Gerald Walton. Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 51, Issue 2. 2006.
In 2003, the first openly gay Anglican bishop was consecrated in New Hampshire. The ceremony, which took place in a campus hockey arena, was supported by some and vociferously opposed by others. An antigay demonstration ensued, both outside and inside the arena. Inside, a written objection was presented that was signed by 36 bishops, 8 of whom were from Canada. Outside, placards of dissent were held high above heads for onlookers and cameras to see. One, in particular, named the Anglican church in New Hampshire a “fag church” (McCarthy, 2003).
Such a derisive branding is an extreme expression of a more generalized belief, that being gay or lesbian is incompatible with, and oppositional to, being Christian. With the help of journalists, the protesters at the ceremony perpetuated the reputation of intolerance of gay and lesbian people among Christians. Beliefs that homosexuals are deviant, sinful, disgusting, and dangerous to children are commonplace in Christian communities. It is also commonly presumed that homosexuality is only a private act and should be kept as such. Some high-profile Christian leaders have tenaciously opposed social and political gains won by gays and lesbians, while other leaders are complicit in their silence.
Notwithstanding the prevalence of these sentiments (which are not exclusive to Christians), gays and lesbians in Canada have gained increased social visibility and public participation in religious institutions and rites. In 1988, the United Church of Canada authorized the ordination of gays and lesbians (Religious Tolerance, 2002). The privilege of marriage was extended to gay and lesbian couples in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario in 2003 (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, 2003). These measures were loudly opposed by Christian organizations on both sides of the border (Schmidt, 2002).
In spite of Christian-based opposition to social justice for gay and lesbian people, many gays and lesbians have adopted Christian beliefs and they participate in Christian rites and communities (Bouldrey, 1995; McCall Tigert, 1996; Sweasey, 1997; Stuart, 1997; Shallenberger, 1998; Shelby Spong, 1998). Hostility towards homosexuality, expressed by many Christians, has not prevented some people from experiencing homosexual sex, identifying themselves as gay or lesbian, celebrating such an identity, struggling for legal and social equality with heterosexuals, or reconciling their gay or lesbian and Christian identities. Gay and lesbian Christians are people whose identities emerge counter to dominant ideologies about compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1993), and dominant Christian values concerning sexuality. Furthermore, the social visibility of gay and lesbian Christians challenges stereotypical ideas about gay people (that gay people are not those who believe in and practice Christianity), and about Christians (that such people necessarily condemn gays and lesbians).
Given Christian-based anti-gay activism, and anti-gay rhetoric such as “fag church,” what leads certain individuals to pursue the integration of gay or lesbian and Christian identities? I explored this question with eight gay men who have embraced a religion that appears to advocate exclusion, intolerance, and even hatred, toward gays and lesbians. In doing so, I learned about the strategies that they employed to integrate two identities that most people presume are incompatible.
Research Methods
Using a variety of recruitment strategies, I included men who identified themselves as gay and as evangelical Christian, who had integrated such identities for at least five years, and who were “out” as both in all of the various aspects of their lives. I borrowed Mahaffy’s (1996) conceptualization of “evangelical,” which she describes as the belief in the inerrancy of scripture, salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, the authority of the Bible, and evangelism as a mission. To be evangelical, then, implies belief combined with attracting other people to Christianity, otherwise known as “spreading the good news.”
All of the eight informants described themselves as middle-class. Seven had Canadian, English and/or Scottish heritages and one had an Italian ethnicity. The ages of five men were 29, 43, 50, 55, 60, and two men were 34. I designed and employed a semi-standardized interview schedule to guide us through a series of predetermined topics while also allowing opportunities for each participant to include additional information about himself.
Processes of Identity Integration
The eight informants clearly expressed their comfort with being both gay and Christian. For some, achieving a level of comfort was a long and difficult journey, fraught with inner turmoil. For others, the journey was less psycho-emotionally problematic. Larry, for example, was adamant in his belief that being gay is acceptable in the eyes of God.4 Speaking on behalf of himself and Ben, his partner of over thirty years, Larry emphasized without reservation that:
[W]e have reconciled our Christianity and our homosexuality. There is absolutely no conflict. I feel so secure that it will never be a problem for me…. If I didn’t believe that I would have to believe that God is a cruel God to do that to so many people….
Larry implied a link between his being gay and Christian evangelicalism. His partner, Ben, stated it explicitly:
[W]e just have to be strong in our faith, and in who we are as gay people…. The gospel has to be spread. It has to be spread to the gay community because they have been disenfranchised by mainline churches, by these [anti-gay] pastors who think they are doing good.
