Echo Hub

By now you may have heard the news,. Ray Boltz is gay. In an interview
with the Washington Blade, a gay and lesbian newssource, he
officially came out to the public.
Ray Boltz is a legend in the christian music industry, coining many of
the songs we now view as standards. “Thank you”, “the anchor holds”
and “I pledge allegiance to the lamb” and many more have been sung in
churches across america. You may know Ray Boltz as the Howie Mandell
look alike with his shaved head. In the interview Boltz acknowledges
that he told his familt in ’04 but decided recently he need to come
bring the news to his fans and the public. “” I’d kind of had two
identities since I moved to Florida where I kind of had this other
life and I’d never merged the two lives. This was the first time I was
taking my old life as Ray Boltz, the gospel singer, and merging it
with my new life. Emotionally it was kind of a big deal to think about
that.”

The double life. The difficulty of reconciling the hidden desires.
I told the news to a friend of mine who responded with an “Oh, no!”
and was saddened by the news. It seemed to me he was disappointed or
let down.
My question for us is…does it really change anything? Ray Boltz is a
musician, an artist. If he was a pastor who had been speaking out
against homosexuality that would be one thing. But his songs still say
the same things. His songs have the same lyrics and impact no matter
his orientation. When George Takei came out, did the character SULU
change? Did the quality of his acting become somehow less, or more?
With Ray Boltz its the same. His songs still speak of God, of the
pursuit of Him and of forgivness. Last time I checked Christ loves gay
and straight alike and his grace is still new every morning no matter
your preferences.
One of Boltz’s hits “The Anchor Holds” has the lyrics
“i have journeyed
through the long dark night
out on the open sea
by faith alone
sight unknown
and yet his eyes were watching me

the anchor holds
though the ship is battered
the anchor holds
though the sails are torn
i have fallen on my knees
as i faced the raging seas
the anchor holds
in spite of the storm”

I am sure these lyrics mean something to him. They aren’t empty words.
The struggle to be who you really are, to be honest is a difficult
one. Especially in the church where judgment cna be harsh and I am
sure he will experience much of it. I pray he can turn to The Anchor.
This time of his life will no doubt be “a long dark night out on the
open sea.” and he will need the love of the God he has been singing
of. Nothing has changed when it comes to God’s love or Boltz’s music
that speaks of that. If anything its truer.

No, I still think ‘Healer’ is a really strong song. I won’t stop listening to it because of his back story.

This question is answered differently (and considered continually) in the secular arts community. I have had conversations where someone has proposed that perhaps and artist’s work can Redeem the artist’s failures. I’m not sure what I think about that, but I’m glad to see other christians refuse to throw the baby out with the bath.
Many artists of every community struggle with gender identity and/or homosexuality; in some schools its part of the culture, but in some very real ways the arts draws expressive, emotional people, because it offers them the chance to express themselves for a living.
So, in short, it doesn’t surprise me a man working in the Gospel music industry is gay, I’m sure he’s not the only one, but I’m glad this site is full of people thoughtfully considering their response.
And no, I don’t think it diminishes his songs’ impact, any more than ‘another one bites the dust’ is somehow diminished by Mercury’s homosexuality.

K

Did you really just compare Ray Boltz to Charles Manson and Hitler? A little much, don’t you think?

I’m going to have to side with Laura on this one, I appreciate your intent but that is a bit much. I very much agree with Kyle in the sense that this is nothing new in the creative world. Sheesh, a good part of my ipod is hosting songs by homosexuals (closeted and not), but I would also say that there are far more songs by liars and adulterers. This will definitely hit the CCM scene hard, I can almost already hear the extensive pre-screening tests and contract clauses being drafted, and it is the biggest “coming-out” by any Christian artist, but I’ve never seen the connection between lifestyle and God’s ability to work through people. Perhaps through struggles we allow God to craft our greatest works, after all, if we’re all truly honest life/faith is quite the struggle.

I think a lot of it boils down to the content over the creator of it. for instance, I can still appreciate R.E.M. and their latest album. The fact that Stipes is homosexual is a nonfactor to me.

However, there are some things that simply leave a bad taste in your mouth regardless of how good it is or was. i don’t know for sure, but I imagine there isn’t a high demand for past sermons delivered by Ted Haggard.

I think the difference is deception – not the story behind the artist. We expect that a christian musician/artist who writes beautiful lyrics about his relationship with the Lord is actually attempting to live a lifestyle that is pleasing to the Lord.

Laura and Archie,

Did I compare Boltz and Hitler? I don’t think so.

In the first example, I talked about a beautiful painting being the handiwork of a monster and the subsequent effect on the viewer. In the second example, I talk about a meaningful Christian song being the handiwork of someone whose lifestyle doesn’t jive with the evangelical tradition (adultery and homosexuality, in this case).

A direct comparison between mass-murdering monsters (whom I compared to one another in my first example) and fallen CCM heroes (whom I compared to one another in my second example) would certainly be “a bit much,” which is why I wouldn’t draw that comparison (though Boltz’s announcement has made him something of a pariah in many evangelical circles).

This does raise an interesting question though: If you’re under the impression that I’m the kind of careless, vindictive, or reactionary blogger who would compare a homosexual and a murderous despot, does that change your opinion of any of my previous writing you may have liked?

