Lynne Gerber. Gender & Society. Volume 29, Issue 1. August 2014.
Ex-gay ministries, like many evangelical groups, advocate traditional gender ideologies. But their discourses and practices generate masculine ideals that are quite distinct from hegemonic ones. I argue that rather than simply reproducing hegemonic masculinity, ex-gay ministries attempt to realize godly masculinity, an ideal that differs significantly from hegemonic masculinity and is explicitly critical of it. I discuss three aspects of the godly masculine ideal—de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest, inclusive masculinity, and homo-intimacy—that work to subvert hegemonic masculinity and allow ministry members to critique it while still advocating for innate gender distinction and hierarchy. I conclude by arguing that gender theorists need to be more precise in distinguishing conservative religious masculinities from hegemonic ones.
Gender theory often conflates conservative religious masculinity with hegemonic masculinity (Flores and Hondagneu-Sotelo 2013; Robinson and Spivey 2007). Because conservative religious groups often support gender hierarchy with men dominant, the forms of masculinity they advocate are confused with the masculinity that actually dominates a social space and legitimizes the existing hierarchy. Conservative religious masculinities are read as hegemonic and conservatives themselves as hegemonic masculinity’s supporters and defenders.
In this article, I argue that such a conflation is often inaccurate and can obfuscate the specificity of conservative masculinities and the challenges they can pose to hegemonic masculinity. I use the ex-gay movement as one example of conservative religious masculinity that problematizes this fusion. Ex-gay ministries are conservative in their gender ideology and largely endorse gender hierarchy. They seek to secure male privilege for their male members by legitimizing their masculinity in the evangelical world and in the world at large. Yet they find many reigning cultural ideals of masculinity problematic. Rather than using hegemonic masculinity as the standard by which their members’ masculinity is measured, they criticize it for falling short of divine intention. Instead, ex-gay leaders and members aspire to godly masculinity, an idealized maleness drawn from evangelical discourse that appropriates some aspects of hegemonic masculinity while criticizing others. While most believe that godly masculinity should be hegemonic, they recognize that it is not.
In this article, I show that the discursive structures of godly masculinity as formulated in the ex-gay movement can challenge the strictures of hegemonic masculinity from a conservative direction, relieving (ex-)gay men from the pressures of heterosexual performance, expanding the repertoire of legitimate gender expressions, and allowing for a considerable degree of male–male intimacy. I argue that this godly masculinity is a queerish masculinity, one that allows a considerable degree of gender experimentation while still maintaining a conservative gender ideology (Gerber, forthcoming; Gerber 2008).
Hegemonic Masculinity and Godly Masculinity
Hegemonic masculinity, as developed by Connell (2005, 77), is the form of masculinity that dominates a given social space and provides the ideological and cultural ground for legitimizing male power and privilege. It exists within a field of multiple masculinities and dominates them all, along with all femininities and all women, by soliciting their complicity, subordinating them, or marginalizing them altogether. It is a structural position as well as a specific form of masculinity. It is generally presumed to be white, heterosexual, and upper class, but its content varies based on cultural context and geographic level of analysis (Connell and Messerschmidt 2005).
Although hegemonic masculinity has proven to be a generative concept, questions regarding its content and significance abound. One tension is between the characteristics of men who actually hold hegemonic power, but who may or may not personally behave in hegemonic ways, versus men who are symbols or exemplars of hegemonic masculinity, but may not themselves be holders of hegemonic power (Connell 2005, 77-78; Elias and Beasley 2009). A related tension is between the models of idealized masculinity struggling for hegemonic power and those that actually have it. Movements focused on maleness and masculinity offer competing visions of what kind of masculinity is best for men and/or society in general. While some are critical of male domination, others maintain that masculinity should be hegemonic yet have a range of opinions about what kind of masculinity should reign in that position. These competing ideals often contrast with the masculinity that actually holds that position, which is often so secure in its power that it need not thematize masculinity or gender at all (Connell 2005, 212; Donaldson 1993).
The content of hegemonic masculinity is also a problem. Reading the literature, it seems that, like pornography, it is hard to define, but we know it when we see it. Homophobia, the fear of women, and vigorous heterosexuality seem to be central to its construct (Donaldson 1993; Kimmel 1994), as do competition, aggression, and a certain social isolation between men. Bird (1996) argues that it includes emotional detachment, competitiveness, and the sexual objectification of women. Demetriou (2001) argues that the dominating masculinity should be thought of as a hegemonic bloc that maintains its power, in part, by appropriating aspects of dominated masculinities as is useful. Connell (2005) argues for “transnational business masculinity” as the emergent form of hegemonic masculinity in the era of globalization, one that is marked by its relationship to the neoliberal economic order and its decreasing allegiance to other institutions or sources of identity. Yet some are concerned that this is too vague a concept to pierce the dynamics of how power is generated and maintained, especially without the assistance of economic analysis (Donaldson 1993), or that it is conceived in too monolithic a way to account for the complexity of globalization (Elias and Beasley 2009). In this article, I do not argue for any specific model of hegemonic masculinity; rather, I demonstrate how one type of conservative, evangelical masculinity can challenge traits that are frequently evoked as emblematic of hegemonic masculinity by gender scholars.