Wade also expressed feelings of self-worth that were rooted in his childhood. He was raised in a highly religious evangelical Christian family. In spite of being raised in a religious tradition that emphasizes heterosexuality within marriage as the only Christian option for sexual expression, Wade explained:
I’ve been Christian since the age of four, and I’ve been gay as far back as I can remember as well…. [T]hose two aspects have been integral parts of my identity. I’ve always had those two things to deal with, and perhaps that’s made it easier for me to deal with it, to rationalize it, to accept it.
Unlike Larry, Ben, and Wade, Charles described strong and longterm feelings of inner turmoil about being gay in view of his Christian values and beliefs. He gradually adopted his Christian beliefs during his teenage years. Prior to doing so, he had had experiences in his boyhood that signified early homosexual attractions and provoked much anxiety for him at the time. He explained that he started to perceive that he was attracted to other males when he was about thirteen years of age. He described feeling, “horrified, but attracted at the same time.” Later, in early adulthood, Charles attempted to circumvent his homosexual feelings through heterosexual marriage. Like Pete and Larry, Charles felt that his homosexual attractions would cease to exist within heterosexual marriage. However, same-sex attractions remained, and anxiety continued.
[I experienced] terrific guilt when I was first involved in intentional sexual activities with men, terrific guilt about my marriage and the infidelity that I created in my marriage. That raged on for years. After every [homo]sexual experience, I vowed not to do it again.
The degree to which each participant experienced internal conflict about being gay, whether in combination with a Christian identity or prior to adopting one, varied in longevity and severity. Darren, Larry, Charles, and Pete had made earlier decisions to reject a gay identity, but ultimately came to believe that being Christian could include being gay. None of the eight participants attempted to reject their Christian identity, although Charles, a pastor, left the Christian ministry for a period of time, believing that his role in church leadership was incompatible with being gay. He later returned to Christian leadership.
In spite of the earlier decisions of Darren, Larry, Charles, and Pete, the ultimate outcome for all of the participants was resolution through integration rather than through permanent rejection of one identity or the other. In the process of reading and re-reading the interview transcripts, I discerned several strategies that these men employed to integrate their gay and evangelical Christian identities. I then grouped these strategies according to qualitative similarity, from which three themes emerged.
Strategies of Integration
Biblical Interpretation
Among the eight participants, a common strategy that was adopted for the purposes of identity integration is one that emphasizes exegesis, which is critical interpretation of Biblical text, in contrast with literalist interpretation. Exegetical readers consider the social, historical, or political contexts in which the text was written, whereas Biblical literalists do not. For most Christians, the Bible is considered to be the central authority on which philosophical and moral standpoints are based. Some Christians use the Bible to fortify anti-gay attitudes and actions. Interpretations of the Bible that are selectively literalist have led many Christians to believe that God condemns homosexuality. Given such a common assertion, I asked each participant to articulate his view of the Bible and to investigate the ways in which the Bible, as the central textual authority of Christianity, informs gay and Christian identities.
All eight men described having to struggle to locate a positive sense of self within scripture and to feel free from condemnation. Eventually, each one came to believe that selective Biblical literalism is an inappropriate way to interpret the Bible. Wade, for example, explained:
If you retrace history and look at many things that the Christian church has taught, [it] has supported blatant sexism, [and] has advocated slavery. …I look at the Bible, there’s the traditional Pentecostal view that it’s the literal word of God, and that everything should be taken literally…. To that, I would say that there is so many things that you can’t take literally. They are part of the word of God, and they’re there for a reason, but we have to look at them in their historical perspective.
Wade also explained that beliefs about certain issues only appear to be historically stable. God’s apparent rebuke of homosexuality is one such issue. The example given by Wade was the common practice in some Christian churches, especially those that subscribe to Biblical literalism, of denying membership to women on church boards of directors. He said,
Such a practice is an example of how something is hard and fast in one particular generation, a few years later, or a different generation, it can be totally different. That can be said of sexism, slavery, and I would maintain that eventually, …some of the denominations now, they’re starting to deal with homosexuality.
For Pete, literalism simply did not make sense. He was quite certain of his relationship with God in his assertion:
I have so many answered prayers to be thankful for I can’t even begin to name them…. If God considers [homosexuality] to be an abomination, why does He keep answering my prayers? Why does He keep on communicating with me?