Scott,
True, there was no direct comparison between the two. However, the feelings you attributed to the former examples, “…nauseous, angry, and revolted…” are (IMHO) implied in the later. So no, you did not compare their actions but rather the reactionary feelings that viewers could share between the two. Perhaps I took a leap in my thinking but I find it hard to track between the two (AH and RB) and my feelings regarding their action/works. I just believe that there were better, perhaps less malevolent examples that would have been a better fit. I do not think of you as “careless, vindictive or reactionary” I just think that your post could be taken in a manner different than you intended. My comment was not a personal incendiary attack, as your response might suggest, but just a worry that there was a chance for misinterpretation.
Though this whole conversation has now reminded me of this “http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/06/25/winner-4/,” and I do believe art stands on it’s own.

Scott-
No, you didn’t directly compare the two, but you set up your argument in a way that a comparison would likely be implied by the reader, even if it was unintentional. If a = b and b = c, then a must equal c. If Hitler’s actions are revolting and Boltz’s actions also are revolting (that queasy feeling, as you say), then a person could logically conclude (by the juxtaposition of the two analogies) that Hitler is equivalent to Boltz, or their actions should/do incite the same feelings/reactions.

You ask a meaningful question. I think it would have been just as meaningful (maybe even more so) if Hitler and Manson hadn’t been thrown in there to get an emotional reaction.

Now to answer your original question (and get back to the purpose of your post), every Christian artist is a sinner. All people sin. For me, what matters is the intention behind a person’s actions. From his interview, it seems to me that Boltz is just trying to figure out how to find his way in a messed up world. His lyrics (though cheesy) still glorify God, still speak to people, still portray the heart of a person who is seeking God.

Are we going to cut the Psalms out of our Bibles because David was a liar, an adulterer, and a murderer?

Archie,

Thanks for the SWPL link. Genius.

Laura,

The David/Psalms example is a great one. My boss, Rob, brought that up the other day and it got me thinking. I don’t think anyone wants to cut Psalms out of their Bibles. But what if David hadn’t repented? Would we feel differently about the Psalms if he persisted in his sin? My guess is that it would vary from individual to individual and tradition to tradition, but it’s good food for thought nonetheless.

I think the real question here is: do we hold Christian artists to a higher standard, and is their work negated when/if they fall? I worked in a Christian bookstore when Sandi Patty’s infidelity/divorce became public, and I also remember the chaos when Amy Grant a) went “mainstream” and b) divorced. Yet I’ve been in churches that will still sing “El Shaddai” or “Thy Word.”

The answer is: truth is still truth. If their lyrics talk of God’s love/faithfulness, it doesn’t matter what they were doing behind the scenes. Now, if any future works from Amy or Sandi were exhorting infidelity or divorce, I wouldn’t listen, but then again, I wouldn’t listen to that message even if I didn’t know a thing about the singer (or even if they were happily married). Likewise, if Mr. Boltz came out with a descriptive, pro-gay lifestyle album, I wouldn’t be interested in it, even if he weren’t gay.

One comment said there is probably not much demand for sermons by Ted Haggard. Probably true but why would that be any different than a demand for music by Ray Boltz. If the message of the music is still valid, is the message any less valid because it does not have music behind it? I don’t think so.

Plus, seems Ted is approaching it from a “this is sin that I struggle with” perspective. Is that the approach Ray is taking or is it a “this is just the way I am so I have decided to accept it and hope you will too” position. They are world’s apart perspectives.

One recognizes the sin and acknowledges their human frailty and asks for help and grace as they strive to live a life of Biblical purity. We can all understand that. The other perspective has given up on fighting the sin and decided to just live with it and asks for grace as they live in the sin. Can’t quite go with that. Would we say it is OK for a guy to say, “I am into pornography and have just decided to live with it since I don’t seem able to stop.” “I am into drugs. I am into sado-masochism. I am into dog fighting. I am into ____________.

I know it is not cool to call homosexuality sin but the Bible tends to be not cool sometimes. Yes, we live with the fact that we are all sinners but we also acknowledge that we are in a battle against sin – a battle we cannot just give up on and decide to live with whatever the sin we continually fight with.

That’s my two cents.

PS – Clearly you were not comparing Ray with Hitler. Hyperbole folks. It was a good, captivating and thought provoking intro.

Okay, I’m a little late to the party…but I’m here with chips and queso.

Scott, this is a GREAT question and you bring up an interesting point about David. But, what about Solomon? We hold him in high regard because of how God used him to write scripture but he died unrepentant. Scripture says he died worshipping other gods.

He didn’t repent and we still hold him in high regard with Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

More important question: Is homosexuality wrong?

It seems that everyone who posts here assumes that there is something inherently damaging about being a homosexual. Regardless of your faith, this is an assumption that must be established before setting up analogous situations between homosexuals in general and the worst of humans the world has ever seen.

An analogy requires 3 comparisons. 1) A vs B, 2) C vs D, 3) the relationship of A to B vs the relationship of C to D. The analogy is the consideration of the third component.

Your A = Hitler
Your B = A fictional painting painted by Hitler

Your C = Boltz
Your D = Music written by Boltz.

Your analogy, therefore, must involve the comparison of same-sex love to the murder of 6 million Jews in order to determine whether Hitler’s painting and Boltz’s music deserves any merit upon considering their “bad”ness. Not TOO MUCH?!?!?!? You should be ashamed!

As slippery as Mr. McClellan attempts to be concerning whether or not a comparison was made between Hitler and Boltz he cannot deny that to a person who does not totally demonize homosexuals, his analogy is horrifyingly insulting!

Choosing NOT to judge a person’s work differently based on unrelated details is the definition of objectivity. In general, Mr. McClellan could use a little bit more objectivity.