But if written to the church and about what the church should do, then the offense is inferred and not implied.

I don’t think it matters whether the offense if implied, inferred, or directed. The offense exists: people are offended. If Reynolds were serious about not wanting to offend, he could apologize. He could, further, explain to his target audience, that he has learned that comparing gay people to lepers is offensive to gay people (and, incidentally, to “lepers,” who point out that they are people first, suffering from Hanson’s disease).

Unfortunately, I see none of that. So if the offense was once only inferred, I think it is safe to say that it is now implied.

I would agree if the book is written to gay people and for gay people, it would be unquestionably offensive. But if written to the church and about what the church should do, then the offense is inferred and not implied.

Within Evangelical Christianity, “leper” has the religious connotations that Sharon and Jonathan have suggested. It has strong associations with pity and caring. Mostly in terms of healing the ones that society rejects.

Of course, there are also mounds of self-righteous “look how good I am” and heaps of superiority. And yeah, in objective terms, it is offensive to say “you are society’s rejects, but I’ll love little pathetic you until Jesus heals you”.

I suspect that Reynolds isn’t intending to be offensive. He wants to be loving, he just wants to do it in terms that justify his positions and beliefs.

And I suspect that unlike, say, Andrew Marin, Reynold’s exposer to The Homosexual is probably limited to ex-gays and their perspective.

1. Treating their target like bad children. Condescending language, the scold, and very low expectations.

2. Quick denial that this is their behavior and cowardice in owning it and acknowledging it’s damaging and terrible result.

3. Also quick to condemn the legitimate emotions from such treatment, such as anger, pain, resentment and challenge. After all, children are not supposed to respond that way, regardless of what is deliberately inflicted on them. Abusive, controlling and violent parents behave that way. Gay people are supposed to fear and never challenge those who want to control their lives. And they don’t like it when gay adults, actually ACT like self reliant adults.

It’s not wrong to take offense at this leper analogy, it’s wrong to expect the target of the offense to NOT take it exactly as anyone would and be pissed off about it.

You say Reynolds has no “disgust” for gay people. He does however hold gay people contempt. No one I know applies a label to other people that other people find offensive and reserves the right for themselves to dismiss the offense. Please. We are not to be patronized as poor, pathetic, miserable creatures will be grateful when the church replaces its prior impulse to outcast with a new-found understanding that pity is better. It is not.

If people want to avoid what you call “misunderstanding and miscategorizing as hateful,” then the solution could not be more simple: stop talking about people in ways they find offensive. And stop being patronizing.

I’m also sorry for the way this issue has often been approached by the church, and hope that efforts such as his will not continue to be misunderstood and miscategorized as hateful.

At least I hope that’s what was meant… but since I haven’t read the book or gone to the conference, I don’t know.