Two men explicitly described having been reassured, through reading Biblical scripture that God approved of their being gay. Darren said:
I specifically remember reading biblical verses and parts of scriptures that I thought were really cool, like David and Jonathan…. I’m sure that they [engaged in sexual activities with each other]. I think that one of the things that the church doesn’t realize is that homosexuality is not about sex. For me, even back then, it wasn’t about sex, it was about two people loving each other. I looked at David and Jonathan and I thought, “I’m sure they were in love.” And I always took comfort in that.
Similarly, Larry described what he saw as God actively providing assurance through scripture.
Even after I was saved, I needed some assurance…. There is a scripture in Matthew 19 where he talks about the eunuchs. I believe that when he was talking about eunuchs he was talking about us. People not being able to marry, and all that, I think he was talking about gay people. They didn’t call them gay in those days.
A humanist perspective of scripture was expressed by Sean to bolster his sense of social justice for gays and lesbians, as well as for members of other marginalized groups.
God is the real essence of [spirituality]. I think Jesus was an important person, but I don’t think of him as a saviour in that sense. I don’t think I need to be saved from anything. I think of God as a helping thing…. [Jesus] stood up for what is right, he aligned himself with the most marginalized people, and said, “You’re OK.” And that’s a very powerful example for me, knowing I’m OK, and knowing that it’s partly my responsibility to help others.
Thomas provided yet another perspective on the Bible. He asserted that, in fact, most Christians are unable to list the particular scriptures of the Bible that are used by members of the Christian Right primarily against gays and lesbians. He argued that, “they just have this blanket [notion that] it is written in there that homosexuality is wrong. What did Christ say about homosexuality? Absolutely nothing. Most Christians don’t know that.” Thomas believes that the rejection of gays and lesbians by many Christians cannot be Biblically justified. Other Christians, he said, react with anger to his views on sexuality. “I’m blessed,” he said, “because I’m like the leper that they wouldn’t touch, …but God loves me.”
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly and unlike the other informants, Thomas also described himself as a fundamentalist. Whereas some gay and lesbian people have “reclaimed” words such as “fag,” “dyke,” and “queer” for positive self-description, Thomas asserted his right to reclaim the term “fundamentalist” from its negative connotation as being narrow-minded and fraught with bigotry. Rather counter-intuitively, he spoke rather disdainfully about liberal Christianity. One would expect liberal Christians to be more accepting of gays and lesbians than are most legalistic conservative Christians. Nevertheless, he was adamant about his support of the term “fundamentalist” and explained his perspective thus:
Fundamentalism means that you believe in [the] real essentials of the Bible, that those essentials are common to all churches, that Jesus Christ came to bring us good news of salvation, [that] he wants to have a personal relationship with every one of us, [and] that he came from God the father. Those are the fundamentals to me. And that’s how I use that word, and [liberal Christians] are not taking it away from me.
Thomas was the most vocal, but not the only, opponent of liberal Christianity. In a similar manner, Ben maintained that what he sees as the core essentials of the Bible–he did not use the term “fundamentals”– are reduced to a “watered-down theology” when viewed through a liberal lens.
Perspectives among the informants on the Bible were diverse, but similar in outcome; each man described having achieved an understanding of the Bible that facilitated, rather than undermined, a gay identity. Each one expressed his view that, although the Bible is a divinely inspired text, it is, nevertheless, historically contextual. It has also been translated into various English language versions from original Greek and Hebrew texts. Paradoxically, such contextualization appears to belie one of the tenets of “evangelical” as posited by Mahaffey, namely, the belief in the inerrancy of scripture. I used her conceptualization as a screening device when I was searching for informants, and verbalized it, so that potential participants could assess their “fit” to the study. That the informants contextualize the Bible does not mean that they lied to be able to participate in the study; it means only that the belief in the inerrancy of scripture is not synonymous with Biblical literalism, as Thumma (1991) points out. The former requires exegetical reading; the latter does not. For the men in this study, it is within this interpretive framework that identities, such as gay ones, are able to emerge in concert, rather than in conflict, with Christian identities.
“A Christianity of Questions”
Another strategy for identity integration involved the perception of inconsistencies between idealized views of life and actual lived experience. In managing such a perception, one could attempt to resolve all of the inconsistencies related to processes of identity development, specifically concerning sexual identity and religious beliefs. Alternatively, one could choose to simply ignore such inconsistencies. But one could also accept perceived inconsistencies without feeling compelled to resolve them, as demonstrated by some of the participants. Somewhat counterintuitively, it seems that the recognition and acceptance of inconsistencies has been a cognitive device with which these eight men have gained inner resolve about their identities.
