Hear the audio version here (segments older than 3 weeks may be unavailable)
Though columnist Amy Gesenhues declined my invitation to come on my radio program and defend the anti-Christian posturing of her original column, I am thankful that my challenge to her bigoted statements at least provoked her into spending an entire second column dancing around them. Once again, Ms. Gesenhues demonstrated an inability to confront the self-contradictory nature of her remarks. So let me make this as simple as possible.
In her original column, Gesenhues stated, "to believe you can teach someone how ?not to be gay' is.hateful in the most literal interpretation of the word." She may find those words to be benign and non-judgmental. But despite her protestations that she harbors no personal hostility towards anyone or any viewpoint, calling someone "hateful in the most literal interpretation of the word," Ms. Gesenhues, is quite hostile. And who was she referring to with that statement? Directly, she was referencing Dr. Marcus Bachmann, the husband of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. Dr. Bachmann runs a Christian counseling clinic that has been attacked for helping those with unwanted same-sex attraction find deliverance from those temptations and urges. Apparently, Gesenhues' belief that, "you will never be wrong for being who you are," doesn't apply to those who seek help to become ex-gay.
But, whether intentional or not, Ms. Gesenhues was also indirectly attacking all Bible believing Christians. First Corinthians 6: 9-11 clearly states the eternal penalty for unrepentant homosexual conduct, and follows it up by stating, "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ." In other words, when Ms. Gesenhues suggests that it is "hateful in the most literal interpretation of the word" to believe that a person can be delivered from the sin of homosexuality, she is castigating all Christians who believe in the redemptive power of Christ.
Not knowing Ms. Gesenhues, I can't say whether that was her intent. I am more than happy to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that it wasn't. But that doesn't change that it is the logical outworking of her words...words that I felt compelled to confront.
In her original column, Gesenhues wrote that she, "wanted to write it to stand in opposition of any ideology...that teach hate." My point to Ms. Gesenhues was, and remains, that Christians like myself who oppose homosexuality do not do so out of a sense of hatred. We see the physical, psychological and spiritual consequences of the lifestyle, and are motivated by love to speak up against its destructive nature.
It is a shame that when we do, we are maligned as "hateful in the most literal interpretation of the word," by the very same people who pretend to be agents of compassion. In her follow-up column, Gesenhues wrote, "When someone name-calls or bullies another or uses hostile means to convey a point, it is not about the person they are attacking. They are simply projecting their own anger (which is a front for their pain)." This from the same woman who had just authored a piece calling Bible believers "hateful," and suggesting that our beliefs were "ridiculous," "unfair," "unjust," "hypocritical," and unloving. Physician Gesenhues...heal thyself!