Evangelical Christianity, a largely conservative form of Protestantism founded in Western Europe, developed in the United States, and global in presence, has a complicated relationship to both masculinity and hegemonic masculinity. Evangelicalism has its origins in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century revival movements noted for their blurring of racial and gendered social divisions (Brekus 1998; Hatch 1989). Although dominant in American religious life, by the mid–nineteenth century, American Protestantism had become feminized in participation and representation (Douglas 1977), leading to a cultural devaluation of religious identity in general that continued as secularism gained strength in the early twentieth century. A variety of cultural projects from both the liberal and conservative sides of the Protestant spectrum attempted to remedy this feminization of Protestantism by reconceiving it in masculine terms, for example, the YMCA and the Men and Religion Forward movement (Bederman 1989; Putney 2003). These projects can be read as attempts to claim religious masculinity as legitimately masculine while also demonstrating its compatibility with hegemonic masculinity, efforts that would theoretically be unnecessary if evangelical masculinity actually held a hegemonic position.
In the later half of the twentieth century, evangelicalism was fused in the popular mind with traditional gender hierarchy and political opposition to feminism and gay rights. But recent research has suggested that evangelical thought and practice regarding gender and masculinity is more complex. Gallagher (2003) characterizes contemporary evangelical approaches to gender in marriage as a blend of “symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism.” In his study of the Promise Keepers, a more recent evangelical gender project focused on cultivating Christian masculinity and known for its large gatherings of evangelical men in sports stadiums, Bartkowski (2004) found at least four masculine ideals in circulation, ranging in their affinity with hegemonic masculine ones. Whereas some aspects of hegemonic masculinity are abundantly evident in contemporary evangelical masculinity projects, for example, an emphasis on sports, others are challenged, for example, the pursuit of wealth and status at the expense of family.
“Godly masculinity” has been used by some scholars to designate masculinity in contemporary evangelicalism (Bartkowski 2004; Gallagher and Wood 2005). I use the term here to denote idealized forms of masculinity that evangelicals use to articulate subculturally specific gender ideals, criticize hegemonic forms of masculinity, and vie for their own hegemonic positioning in the culture at large. Like hegemonic masculinity, godly masculinity is rooted in a binary and hierarchical gender system and advocated by people who support the dominance of masculinity. But it operates by a different set of cultural rules and expectations, generating traits that can differ from those of hegemonic masculinity. It can also generate unintended outcomes that resemble the gender queerness evangelicals ostensibly reject.
The ex-gay movement is one example of an evangelical cultural project grappling with gender and arguing for godly masculinity. Made up of community-based ministries, regional and national organizations, therapists, pastoral counselors, congregations, and evangelical academics, it aims at changing sexual orientation through a mixture of therapeutic and devotional techniques. For over three decades, its most visible organization was Exodus International. Founded in 1976, Exodus was an umbrella organization for 150 local ministries. It was predominately white in racial makeup and there are parallel networking efforts among African American ministries, such as Witness for the World. In the mid-1990s, Exodus gained public visibility, building partnerships with powerful evangelical organizations, such as Focus on the Family, and training media-friendly spokespersons. It dissolved those partnerships in the mid-2000s, reversed its position on sexual orientation change in 2012 (Gritz 2012), and closed its doors in 2013. Some member ministries followed suit while others regrouped under a new umbrella, The Restored Hope Network. Models of godly masculinity discernable in the ex-gay movement are closely associated with those found in the Promise Keepers (Bartkowski 2004; Donovan 1998; Heath 2003) but also reflect the influence of other gendered evangelical projects (Cochran 2005; Ingersoll 2003).
Ex-gay ministries, like other evangelical gender projects, have attracted the attention of critical gender scholars. In their 2007 article, Robinson and Spivey emphasize the affinity of ex-gay masculinity with hegemonic masculinity. They argue that the remedies prescribed by ex-gay reparative therapy contribute to the power of hegemonic masculinity through its emphasis on acquiring masculine traits: “Doing masculinity,” they write, “becomes an ongoing production, a repeated demonstration that scripts social interaction in ways that reproduce male domination of women and other men” (2007, 664). Gender, in this context, is performative, but in a way that bolsters rather than challenges gender norms. The contours of this gendered performance, they argue, mirror the contours of hegemonic masculinity, thus reinforcing its legitimacy and power. Masculinity, in the ex-gay context, is achieved “by mimicking stereotypical masculine behaviors and shunning feminine ones, through homosocial interactions, and through marriage and fatherhood, all of which,” they claim, “correspond to the elements of hegemonic masculinity” (2007, 659).
A more detailed look at how the ex-gay movement constructs masculinity complicates this perspective. Ex-gay ministries do appeal to a normative, idealized model of masculinity to which their charges aspire. But that ideal, grounded in evangelical models of godly masculinity and the lived experience of homosexually oriented members, looks quite different from hegemonic masculine ideals in contemporary American culture. In this article, I identify and analyze three aspects of godly masculinity that differ from hegemonic masculinity: de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest, inclusivity, and homo-intimacy. In analyzing these features of godly masculinity, I demonstrate that they allow expressions of masculinity and relationships between men that run counter to expectations regarding hegemonic masculinity, the ex-gay project, and opposition to homosexuality.
Methods
My data include participant observation, interviews, and content analysis of ex-gay materials. This research was conducted as part of a larger project that used ex-gay ministries as a comparative case (Gerber 2011). I attended eight public events sponsored by Exodus International, their member ministries, or allied organizations, including two regional Love Won Out conferences, an Exodus International national conference, and local conferences sponsored by Exodus-affiliated ministries. I focused on Exodus because it was the largest ex-gay network, was recognized and respected among evangelicals, and actively sought mainstream recognition. At the time of this research, Exodus was a successful organization with little outward indication of its coming demise.