One of the most common avenues for doing so was through the recognition of the differences between God and church. Wade, for example, was raised in a conservative Christian family. During much of his youth and early adulthood, Wade held leadership positions in the church that he and his family had attended since Wade was very young. Through a series of events, Wade was “outed” by two self-described “ex-gay” visitors to his church to whom he had disclosed his (then physically unexplored) homosexual orientation. The next day, the church pastors asked Wade to resign his membership to the church and to step down from his leadership position. Wade described the occasion as sad, but not traumatic, saying that he felt that it would have happened eventually. He also said that he felt that it was part of God’s plan to eventually guide him to a new congregation in a gay-friendly church a few months later. The process that Wade described was instrumental in his realization that God is an entity distinct from His followers.
[I]n my life …the Lord has given the grace and the understanding and the strength to endure the misunderstanding and the hardship and the broken relationships and to move on. And to focus on the Lord, because it’s really our relationship with the Lord, it’s not our relationship with the church. Looking back on my life, I thought I would be going to that church for the rest of my life …but you don’t realize that the Lord might have another plan for your life.
Differentiating between God and the congregations of churches enabled identity integration for Darren also. He said that the turning point at which he was able to merge his gay identity with his Christian one was when he realized that God and church are different, but overlapping, entities. He reported having felt alienated from God because of his belief, influenced by other Christians, that homosexuality was contrary to God’s intent for human sexual expression. He described how a feeling of alienation from God metamorphasizad into one of closeness.
The catalyst [for me in accepting that I was gay] was me coming to the point where I was going to kill myself. At that point, I thought, “No, this isn’t what God wants for me . . .” At that point, that’s where the freedom was. I realized that for so long I was mad at God, and I had embraced the church. But at that point, I realized that it’s not God that I should be mad at. It’s the church that I should be mad at. I was able to embrace God…. The church was totally abandoned.
Pete described a series of events that led him to lower his expectations of other Christians, but not of God. He had been living in a small rural town, and he and his (then) wife of nineteen years were actively involved in the local Christian community. She knew about his homosexual desires, but urged him to go for counseling in the hope that such desires would be expunged. He attended counseling sessions, but his sexual desires for men remained. In spite, Pete’s wife disclosed his homosexuality to various people in their small town. Pete briefly described the result of some of the reactions from local townspeople toward his being gay: “I would say that a good percentage of the ones in the …church [would not talk to me]. Not all of them, but a good chunk were pretty cold …I just felt that some of this was not Christian.” Although Pete felt betrayed by some of the Christian people in the town, he did not feel that God had betrayed him.
Recognizing the differences between idealized spiritual beliefs and human imperfections is one of the ways in which some of the participants expressed that they had achieved resolution through identity integration. Attaining an awareness of the disjuncture between the beliefs held by Christians and the ways in which Christians actually live their lives provides what I call “cognitive spaces” in which some of the men were able to self-actualize beyond the standard dualistic paradigm of “gay or Christian.” Doing so took place, apart from, and perhaps in reaction to, negative attitudes towards gay and lesbian people expressed by many Christians. Whereas some gay men internalize such messages (some of whom participate in “ex-gay” ministries), others see opportunities for deeper self-acceptance by choosing paths that are generally denied and forbidden within mainstream Christian churches.
For two of the participants, parental role models provided examples of non-conformity within Christian social groups. The stories of Wade and Thomas suggest that their choice to accept inconsistencies is rooted in their childhood experiences. Wade’s parents, for example, were very active in an evangelical and fundamentalist church, but his father was denied board membership because he was a smoker. Wade described him as a proud smoker, and explained, “the church teaches that anyone who smokes can’t be a board member, and isn’t as truly spirit-filled as someone else is. And yet, when I look at my Dad, [he] is more of a Christian than many who profess to be.” For Wade, his father was a role model for questioning church authority without necessarily doubting one’s beliefs in God. In doing so, Wade’s father modeled his belief in the separation of God and church; God is perfect, but churches are imperfect human organizations through which God works.
A similar perspective was evident in Thomas’ upbringing. Thomas perceived a similar disjuncture between Christian beliefs and behaviour through the example of his mother who he described as an evangelical Christian and an alcoholic. Simply put, Thomas and Wade understood at an early age that Christians are not always what they appear to be, or what other Christians feel that they should be. In his youth, Thomas felt uncomfortable about his mother’s alcoholism, but did not doubt the viability of her also being a Christian. He also felt that his mother’s situation was beyond his capability to resolve. A cognitive space resulted, and grew into a general understanding about life.
