A Step in Faith

Evangelical Christian Brent Childers explains his journey from believing that homosexuality was an abomination to marching in a pro-gay march on Washington.

PHOTOS

A Changing Tide

Gay rights make progress, amid protests, around the world

Video: Calif. Couple on Prop 8

Video: The Future of a Movement

Video: From Stonewall to Prop. 8

By Brent Childers | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Oct 8, 2009

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans are a diverse, extraordinary, resilient, and passionate group of forgiving men and women. I wouldn't be standing beside them demanding full and equal treatment under the law and speaking out against the harm caused by religion-based bigotry at the National Equality March in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 11 if I thought they were not created in God's image the same as myself, same as my family, as we all are—we are all God's children.

And I know better than anyone, since six years ago I was one of those bigots. At that time it would have seemed abominable to even consider attending a "gay-rights" event. To me, these would have been the people tearing apart the very seams of our culture and our country.

Today, it is a natural expression of who I am. Some might call that a miracle.

So what it is that would bring someone from a place where he once declared himself a "Jesse Helms Republican," a man who condemned homosexuality as a threat to children and society, told his own son that being gay is a ticket to hell, to travel from Hickory, N.C., to the West Lawn of the Capitol building on Oct. 11, 2009? How can one travel from the seemingly impossible road of bigotry to one of acceptance and love for our LGBT brothers and sisters? The answer is one that I hope religious leaders such as Pat Robertson and James Dobson (and most importantly, their followers) will hear.

It's because something deep inside told me that I needed to step out in faith onto a bridge of knowledge and understanding. I didn't know where this bridge would take me but something was telling me it was a path I needed to walk. My own mother challenged me in 2003 to look at my beliefs and the true intent behind the teachings I held in blind faith. "Do you think your views are Christ-like?" she asked me. Her question was dead on: once I walked away from the Church's teachings of rejection and condemnation, my relationship with God transcended to a higher spiritual plateau. I realized an unparalleled sense of spiritual clarity when I opened my heart and mind to a genuine expression of love, compassion, and acceptance of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

This new voice—Christ's voice—became the core principles of my faith: love, compassion, and respect. That voice I now realize was desperately wanting to be heard, a voice no longer comfortable with the place in which I had chose to confine it for so long—a place of bigotry, prejudice, fear, and misunderstanding.

The walk across that bridge wasn't very strenuous but it was at times painful. The pain came as I began to realize for the first time that I had been using my faith to bring harm to others. That's not a pleasant realization for anyone who marches under a Christian banner of love, respect, and compassion.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: merltd @ 11/19/2009 12:35:58 PM

First, this is not my rule; it is how government balances individual liberties and community safety. Second, roller coaster riding and homosexual behavior do not have the same level and magnitude of risk. The number of individuals that are injured or killed from roller coasters is very small especially compared to the number of individuals that participate. If that ratio increases, the government can step in and restrict or eliminate this activity. Homosexual activities are injuring individuals at a much greater ratio. If the risks are so manageable, why are the injuries so prevalent? I am not ignoring risk management; I just have not seen any significant statistics to show it is working.

As for benefits, I have seen nothing to indicate that a significant number of homosexual relationships last long enough to raise children, which adds more injury to the adopted children. Just living healthier and longer can help raise much more revenue for the state.

And yes this is about redefining marriage. If I show up to get a license but do not meet the requirements, I must change my qualifications or change the requirements. Changing the requirements would require convincing evidence that the change is not harmful or has benefits that out weigh the risks. And in a democratic government, the redefining of those qualifications must be accepted by the majority.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bkrummel @ 11/16/2009 1:19:32 PM

Note that part of my concern with your cost/benefit analysis is that you seem to do the following. Since you and most people drive, you argue that driving is okay and use risk management in your justification. As for gay marriage, since only a minority of the population is gay, you can argue that gay marriage does not benefit a majority of society. You also seem to ignore any means of risk management with regard to homosexual behavior. This leads to a tyranny of the majority. Also, you should consistently acknowledge the risk management, not ignore it when it is inconvenient for your argument.

Also note that I meant to say that some gay people ARE married.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: bkrummel @ 11/16/2009 1:00:41 PM

You're monster barring. You are adding this exception to the rule involving the cost/benefits to society so that driving becomes okay and certain sexual behaviors are not okay according to your rule.

You may have explained driving and flying, but you hardly explained leisure activities such as skydiving, scuba diving, and riding on amusement park rides. These activities require safety equipment and are unnatural and they only seem to benefit the individual, not society, by providing for temporary pleasure. Why aren't you moving to ban skydiving, scuba diving, and rollercosters? I sure hope you don't engage in any such behavior!

How do you do this calculus of cost/benefit analysis for "unnatural activities"? Do you factor one's ability to manage risk into your calculus? If you don't factor risk management in, then clearly the risk of untrained, unprotected drivers dying in accidents vastly outweigh any benefit automobiles might provide. If you do factor in risk management, then sexual behaviors, for which the risk can be minimized, should be of little concern. Also, how do you avoid this calculus from being a means of promoting activities you find utility in and rejecting activities you neither do nor like?

As for gay marriage itself, it does benefit society, or at least a portion of society. It provides stability and legal support for long term homosexual relationships. It provides homes for children, in particular adopted children. There are plenty of children who need adopting into homes. As a side benefit, gay marriage could help raise revenue for states. As for the risk and harm to society, the only thing you mentioned of any substance is diseases resulting from homosexual sexual behaviors. I hardly think that gay men having anal sex with condoms is an excessive harm to society, though you persistently disagree. We will have to agree to disagree on this point, though I find your rational behind it to be disappointing.

As for your claim that we are "redefining marriage", no we aren't. Gay couples are already in long term relationships that they regard as marriage. These gay people ARE marriage, by at least any reasonable definition of marriage that isn't explicitly trying to ban homosexuals. This isn't about redefining marriage, this is about legal recognition for what already is marriage.