I also conducted 35 in-depth, semi-structured interviews with then-current members of ex-gay ministries (28) and former (ex-)gays (7). Subjects were recruited mostly through Exodus-affiliated ministries and located throughout the U.S. Because interview requests were mediated through ministry leaders, many subjects were highly committed ministry participants. Focusing on discursive constructs made this bias useful: These “true believers” were well-schooled in ex-gay rhetoric and deploying it for persuasive purposes. Respondents ranged in age from early 20s to mid-70s—22 men and 13 women. Two current ministry members and two former members were African American, one current member was Asian American, and the rest of the interview sample was white. Interviews ranged from one to five hours; two were with prominent national leaders. Questions focused on personal experience with faith, sexuality, and the ministries and included questions about their understandings of morality and the change they were pursuing in the ministry. Primary material reviewed included 24 books on homosexuality by Christian authors and endorsed by Exodus, five DVDs promoted by Exodus, three years of Exodus’s newsletters, newsletters from Exodus-affiliated ministries gathered at events or online, and websites of ex-gay organizations.
All primary research materials were initially coded using a grounded theory method: codes were developed that reflected repeated themes, stories, and rhetorical constructions in order to understand how issues were being constructed within the ministries’ terms and the stories and themes articulated across data sources. After initial coding I used analytic memo writing to analyze the codes, identify larger themes they engaged, and theorize possible connections between them. When masculinity emerged as a theme that encompassed several seemingly unrelated codes, I supplemented my research data with recordings of five workshops on masculinity taught at Exodus conferences over three years (2005-2008), which were purchased through the company licensed to record the conferences for commercial purposes. These were coded using a combination of the initial codes and new codes. The new codes were developed from both the analytic memos and from engaging theoretical materials on hegemonic masculinity and identifying key conversation points between theory and case materials.
Terminology in the ex-gay movement is freighted. Many in the movement dislike the term “ex-gay” because they feel it reduces their identity to sexual struggles. There is no agreed upon substitute. Movement opponents argue that the term should not be used because it is misleading, suggesting that changing sexual orientation is possible. When talking about individuals, I use “(ex-)gay” to indicate the population I am speaking of, using the most recognizable term while acknowledging the porous boundaries between gay and (ex-)gay. I use “ex-gay” to speak of ministries, leaders, and the movement itself. I use the movement’s term “ever-straights” to refer to people with life-long heterosexual attraction and identity.
Godly Masculinity in the Ex-Gay Movement
In the ex-gay context, ideals of godly masculinity are developed in conversation with reparative therapy, the major discursive framework ministries use to understand homosexuality. In an effort to develop a more scientific-seeming position on homosexuality, movement leaders partnered with old school psychiatrists to develop a strand of psychological theory abandoned by the mental health mainstream (Bayer 1987). This theory claims that homosexuality is a disorder resulting from stunted gender development. In this view, men become gay when a disruption in the relationship with the father, either through the father’s absence or neglect or the mother’s overinvolvement, leads to so-called defensive detachment, alienation from men marked by active dissociation (Moberly 1983; Nicolosi 2004b). This relational block causes proto-homosexual men to wrongly identify with women, depriving them of male community within which “proper” masculine identification develops. “In short,” writes reparative therapist Elizabeth Moberly, “homosexuality is a phenomenon of same-sex ambivalence, not just same-sex love; and it is in itself a relational deficit vis-à-vis the same sex rather than vis-à-vis the opposite sex” (1983, 17).
This etiology frames homosexuality as a clinical issue, laying the groundwork for a measure of compassion and possible cure. The remedy lies in intensive social exposure to men and masculinity so that identification develops. Sexual desire, the theory goes, is aimed at that which seems different from the self; thus, when a homosexually inclined man stops identifying with women and finds a home among men, desire should “naturally” turn toward his gender other. “The goal is not change as such,” Moberly claims, “but fulfillment … that would in turn imply change” (1983, 31). This is effected through practices that appear like overt mimesis of hegemonic masculinity: sports activities, information sessions with ever-straights, and other male-male bonding opportunities. But it also works through a critique of hegemonic masculinity and the articulation of new norms.
Like hegemonic masculinity, the content of godly masculinity is vague and somewhat malleable. But its vagueness does not detract from its discursive usefulness in critiquing reigning ideals. Godly masculinity is appealed to as a higher standard from which to evaluate the masculinity that is hegemonic in American culture. For example, in his book on achieving masculinity, ex-gay leader Alan Medinger writes that he will teach readers “what a man is, what the meaning of masculine [is], and what it is that men do—not just in the cultural sense, but what men do that reflects their universal God-designed manhood” (2000, xiii). In a workshop on masculinity, Andrew Comiskey critiques aspects of hegemonic masculinity, contrasting them to God’s vision for men. He advises,
It doesn’t work. Whether it’s climbing the corporate ladder, or whether it’s prowling for prostitutes, same difference. We just say God, it doesn’t work, it doesn’t make me more manly, doesn’t make anyone love me more. If anything it just brings destruction in its own way. I’m sick of it. So Lord I’m ready for your way. (n.d.)
In this account, sexual prowess and economic achievement, arguably two cornerstones of hegemonic masculinity, are explicitly rejected in favor of a more godly way. Godly masculinity allows ex-gay leaders to critique dominant forms of masculinity in American culture without becoming theologically suspect.
Despite the vagueness of godly masculinity, my research indicates three ways that its ideals differ from those of hegemonic masculinity: de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest, inclusive masculinity, and homo-intimacy. These both shape and reflect the compromises ex-gay ministries and their evangelical partners have made with contemporary homosexuality.