We live in a society that wants to resolve things, and we never do. But when we kind of leap past it, and say, “You know, God, I can’t deal with all of this stuff. Can you deal with it for me?” That’s where I want to be.
For Thomas, the inability to resolve “things” is a key component of his Christianity, but such a notion also functions as a kind of philosophical model from which his gay identity had emerged in concert with his Christianity. His mother’s alcoholism did not fit into accepted schemas of Christianity, nor did his homosexuality. Such recognition–a cognitive space–provided Thomas with a venue for future self-definition.
A statement made by Sean provides an apt summation. He said that he prefers “a Christianity of questions rather than a Christianity of answers” because the former, but not the latter, allows for personal growth and change. Certainty of one’s Christian beliefs might therefore preclude possibilities for apparently incompatible identities to arise in consort with Christian beliefs. For Thomas, contradiction fostered personal empowerment.
Choice
A third strategy for identity integration concerns the matter of choice. The issue of choice is especially controversial in relation to homosexuality, but is typically not controversial in relation to religious identity. Many Christians, and others, continue to view homosexuality as a “chosen lifestyle,” one that is framed as unhealthy, sinful, and deviant. By contrast, many gays and lesbians claim that they were born with their particular sexual orientations. A variation of such a claim is that God made certain people gay or lesbian.
Five of the eight men interpreted their sexual orientation as a product of God’s will. Ben, for example, described an interaction he had at a former workplace with an administrator. Ben had challenged him after the administrator had made negative comments about gays and lesbians– specifically that homosexuality is “fundamentally against God.” Ben offered a sound rebuttal to the administrator.
I said, “Stop taking the scripture out of context…. Every person who goes into a church and hears a pastor spewing off at the mouth are too lazy to look it up for themselves…. If your naturalness, so to speak, is to be straight, so be it. I respect that. Mine is not. God made me who I am, and God made you who you are. That’s all I’m asking for is mutual respect.”
Ben’s belief that God made him who he is underlies his claim that his homosexuality is a “natural” aspect of his overall personhood. Ben explained that he had felt, from a very early age, that God created and approved of every aspect of his being. “With regards to being gay, I never had a problem with it…. [I] knew right from the beginning that God loved me for who I was …What was natural for [my partner Larry and me] was for us to be together.”
Wade also expressed that self-acceptance followed his faith in God’s acceptance of him. He said, “The religious right uses the term ‘lifestyle choice.’ [Being gay] is not a choice. The choice is whether you accept it or not.” Subscribing to the notion that homosexuality is not “chosen” often underpins homosexual identity formation. Identity integration, as I learned from each of the informants, is achieved by making the choice to accept that being gay can result from, rather than contradict, one’s particular beliefs in Christianity.
Most of the statements about “choice” were made in reference to the informants’ sexuality, not their Christianity. The etiology of their Christian identities was not explained as a matter of choice, possibly because of the common Christian belief that subscribing to Christianity requires an act of one’s will. For example, Christians, particularly evangelicals, commonly make statements such as, “When I became a Christian …,” or “I decided to follow the Lord.” Such statements imply that individual agency is required in order to “be” a Christian. It seems reasonable to suggest, then, that such a belief explains why the matter of choice–or lack thereof–was expressed by the participants strictly in the context of processes of homosexual identity formation, and not in context of Christian identity formation.
Thomas, however, was the one exception to that general trend. He was the only participant who asserted that both homosexuality and Christianity are beyond his choice. He emphasized that, contrary to the views of many Christians, his status as a Christian is an act of God’s will rather than of his own:
I probably believe different things about salvation than [other Christians do] because I don’t believe salvation is a choice. I think God chooses us, and I could pull out ten scriptures in the Bible where it says He chooses us…. So people say, “Oh no, it’s your free will. You choose.” …[S]alvation is based on God’s plan for you, not anything that you’ve done.
Subscribing to notions about lack of choice concerning sexual orientation is a way in which participants accepted and bolstered their homosexual identities. Darren and Pete even described making the choice to accept themselves “the way they are”–specifically referring to their homosexuality–in order to confront temptations to commit suicide. Thomas, however, was the only informant who further asserted that Christian orientations are pre-ordained by God.
