Breathing humanity into Brokeback
chenla...@yahoo.com
Ex Gay Chad Thompson breathes sanity into the Brokeback Mountain
series.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/be_columns/chadthompson/2006/01/31/184400.html
I read a review of Brokeback Mountain, the conservative author of
which actually felt bad that he had felt bad during the movie. The
heartache experienced by the characters in the film had elicited a
degree of compassion and empathy in him, yet this author's hatred
toward the act of homosexuality had so inoculated him against seeing
the true struggle behind the issue that it seemed like he actually felt
guilty for internalizing the humanity in Brokeback Mountain.
As much as the movie tilts at the windmills of our country's
Judeo-Christian foundations, and in doing so ravenously angers its
conservative watchdogs, the film still serves a noble purpose. It opens
the eyes of those who, before seeing the film, had no idea how darkness
looms for those who live in fear of telling their friends and family
that they are gay.
My friend Ben put it best when he said, "Much of the homophobia in
America is built on the human ability to ignore another's humanity, and
this film breathes humanity back into the issue."
I know, just as much as anyone, how desperately this breath of humanity
is needed. Having worked for a conservative political organization in
the state of Iowa, I have witnessed Christian people treating very
disrespectfully those with whom they disagree on moral and social
issues like homosexuality. Therefore, as much as the movie teaches us
about how to absorb the sufferings of another, its purpose is
dignified. However, to the extent that the film seeks to blur the line
between acceptance of a behavior and acceptance of a person, its
purpose is harmful.
As someone who has personally struggled with, and overcome, unwanted
homosexual attractions, I could resonate with the hunger I saw in the
film's characters, Jack and Ennis. They knew they were missing
something, and they each thought it was the other.
To understand fully the dynamics of the struggle, one must realize that
homosexuality isn't really a sexual issue. Becoming sexually attracted
to someone of the same gender is just the symptom of a much deeper
emotional need. It is the symptom of a need for healthy, non-sexual
intimacy with one's own gender-a legitimate need that went
unchecked during the childhoods of so many pre-homosexual boys and
girls.
Communicator Sinclair Rogers once said, "Temptation is the
exploitation of a real need." And so it is with homosexuality.
I believe this movie is harmful in that it paints sexual expression as
the proper way to extinguish the heartache and loneliness experienced
by those in the gay and lesbian community. Furthermore, the movie
exploits the already-existing stereotypes of gender-typical behavior
and re-affirms the sexual nature of experiences between men that
shouldn't have to be viewed as sexual at all: the open expression of
raw emotion and tender affection; intimacy, trust, caring, physical
closeness, and nurturing.
Sociologist Peter M. Nardi, in Men's Friendships, writes "Men are
raised in a culture with a mixed message: Strive for healthy,
emotionally intimate friendships, but be careful-if you appear too
intimate with another man you might be negatively labeled
homosexual."
That Brokeback Mountain uses cowboys to tell its story doesn't at all
make a statement about the healing power of healthy same-gender
intimacy. It only shows us that "cowboys can be gay too." After
all, did Jack or Ennis ever leave one of their sexual encounters even a
little bit happier than they were before? No. Each and every time they
had to go back to the same broken lives they had come from.
The movie itself argues that it was society's fault that Jack and Ennis
never had a shot at living a real life together, and I agree. The early
1960s was a tumultuous time to be homosexual in America, and to the
degree that the movie is a statement against the violent and homophobic
attitudes of the sixties, I am its fan.
However, willing as I may be to cast blame on society for ruining one
of Hollywood's most famous gay relationships, I think that society's
response to the relationship of Jack and Ennis is not as important as
God's response. In the same way, I feel that society's answer to the
pain experienced by Jack and Ennis is inferior to God's answer.
I'm also disturbed that the film suggests that Jack and Ennis were at
the complete mercy of a homophobic society and had absolutely no power
to overcome their circumstances or make their own choices. This
portrayal is unfair to the thousands of men and women who, with God's
help, have chosen to reject their homosexual attractions and are
experiencing a genuine transformation of their sexual identities.
The truly ironic part of the film is that almost every single scene
contains a visual acknowledgment of God's existence, along with a
practical denial of it.
The apostle Paul says, "Since the creation of the world God's
invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been
clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people
are without excuse."
The scenery portrayed in Brokeback Mountain-the rock formations, the
sunrise, the skies, the rivers-they all testify to the existence of
God and to the greatness of God. Yet the characters in the film acted
in exactly the manner that one would expect someone to act who didn't
believe in God.
After all, isn't that what this really is all about? The existence of
God? The character of God? The power of God? One of the most famous
lines in the film is: "If you can't change [your sexuality] you
just have to stand it." From a human perspective, changing something
as deeply ingrained as one's sexual orientation certainly seems
impossible, which is exactly why the world looks at people like me and
assumes I'm a fake. But if God really is who he says he is-if God
really can heal the sick, turn water into wine, and even bring the dead
to life-then overcoming homosexuality wouldn't seem so difficult,
would it?
I suspect that many who saw Brokeback Mountain are in much the same
position as the disciples were when Jesus outlined for them the cost of
serving him. They responded to Christ's admonition to give "all
they had" by saying "that's impossible."
And Jesus replied: "With man this is impossible, but with God all
things are possible."
I once heard someone say that it's time for those who struggle with
really big things like homosexuality to stop telling God how big their
"mountain" is, and start telling their mountain how big God is.
Today, it seems, Brokeback is the mountain that needs to be told how
big God is.