De-emphasizing Heterosexual Conquest
One distinction between secular and evangelical culture is in attitudes toward extramarital sexual activity. Evangelicals, like many conservative religious people, are deeply suspect of such activity and highly value sexual restraint. The ideal of limiting sexual activity to marriage puts evangelical masculinity at odds with hegemonic formulations prioritizing heterosexual conquest, a tension seen in many evangelical masculinity projects. In an essay on the Promise Keepers, for example, Stoltenberg (1999) notes that participants were urged to confess their sexual mistreatment of women and to recognize the instability of sexual conquest as a foundation for masculinity. E. Glenn Wagner, a Promise Keepers leader, told Stoltenberg:
What we’re trying to tell them is that masculinity, manhood, is not defined by how many people you’ve slept with, either male or female. And men are finally saying “Oh thank God!” Sexual prowess should have nothing to do with one’s personhood or self-esteem, and yet our culture has made it that way. (1999, 97)
This rejection of heterosexual display as a standard for legitimized masculinity reflects the historic suspicion with which Christianity has treated sexuality (Krondorfer 1996). While not an outright rejection of heterosexuality as a standard of legitimate manhood, this provides ex-gay ministries discursive and practical opportunities, grounded in mainstream evangelical thought, for understanding and redeeming (ex-)gay sexuality.
Like the Promise Keepers and other evangelical gender projects (Bartkowski 2004, 83; Cochran 2005; Ingersoll 2003), Exodus ministries ground their work on the rejection of same-sex sexuality. In conservative biblical hermeneutics, same-sex sexual practice is seen not only as a violation of biblical command, but a transgression against God’s ideal for sexuality as presented in Genesis (Comiskey 1989, 37-41). In some evangelical discourses, male homosexual sex is also associated with unbridled male lust untempered by female erotic sensibilities and the responsibilities of family (Herman 1997). Perhaps the clearest boundary drawn in the ex-gay movement in relation to homosexuality is the prohibition on homosexual sex—genital activity between men is unequivocally regarded as sin.
This rejection of homosexual sex is unsurprising. What is less expected is how de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest as a sign of masculinity reconfigures the terms of the ex-gay project, making its goals more attainable while simultaneously funding a critique of hegemonic masculinity. One of the most tangible effects of this de-emphasis is a reduction in pressure for (ex-)gay men to demonstrate healing through sex with women. Ex-gay ministries often cite the evangelical prohibition on sexual activity outside marriage to discourage (ex-)gay men from proving heterosexuality this way. It also relieves them from doing so. Participants are warned against rushing into heterosexual relationships as symbols of success (Davies and Rentzel 1993, 145; Nicolosi 2004b, 202-3), and even marriage is treated with reservation (Dallas 2003, 178). Ex-gay manuals issue cautions on dating and sexuality and try to ease the pressure to perform heterosexually, including on the wedding night (Davies and Rentzel 1993, 156). Medinger goes as far as suggesting that healing is achieved when heterosexual sex becomes merely possible, not actually realized:
We are healed when we are ready to do well in assuming all obligations and privileges generally assigned to a man. Central to these is the ability to be an adequate husband and father. Note that I am using the word ability. We do not have to actually be living these roles at the present time, and many men will never marry … But it is when we are capable of fulfilling these roles in a satisfactory way that we have reached full manhood and … recovery from homosexuality. (2000, 25-26)
This rejection of heterosexual conquest shifts the stakes of the ex-gay project. Building on an ethic suspicious of all forms of sexuality, it lowers the bar of heterosexual expectation.
This aspect of godly masculinity also allows ex-gay discourse to redeem (ex-)gay heterosexuality, in sometimes exalted ways (Gerber, forthcoming). Divine release from heterosexual expectation supports a critique of the notion that healing should be measured by heterosexual desire. This is most evident in the common statement that the goal of ministry involvement is not heterosexuality at all. “The opposite of homosexuality,” writes ex-gay leader Mike Haley, “is not heterosexuality—it’s holiness” (2004, 134). And holiness, rather than heterosexuality, becomes the standard to which the (ex-)gay man should hold himself. The pursuit of holiness explains, and justifies, the absence of heterosexual desire in the recovering homosexual. (Ex-)gay heterosexuality will never have the affective charge of homosexual attraction, ministries tell their members, because “God does not replace one form of lust with another” (Davies and Rentzel 1993, 27). This contains threats posed by critics who equate healing with heterosexual desire by rejecting the secular standard of lust and rising toward the sacred standard of holiness.
(Ex-)gay sexuality is also redeemed by (ex-)gay heterosexuality’s likeness to godly sexual norms. As heterosexual partners, (ex-)gay lovers can seem closer to godly ideals because their marital relationships are not contaminated by lust. These marriages are said to be based on personal knowledge, not sheer desire, giving them a more solid foundation. Sexual desires emerge from friendship rather than immediate visual attraction (Davies and Rentzel 1993, 162). For example, Comiskey writes of his marital relationship:
In spite of glimmers of physical attraction, the catalyst for our relationship in its early stages was not erotic. That surprised me, as my homosexual experiences were fuelled by “high octane” lust that burned out to reveal an emotional immaturity incapable of sustaining a long-term relationship. Annette and I took the reverse path. My erotic feelings for her arose out of a trust and an established emotional and spiritual complementarity … Physical attraction was birthed out of our relationship; it wasn’t its overblown starting point, charged with illusion and seductive posturing. (1989, 30-31)
His marriage endures, in this account, precisely because it is not marked by the heterosexual desire that hegemonic masculinity requires. Highly charged heterosexual desire becomes a source of “illusion and seductive posturing” rather than a sign of healing. (Ex-)gay marital relationships can thus realize divine norms regarding lust and friendship in ways that ever-straight ones are rarely able.