Discussion
Asserting one’s social and legal rights is a political act, as is opposing such rights through rhetoric such as “fag church.” Gays and lesbians, among other marginalized groups in society, have pursued their rights since the 1970s. In Canada, gains, most of which have been won through legal battles, have been both significant and staunchly opposed. In 2003, for example, British Columbia and Ontario allowed gay and lesbian couples to wed (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere, 2003), attracting criticism as well as many same-sex couples from the US as participants in a new market of the wedding industry. On the pathway towards these various legal victories, Christian organizations are typically at the forefront of opposition.
Most of the men in this study spoke about identity resolution through integration as a personal journey. Some disavowed politics. But how could the integration of these particular identities, and being “out” about them (as these men are), not be political? The very social existence of gay or lesbian Christians confronts taken-for-granted assumptions that Christianity is akin to an exclusive club for heterosexuals to which homosexuals need not apply. Many Christian communities have initiated and promoted political agendas that are clearly anti-gay in nature, some of which even condone violence against gays and lesbians. Unlike some high-profile Christian organizations, gay and lesbian communities have not launched massive campaigns against Christianity.
Rejection of gays and lesbians by some Christians and rejection of Christians by some gays and lesbians are not equally influential social phenomena. The ability of Christian ideologies to impose moral values upon society is more pronounced than are the influences of gay and lesbian political activism on social values. Anti-Christian attitudes and sentiments among some gays and lesbians are usually expressed as a reaction against Christian condemnation of homosexuals. Such attitudes might not arise if it were not for Christian campaigns that explicitly promote negative stereotypes, discrimination, and, at times, hatred against gay and lesbian individuals and their loved ones. Anti-homosexual attitudes and sentiments, especially those of right-wing Christians, are based on perceptions that gays and lesbians, and their supporters, are attacking an institution, and the values it represents, that they hold dear. Branding gays and lesbians as “anti-family” is thus a common misrepresentation.
Christian campaigns against gays and lesbians are significant ways in which Christian ideologies about sexuality are imposed upon society. The notion that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural has thus become axiomatic in societies that are dominated by Christian values, even among people who are not actively Christian themselves. Reactionary Christian activism may be a salient expression of such notions, but conservative values about family and sexuality have been taught from the pulpit for centuries and have become integrated into society. Christianity cannot be implicated as the sole impetus of gay activism. However, gay activism functions in such societies where anti-gay Christian campaigns are organized, and where homophobia is mostly the status quo.
In spite of such prejudices, the men in this study made particular decisions and adopted various strategies that facilitated a harmonious blending of their (seemingly incompatible) identities. I suggest that identity integration can result in spite of anti-gay or anti-Christian biases expressed by significant or generalized others. In light of some of the strategies that I have presented here, I add that identity integration could also result because of such biases, as a kind of defiance against those who disapprove of people who subscribe to Christianity while at the same time identifying as gay, as men such as Ben and Thomas seem to indicate.
The identities of being gay and Christian emerge in contexts of social and political power; the very existence of these blended identities represents an act of resistance against particular moral or political regimes. The merging of seemingly incompatible identities need not result in compartmentalization, which is more a strategy of identity management, of making choices about how and when to express one’s gay, Christian, or gay and Christian identity. Alternatively, identity formation involves cognitive and social processes of acquiring and accepting a particular identity. The approach of the men in this study seemed to be find ways to integrate and express both aspects of their identity in most contexts of their lives. Their current identities have not resulted from simply “fitting” their gay identity into an already-existing Christian one. The development of a gay identity had an impact upon their Christian identities, and vice-versa, in a dynamic, continually reciprocal, way.
Overtly political men such as Larry and Ben face large challenges, particularly from some non-gay Christians. One of the more powerful components of right-wing Christian activism is the way in which its supporters have seized upon particular interpretations of Biblical scripture to further their political agenda to deny human rights and social justice to gays and lesbians. The political aim to protect the so-called traditional family has garnered right-wing Christian organizations, and some individuals, a highly visible and influential place within the realm of social activism in North America (Herman, 1997), eclipsing more mainstream Christian perspectives. Individuals who subscribe to rightwing Christian perspectives steadfastly believe that they alone hold the truth to Biblical interpretation. Fundamentalist Christians deem dissenting Christians as wayward in their commitment to Christianity. Bawer (1997) refers to the hegemony of such politically motivated beliefs as “stealing Jesus.” Claiming Christian beliefs and expressing a Christian identity in combination with a gay one, as the men in this study have generally done, helps to erode the political efficacy of anti-gay Christian agendas and steals Jesus back.