injustice to block people from God
Passionatley resistant: because it’s an affront to the gospel and leads people to sin
So, is there truly room for all without crushing core convictions?
Answer- no.
There is not room for all and both sides should agree…
Regarding Jeremy comments and question to us:
I totally agree with this. The Room for All group believe they have a new biblical interpretation different from the present position of the RCA.
Not happy with the status quo, they are working hard to change the RCA stated position.
Why not hold to that conviction and build your own room, rather than trying to change the passionately resistant?
Jeremy
Thanks for the invitation, and your demonstrated "love for one another." You may not be surprised how rare your experience is for someone in the RCA - it seems nearly everyone knows someone who is gay, but you are now one of three members within the RCA whom i've heard in conversation as knowing an ex-gay. It appears to me that within the RCA the paradigm is that ex-gays are an impossibilty, and therefore excluded from the dialogue.
Blessings ><>