(Ex-)gay heterosexual marriages are also considered immune to the threat of other women. Heterosexual desire in an (ex-)gay context is seen as specific to the individuals involved; even the most healed (ex-)gay men tend to fall in love with only one woman. Again, this reality can be interpreted as a sign of healing rather than evidence of its lack. For example, Craig, a West Coast ex-gay leader, told me, “I desire my wife sexually and I’m very glad that I don’t have a problem with lust for other women or men. That my focus of my sexual expression can be on her. And her for me. I think that’s a much healthier expression.” The range of sexual sins that plague heterosexual men is also something that (ex-)gay heterosexual marriages are said to be relieved of:
A high percentage of heterosexual men in good, loving Christian marriages struggle with attractions to disconnected, impersonal sex: to pornography or maybe to the body of a neighbor woman whom he doesn’t even know. This almost never happens to male overcomers with respect to women. This is the reason why I believe that we are actually in a better place than most men. We are closer to God’s original intent for our sexuality. (Medinger 2000, 204-5)
In this account, (ex-)gay men become even godlier than ever-straight men because they are not vulnerable to the heterosexual temptations that rend even upstanding Christian marriages. By bracketing the very issue that brings them to ex-gay ministries—homosexual desire—ex-gay discourse redeems (ex-)gay sexuality by depicting its heterosexual expression as exemplary of godly ideals for human relationships.
Thus, (ex-)gay men are transformed from grievous sinner to godly lover when they pursue healing. The critique that godly masculinity poses to hegemonic masculinity’s emphasis on heterosexual conquest is especially pragmatic in this context. Not only does it allow (ex-)gay men to claim legitimate healing more easily, even in the absence of heterosexual desire, it also permits claims to godly masculinity even if (ex-)gays are still disqualified from actual hegemonic masculinity. And while their preferred form of sexual expression is specifically denied, the compensation for (ex-)gay men is the elevation of their potentially tainted heterosexual relationships to the level of godly ideal. The ability to resist heterosexual temptation, interpersonal foundation of the marital relationship, and cultivation of godly, if tepid, desire for one specific person allows the (ex-)gay heterosexual relationship to realize important godly ideals—if you overlook the gay part. As Timothy, a former (ex-)gay, told me, “My youth director when I was in high school was, like, ‘Timothy is a model boy when it comes to treating girls, you know, wow, what a spiritual guy.’ Yeah, right, real spiritual. He’s just not interested.”
Inclusive Masculinity
The ex-gay approach to gender flows directly from its approach to sexuality. The insistence on heterosexuality generates an ideological commitment to a binary system of distinct, opposing, and hierarchically ranked genders. Prohibiting homosexuality enables ex-gay ministries to maintain these key aspects of evangelicalism’s conservative gender ideology. In combination with their therapeutic understanding of homosexuality’s cause and cure, it also allows a degree of flexibility in terms of gendered tastes, practices, and self-presentation. While other evangelical masculinity projects also allow a certain inclusivity, they are more focused on race and multiculturalism (Bartkowski 2004); in this case, the focus is on inclusivity regarding gender expression.
As noted, the problem of homosexuality, in the ex-gay view, is ultimately one of gender identity; some people are unable to find a place in the gender sphere assigned to them by biology. This ambiguity leads to an inability to identify with one’s assigned gender and to eroticize it instead. In some versions, this ambiguity is the result of combined forces: The individual may be pulled out of his gender group by an internal sense of difference and over-identification with the “wrong” gender, but he is also pushed out by hegemonic standards of masculinity that refuse to recognize the homosexual as the man that he is (Goeke and Mayo 2008). The solution is the reincorporation of gender outcasts into a legitimized masculinity that is more inclusive than that which expelled them. Godly masculinity is thus used to critique narrow ideations of masculinity and expand the range of acceptable masculinities, sometimes in ways that undermine the meaning of the very category. Like de-emphasizing heterosexual conquest, this trait of godly masculinity has precedents in other gendered evangelical projects (Bartkowski 2004, 63) but serves particular purposes in the ex-gay context.
One effect of this approach to homosexuality is the feminization of gay men. A core assumption of reparative therapy is that (ex-)gay men feel alienated from their gender and identify with women. There is no recognition of gay men whose gender identity is masculine; that configuration is deemed impossible. But, in part because of evangelicalism’s grappling with feminism, in part because of its feminized history, and in part because of its theology, feminization is not necessarily a bad thing. Some evangelical theology sees God as both masculine and feminine, something that ex-gay ministries emphasize, in part to validate feminized characteristics in men. For example, Medinger writes,
The problem in the homosexual man is not that he has too much of the feminine, but too little of the masculine. Can there also be too much of the feminine? Could we have too great a capacity to nurture, to communicate, to understand, too great an ability to respond and help? No, any man who has a surplus of these things is blessed and is likely to be a blessing to others. (2000, 90-91)
Evangelical theology also puts male believers in a feminized position of submission in relation to Christ, a feature of Christian thought that evangelical feminists use in arguing for gender equality (Cochran 2005, 132). Because they are feminized, (ex-)gay men are discursively associated with the dominated gender and are, to some degree, dominated by association. But under the godly gender regime, this association need not be a death knell to claims to legitimate, if not hegemonic, masculinity. Feminization is not necessarily a reason to exclude (ex-)gay men from godly masculinity; indeed, it can serve as a means for establishing their common ground with it. Ministries use that potential to their advantage, carving out a masculine ideal in which their members can more comfortably fit, and thus more honestly claim.
