APPENDIX C
Below are some comments about this thesis received in correspondence with the website creators of Hollywood Jesus, Stonewall Revisited and the Ultimate Love Page. Although I had originally intended to simply include a portion of the various e-mails that directly discussed the thesis, I found it difficult to delineate the boundary between pertinent commentary and personal interest. I felt that it would be inappropriate to edit or change his commentary in some instances, particularly in the case of the correspondence from Stephen Sternberg of Stonewall Revisited, whose remarks are insightful and (in my opinion) form an excellent counterpoint to the analysis I performed on the website. Similarly, Henk Frijters has provided some additional figures on the websurfers who visit the Ultimate Love Page, combined with supportive commentary and some personal information. My primary motivation for including these brief e-mails is to show the willingness with which these evangelists are engaging with non-standard approaches toward evangelism. This willingness may confound the stereotypical popular image of Christian fundamentalists, and may very well be the next public face of evangelistic efforts in the West.
From David Bruce of Hollywood Jesus:
Maura,
How can I thank you? Your work is incredible
I was blown out of the saddle!!
It was very well done. I was very flattered, and humbled.
It was wonderful. Thank you, thank you.
Did you get it back yet? I am interested in what your Prof thought of it.
What are your future plans? What do you plan to do with your masters?
I wish I could meet you. I so appreciate you. I will always treasure your thesis.
It really encouraged me. Please write back
Warmly David Bruce
Maura,
Could you please send me a copy of your title page/footnotes again. It seems like I've deleted it. I have the copy of the body of the paper.
I'm working on comments but I find myself "reacting" to the comparisons and struggling to comment on your observations.
The tenor of my observations have to do with our "intentions" as you have outlined them. I remember C. S. Lewis' reaction to those interpreting his "intentions" -- he noted they rarely, if at all, hit it right. However, you have correctly noted that we did purpose a site which would not be a 'from the getgo' an 'in your face' Christian response, which would also be visually appealing to the secular and have an secular edge to it.
Stated briefly with perhaps more to come: Our intent was motivated by the continued stateside propaganda and posturing of "gay activists" in the early 90's. Madsen's and Kirk's strategic outline in
"After the Ball," set forth what can only be described in hindsight as an extremely effective PR approach to, in their words, "overcome America's homophobia by the end of the 90's" by a concerted effort to stress the themes of "victimization" and "discrimination." By saturating the country with information which emphasized these two themes, Hunter and Kirk knew that America would "tire" of the issue and become desensitized to the issue of homosexuality.
Our intent was to counter the "once gay, always gay" and "born gay" PR, which one might also define as deceptive 'propaganda', with "personal testimony" evidence which showed that this claim cannot possibly be the only way to look at the issues involved. The diversity of the testimonies also show that the "road less travelled" is a diverse one and is not always characterized by a "quick fix."
For those desiring more information, we offer the possibility for feedback.
Over the last 16 months, I have been responsible to answer questions, comments and critique. Conservatively, we have received over 450 responses which include the sender's email address along with about 100 anonymously sent messages [usually critical]. The majority of the "identifiable"
responses are from men who are struggling with homosexuality and want help. The next largest group is parents seeking for some help, when children "come out" or indicate they are struggling with gender/sexual identity. Still other responses are from women who are struggling. There are also responses who are moderately to strongly critical of our site and message. The approximate breakdown of the responses would be:
Men struggling with and dissatisfied with same-sex sexual attractions and/or behaviors: 50%
Parents, wives or friends struggling with a child's, husband's or friend's struggle with same-sex sexual attractions/ behavior or with their "coming out": 25%
Women struggling with same-sex sexual attractions or behavior and wanting help: 5%
Men and women thanking us for our site, either as former homosexuals or Christians seeking information: 10%
Negative critique from practising homosexuals with either specific objections or who are "talking trash" (i.e. comparing us to the Klu Klux Klan or the Nazis): 8%
Positive critique from practising homosexuals who are surprised by our reasoned and moderate approach: 2%
NOTE: These percentages are primarily reasoned guesses based on experience rather than raw data. We do not keep or categorize each individual response. I have kept 350+ inquiries and 340+ SR
responses.
Usually, the correspondence is limited to an email. Sometimes there are one or two back and forth exchanges. More frequent exchanges usually feature a debate/dialogue format often characterized by homosexuals seeking to show us the "error of our ways."
Because of the above, we do not understand "Stonewall Revisited" primarily as an evangelistic site. It is a site which offers a consistently orthodox and biblical interpretation and response to THE cultural issue of the 90's in the context of historic orthodox Christianity and not simply evangelical belief.
After all, the rejection of any sexual relationships outside of the marriage bond is not just an evangelical position but has been the position of the Church for over 2,000 years.
In the summer of 1999, there was an interesting and somewhat ironic development at Lambeth as "Third World" Anglican Bishops, whose churches were the result of missionary efforts by churchmen
and churchwomen from the west, held the line on human sexuality and turned back the 'civilized' nations' attempt to radically redefine the Church's position on sexuality.
And the debate rages on. In the West, I believe "gay affirming" clergymen and women have been primarily moved by the personal plight of many homosexuals in the face of continued church and
societal rejection, as well as personal attacks. Because of this, they have sought for alternative ways of looking at and interpreting homosexuality. The relatively new idea of a person described and
defined in terms of his/her sexual desires or affections has been the outcome. But that is another question.
That's enough for now. Thanks for sending the
title page --
Steve Sternberg
Stonewall Revisited
From Henk Frijters of the Ultimate Love Page:
Dear Maura,
I just finished digesting your thesis. Excellent work (I just hope that the involved faculty has the same appreciation as I do) I do not have many comments, your coverage of the subject was great and in depth.
I just want to comment a bit on one line pertaining to "my" section (The Ultimate Lovepage).
You said :"But The Ultimate Love Page is more similar to Stonewall Revisited in that it appropriates the symbols and style of another genre, and through the appropriation, hopes to transform web surfers from members of the fetish community into Christians."
You are correct in your observation here. What is interesting though is that although the intent was the "member of the fetish community" the responses I received and still receive could be broken down as follows :(expressed in ratios)
"Members of the community we intended to reach" = 1
"Members of the 'christian' community who are "outraged at the 'unchristian' content" = 2
"Members of the 'Christian' community who dabble in the fetish area and come under conviction" = 2
I certainly did not intend to reach them (but don't feel bad about it either).
Maura as I mentioned I would love to get a hard copy for my library
**********************************
A bit of my background.
I did not become a Christian till the age of 32. (You might say it was Damascus road experience)
After appropriate studies became a fulltime pastor (Pentecostal)
Pastored (by choice) small troubled works and was involved in much ministry to 'marginal' groups (Jails, prisons, developmentally challenged people)
Because of health problems I am now limited to the net for any 'active' work (evangelism).
God bless you for your work
Henk