(Ex-)gay men are also masculinized in ex-gay discourse. For example, at an Exodus workshop “Breaking the Myth of Masculinity,” the (ex-)gay and ever-straight coleaders assured participants that they had a legitimate place in the masculine world. “If you read our description on the website,” they told the audience,
we put a question in there and said do I have what it takes to be masculine? … We said if you come to our class that we would answer that question. And the answer to that question is absolutely yes. Because you know what? You were all born male. You were all born men. And everything that you need to be fully masculine is within you. (Goeke and Mayo 2008)
If masculinity is endowed entirely by biology, then men are automatically masculine by virtue of being born male; every person born male has a claim on its attributes and privileges. And because the category of masculinity must include all males, it needs to be inclusive enough for all men to find their place.
As a result, traits, preferences, and dispositions, or what Bridges (2014) terms “sexual aesthetics,” can be integrated into godly masculinity that were once the very definition of non-masculinity. Ex-gay ministries work to resignify them as legitimately masculine rather than suspiciously feminine. This labor was evident in the “Breaking the Myth of Masculinity” workshop. There, the leaders talked about their various likes and dislikes. Mike Goeke, the (ex-)gay man, told the audience:
I love clothes, shopping, I really do, I’m proud of it … I like decorating, I do. Stephanie [his wife] and I love doing that stuff together and I have every bit of a strong opinion on it. I love architecture and art, things that are beautiful … I love to write … I love long dinners, talking about life. I love great conversation, any time where you can sit and talk about stuff, life, relationships.
Jay Mayo, the ever-straight, responded,
I love UFC [Ultimate Fighting Championship]. It’s human cockfighting on … Jeeps. I also love love stories. I love chick flicks. I cry at every one … I love to write. I love genuine conversation. I hate BSing. I hate walking into the context of guys and talking about nothing important. It’s crap, but I did it most of my life. I love to hug, I love affection. I love candles. And my favorite flavor is vanilla bean. (Goeke and Mayo 2008)
This exchange served, in part, to put the stamp of legitimate masculinity on practices that are frequently used to delegitimize claims to masculinity and especially hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity’s power is based on the domination of women and has frequently involved the stigmatization of feminized traits in males, especially those who are homosexually oriented (Hennen 2008). But within an inclusive godly masculinity, some feminized traits are reconfigured as valid expressions of masculinity that can even be endorsed by ever-straights with UFC-loving credentials. When successful, these traits become part of a repertoire of legitimate masculinity that even those ever-straights can put into practice without shame (Bridges 2014).
One feminized trait that has newly found masculine legitimacy in the ex-gay context, and in evangelicalism more generally, is the ability to share feelings (Bartkowski 2004; Flores and Hondagneu-Sotelo 2013). In ex-gay programs, members are expected to identify their feelings and share them intimately with the group, all in the name of re-establishing masculinity (Erzen 2006). In writing about the need for (ex-)gay men to connect with the masculine, Nicolosi contrasts the false impulse toward homosexual contact with another option: “One authentic way to reconnect with the masculine would be to express feelings to a male friend” (2004a, 190). This validation of expressing feelings as legitimately masculine is taken a step further when ex-gay leaders discuss the process of homosexual recovery. Going to therapy, attending support groups, and committing substantial time and energy to healing are reinscribed as masculine acts. Leaders take pains to show that this pursuit is imbued with the active spirit deemed essential to godly masculinity. “Reparative therapy is initiatory in nature,” Nicolosi writes. “It requires not just a passive musing over insights into the self, but an active initiation of new behaviors” (2004a, 213). John Hinson (2007), leader of a “Fear of Men and Masculinity” workshop, painted the pursuit of healing as exemplary of masculine courage and endurance:
I had a feeling about healing. [It’s] not going to happen if you’re passive. You need to be proactive and do whatever you need to get the kind of healing you want. You need to go do it. I’ve had four therapists, once when I was in Phoenix, he was in Los Angeles, went every other month and talked on the phone every week. Went to men’s weekend in New York, in Florida. Did whatever to get the healing I wanted and needed. [It] takes grit, guts to do this work.
There are few other venues where seeing four different therapists and going to multiple men’s weekends evidence the “grit” and “guts” of masculinity. But within godly masculinity, association with feminized activities need not threaten one’s claim to male legitimacy; it may even enhance it.
Effeminacy itself can at times be legitimized within godly masculinity. While not always acceptable, being effeminate is sometimes seen as an opportunity for the expression of more essential male traits; at the very least, it is not always interpreted as gender fraud. Andrew Comiskey (n.d.), for example, talks about the irony of God calling him to speak about masculinity: “God started asking me to start speaking on masculinity, it’s like Lord, I mean that’s my weakness. … And it’s at that threshold that I say God, I’m your son, I’m weak. … And out of that God forges what pleases him.” Hegemonic masculinity may not be his strong suit, but strength is not necessarily what God wants from men. It is weakness in the area of gender normativity that gives God the opportunity to make Comiskey a godly man. Lack of hegemonic masculinity thus becomes the opportunity to cultivate godly masculinity.
Medinger also writes of his struggle with feminized characteristics and discusses another ex-gay leader to show that effeminacy need not invalidate claims to godly masculinity:
Part of [God’s] plan for me is that I would manifest more of certain feminine qualities than most men and a few less of the masculine. That’s part of what makes me unique, but it doesn’t make me less of a man. Sy Rogers is one of the best known leaders in the Exodus International network. … For a number of years Sy lived as a woman, and he had the characteristics that enabled him to pull it off quite well. Now, years after his conversion and healing, Sy still bears some feminine characteristics. They are noticeable when you first hear him speak, but after listening to him for a few minutes, you find that these characteristics fade from view. Sy’s genuine manhood—something that now dwells at the core of him—starts to emanate with power and masculinity. (2000, 192)
Feminine qualities, in this account, need not discredit masculinity. They are, rather, a unique form of masculinity that should have a place in the godly gender regime. Sy Rogers himself rejects the charge that he is inadequately masculine by invoking the distinction between godly and worldly standards of masculinity
Some people think if I was healed I’d be more butch—what standard of butch are we talking about? Which standard of masculinity do you want me to live up to? . . . Most [of this] criticism comes from an American market, but [I] belong to a bigger market and to God’s market.” (2005)
In this case, the defense against a hegemonic masculinity that insists on traits gendered male and the absence of those gendered female is the appeal to godly masculinity that includes even such a man as he, who passed for years as a woman.
Homo-intimacy
A third distinction between godly masculine ideals and culturally hegemonic ones involves relations between men. Hegemonic masculinity emphasizes individualism, competition, and emotional distance. Godly masculinity, by contrast, advocates homo-intimacy. In ex-gay ministries, as in other gendered evangelical projects, the ideal relationship between men includes an emotional and relational closeness that goes beyond homosocial and flirts with homo-erotic (Sedgwick 1985).
According to reparative therapy, homosexual men become real men when they develop intimate relationships with other men, through mentoring relationships with (ex-)gay men further along in their healing or with ever-straights. These relationships are usually cultivated in church settings, men’s groups, or the ministry itself. According to advocates of these relationships—and in contrast to hegemonic assumptions about masculinity—men are happy to support (ex-)gays in their search for masculinity through positive, affirming, supportive processes, not through social trials that consolidate masculine identity by repudiating the abject “fag” (Pascoe 2007). Nicolosi (2005), for example, claims:
[A] heterosexual man will work with a man who is trying to overcome his homosexuality and the reason why is because men cannot procreate the way women procreate, we cannot make babies. But men, we are wired to make boys into men. That’s natural for us. And when we see a man come along who’s struggling to find his masculinity, the manhood in you is prompted to mentor this guy and the fact that he’s dealing with homosexuality is irrelevant.
These mentoring relationships, according to Nicolosi, are based on men’s innate drives to help other men achieve legitimate masculinity, drives that are feminized not only by their parallel to the gestation experience but by the very notion of a biologically based nurturing impulse in men. In contrast to the hegemonic model, godly masculinity is not produced by isolated men facing obstacles alone and overcoming them through individual strength and social independence. It occurs when the nurturing capacities of the mentor are evoked by a vulnerable man. Homosexuality, in this account, is not the result of too much male-male intimacy, but of too little. “I don’t assume that you have never had a healthy relationship with a man,” writes Joe Dallas, “but I will assume that you haven’t had enough intimacy with men” (2003, 160).
Once established, these male-male relationships involve a level of emotional disclosure, intimacy, and closeness that also defy standards for hegemonic male-male relations. According to reparative therapy, men desire homosexual sex as a substitute for the deeper desire for identification and closeness with men. Sex, in this account, will never fill this purpose; only nonsexual male-male relationships can. Nicolosi writes, “The only way a man can absorb masculinity into his identity is through the challenge of nonsexual male friendships characterized by mutuality, intimacy, affirmation, and fellowship” (2004a, 100). These are notably not constitutive elements of hegemonic masculinity. In these relationships, men share the details of their lives, express their hopes and fears, and turn to other men for support, caring, and validation. Mark, for example, told me that his ministry participation allowed him to receive positive feedback from men for the first time. While he had received male praise before, in this group he was “able to share on a level that I had never been able to share.” Because he knew these men so well, their positive feedback penetrated more deeply. “I was never really able to take in that [earlier] affirmation because they didn’t know me. So once I was open and people [in the ministry] kept saying the same thing, then it began to sink in and mean something to help change me.” Interpersonal knowledge, personal disclosure, and emotional receptivity are more likely to be derided as feminine than lauded as masculine under the hegemonic regime of masculinity; in the ex-gay context they become fundamental to the masculinization process itself (Medinger 2000, 111).
Physical, albeit nonsexual, intimacy also has a place in healing homosexuality. Ex-gay writer Chad Thompson writes about the touch deprivation he experienced, its role in developing his homosexuality, and healing it in the course of relationships with other Christian men (Thompson 2004). Alan Chambers (2005) told an audience at the Love Won Out conference about his experience of healing during a five-hour-long hug with men in his church:
I had a struggle with my relationship with my dad growing up, and . . . in homosexual relationships I always wanted someone who would be that young, affirming, good-looking, wonderful father. Not for the purposes of sex, but I was craving what God intended for me to have, that intimacy and that connection. And I remember one night dealing, it was a couple of years into the process, dealing with this whole issue, praying through these issues and when it was over that night, after I had been hugged for about five hours by this man who was praying for me and another man from the church, I felt like God supernaturally healed my lifelong desire for that type of inappropriate relationship.
In the context of prayer and healing, touch, bodily contact, and the physical expression of closeness with other men become legitimate means of pursuing change rather than suspect expressions of homosexual desire. While this form of homosociality may well be pursued in order to consolidate the dominance of men over women (Sedgwick 1985), it looks strikingly different from the hegemonic form of masculinity that regards physical male-male closeness with suspicion.
Thus, godly masculinity can be marked by a male-male closeness that, in other contexts, may appear to be the homosexuality it is meant to oppose. As long as it is expressed within the confines of godly community, does not include acts deemed sexual, and does not become a rival for communal identification, deep emotional and physical closeness between men need not be problematic. Which acts are deemed sexual, which are not, and why are important questions that merit further research. But prominent (ex-)gays frequently convey experiences that seem to blur that line without much controversy. Chad Thompson, for example, writes almost romantically about his experience with other (ex-)gay men, yet is recognized as a movement leader:
When I first met Lenny [an (ex-)gay mentor] at an Italian restaurant in Chicago, he instantly wrapped his arms around me, looked me in the eye, and told me that he loved me. That moment was the beginning of my healing process, and since then God has put dozens of men in my life to provide the nonsexual love and affirmation that I need in order to change. (2004, 22)
In a different context, the need for love and affirmation expressed by a man would render his masculinity and sexual orientation suspect. Yet in this context it is written without irony as an important move toward the kind of godly masculinity that hegemonic masculinity impedes. Indeed, under the guise of godly masculinity, (ex-)gays are allowed a wide range of emotional intimacies with people of the same gender that may be indistinguishable from, or indeed may be the heart of, homosexual desire.
Conclusion
Ethnographer Tanya Erzen has noted the queer quality of (ex-)gay men’s sexual conversions (2006, 14). I would extend that observation to the realm of gender, suggesting that the inclusivity of godly masculinity generates a queerish masculinity, one that effects the kinds of gender blurring that queerness aspires to, without subscribing to the political priorities or critiques that fund more deliberately queer gender experimentation (Gerber 2008; Gerber, forthcoming). In its effort to include those who have been excluded on grounds of gender identity or performance, it runs the risk of including elements that undermine the very meaning of the category. An emphasis on male brokenness, the expression of feeling, and the legitimacy of a wide range of masculine expression would significantly change the terms of hegemonic masculinity and may even have the unintended potential of undermining it. Indeed, it may well have been a factor in Exodus’s recent disavowal of sexual reorientation as a legitimate goal of Christian ministry and its dissolution as an organization. If highly feminized traits have a legitimate masculine home, for example, what does masculinity actually mean?
This queerish compromise on homosexuality is pragmatic in a number of ways. First, it gives (ex-)gays a more livable space within the Christian world. While Christians who experience homosexual desire in this context need to renounce it, they no longer need fear admitting it. And ex-gay ministries, in partnership with supportive church communities, give (ex-)gays an opportunity to satisfy a range of needs and desires within legitimized contexts: They can experience intense intimacy with other men and cultivate community without necessarily conforming to rigid gender expectations or proving heterosexuality through sex with women. They no longer need to be silent about their experience and can even use the standards of godly masculinity to critique homophobia within the church itself. For those who do not wish, or are unable, to sever ties with conservative evangelical churches, the ex-gay movement provides opportunities for a life that need not be lived in utter secrecy.
It also provides potential benefits for the evangelical world at large. Godly standards of masculinity, and the (ex-)gay men who remake those standards, can reduce “the costs of masculinity” (Messner 1997, 8). By broadening the repertoire of legitimate masculine expression and critiquing certain aspects of hegemonic masculinity, ex-gay gender experiments may increase the livable space for all evangelical men, regardless of sexual desire. At the same time, it gives the evangelical community the opportunity to maintain subcultural distinction through principled opposition to homosexual genital acts and political opposition to gay social movements (Smith 1998). They may also serve as ideological legitimization for the failure of conservative Christian men to live up to other standards of hegemonic masculinity.
These possibilities are just that: possibilities. The data in this article speak to the discursive experiments (ex-)gays have tried within their confines and in relation to certain institutional partners. Recent changes in that movement raise many questions of interest to scholars of gender, sexuality, and religion. One of the most theoretically significant is whether Exodus was vulnerable to the kinds of instability that gender experiments can generate. Queer theory often celebrates the disruptive potential of queerness to prevailing systems of sex and gender. Queerish practices, ones that blur gender distinctions and binaries without an accompanying queer politic, such as the ones outlined in this article, may have been sufficiently disruptive to the organization’s stated gender and sexual ideologies to render its project of sexual reorientation less plausible or less necessary. Exodus’s demise would thus be a useful case for evaluating queer theory’s analytic claims and should be pursued in future research. Other questions raised by Exodus’s closure include how actors who continue efforts at sexual reorientation re-narrate their efforts and the degree to which these discursive efforts find recognition and acceptance in the broader evangelical world. While ex-gay ministries have been successful in developing partnerships with powerful evangelical institutions, it is unclear whether that institutional legitimacy translates into lived legitimacy on the popular level or into theological innovation based on changing gender ideals. Taking (ex-)gay femininities into account, as well as female masculinities in the (ex-)gay context, would further develop our understanding of how godly masculinity works in relationship to hegemonic masculinity. And the specificities of this study in terms of race and nation raise problems for further research regarding the multiple masculinities at play in a globalized evangelicalism and how race and nation intersect with gender and religion and generate hegemony in these contexts. These important questions merit further research.
But looking at the discursive strategies within the ex-gay movement provides important reminders to scholars researching religion, sexuality, and gender. The most important, in my view, is the caution not to conflate conservative religious masculinity projects with hegemonic ones. Advocates for the hegemonic positioning of masculinity do not necessarily support the masculinity that is, in fact, hegemonic in a given social space, and there is no reason to think that they should. Godly masculinity is a contender in a field of multiple masculinities vying for hegemonic power. The fact that its advocates believe that gender relations should be hierarchical and that masculinity should be hegemonic does not keep them from advocating for a kind of masculinity that is more reflective of, and advantageous for, their particular position. Conflating the complex gender projects of the ex-gay movement, and evangelical Christianity more generally, with hegemonic masculinity makes it difficult to see the nuanced fault lines on which this project might stand or fall. As Arlene Stein has observed, “Just as we should understand masculinities and femininities in plural rather than singular terms, so are there clearly homophobias in the plural” (Stein 2005, 604). It is critical, I contend, to be specific about the form we are seeing in the ex-gay movement and to be clear about its political possibilities as well as its perils.