While we do not believe that homosexual behavior is what God intended for individuals, we believe that deprivation of life and liberty is not an appropriate or helpful response to this issue. Furthermore, the Christian church must be a safe, compassionate place for gay-identified people as well as those who are confused about and conflicted by their sexuality. If homosexual behavior and knowledge of such behavior is criminalized and prosecuted, as proposed in this bill, church and ministry leaders will be unable to assist hurting men, women and youth who might otherwise seek help in addressing this personal issue. The Christian church cannot and should not condone homosexual living or gay-identified clergy within its leadership, but it must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.

Written as it is by an organization which is does not affirm the dignity and worth of LGBT people to live their lives responsibly in freedom and self-determination, there is certainly much in this letter that merits criticism. Furthermore, the letter makes no recommendations except to “consider the influence this law will have” on the work of those who believe that the only valid option for LGBT people is to self-deny their own existence. The “influence” this law will have on LGBT people themselves, well that’s apparently inconsequential and not worthy of discussion.

Content-wise, there is almost nothing I can agree with. But then, this letter wasn’t written by an LGBT advocacy group, nor was it written on behalf or in defense of LGBT people. It was written by an organization who wants to make gay people straight – an already improbable task from a practical standpoint, soon to be made impossible by the legal impediments this law would impose. From that viewpoint, this letter makes their case well. 

Besides, the contents of this letter shouldn’t allow us to refrain from both acknowledging its importance and welcoming its tardy arrival. For more than eight months after Exodus board member Don Schmierer participated in a conference in Kampala which fanned the flames of hatred that brings us to where we are today, Exodus remained officially silent. This letter breaks that long and exasperating silence. The damage done by eight months of silence won’t be fixed by a single letter, but it’s a start in the right direction. And as first steps go, this is a very good first step.

But to really be meaningful, this letter needs to be followed up with more actions and statements. I have a suggestion: The Observer, The Independent and The Monitor, all independent Ugandan newspapers, have printed letters and op-ed columns criticizing the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Act. I’m sure they’d be interested in the opinions of an American evangelical leader who presents himself as an expert in homosexuality and wants to approach the subject “with grace and truth.”

Will Exodus follow up with more action? Given the stonewalling we’ve seen to date, I’m not willing to place any bets. It seems to me as though they are looking for ways to do as little as possible, but just enough to inoculate themselves from criticism. This letter, by itself, is not an inoculation. Many more boosters will be needed. Eight months of silence is too long a trend to reverse in one shot. Besides, it’s not about criticism from us and other LGBT advocates that should be the issue. It’s the lives at stake in Uganda, lives made much more precarious following a certain conference last March.

BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda:
Nov 16: Exodus Sends Letter To Uganda President
Nov 14: Anglican’s Communion’s Tangled Connections To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Pogrom
Nov 11: Nigerian calls on Anglican Communion to oppose Ugandan “Kill Gays” bill
Nov 9: Uganda’s Most Wanted
Nov 9: Uganda’s “Kill Gays” bill is “Providing Leadership to the World”
Nov 9: More American Evangelical Ties To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Politicians
Nov 7: The “Biblical” Worldwide Anglican Communion
Nov 6: Australian Senate Refuses to Oppose Uganda’s “Kill Gays” Bill
Nov 6: Uganda Women’s Group: “Kill the Gays”
Nov 2: Throckmorton Appeals to Ugandan Christians
Nov 2: US Reps Condemn Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Nov 2: Uganda Parliament Committee, Religious Leaders Weigh Death Penalty for LGBT People
Oct 28: Uganda Religious Leaders All Calling for Anti-Gay Bill… But Maybe Not Death
Oct 28: A Call for Christian Action in Uganda — A Time to Show the Love
Oct 23: Uganda Civil Rights Coalition Denounces Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 22: Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Put Off Until 2010
Oct 18: Take Action: Tell Uganda To Respect Human Rights And Dismiss the Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 17: Uganda’s Daily Monitor: All Ugandans Should Fear Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 16: Does Exodus Support Criminalizing Homosexuality?
Oct 15: Human Rights Watch, Sexual Minorities Uganda Condemn Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 15: Here It Is: The Text of Uganda’s Proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 14: Uganda Parliament Takes Up Anti-Gay Bill Adding Death Sentence and Bans on Free Speech”
Sep 15: Draft Anti-Gay Bill Circulating In Uganda
Jul 26: Uganda Parliament To Take Up Bill Banning LGBT Free Speech
Jul 6: Sports Figure Latest Victim Of Ugandan Anti-Gay Offensive
Jul 3: Uganda May Ban All LGBT Advocacy
Jun 1: Nazi Comparisons
May 14: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Campaign Snares LGBT People and Rival Pastors, Tabloid Promises More “Outings”
May 4: Uganda Gays Arrested, Blackmail Attempts Reported
Apr 24: Uganda Anti-Gay Activists March, “Storm Parliament”
Apr 20: Alan Chambers Addresses Developments In Uganda
Apr 19: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign Is Now In Full Swing
Apr 17: Uganda Government Attacks Human Rights Groups for “Promoting Homosexuality”
Apr 10: Uganda Columnist: “Happy Easter …Irrespective of Sexual Orientation”
Apr 6: Uganda Press Crank Up “Predator” Rhetoric
Apr 3: Uganda to Ban LGBT Advocacy?
Apr 2: Exodus Maintains Month-Long Silence Amid Ugandan Gov’t Calls For LGBT Arrests
Apr 2: Press Release from Ugandan LGBT Advocacy Group
Mar 31: Forced Outings Continue As Uganda LGBT Advocates Allege Oundo Is In It For The Money
Mar 31: Uganda Activist Cites Disbarred “Therapist” As Authority on Homosexuality
Mar 30: Uganda Situation Continues To Deteriorate; Exodus Washes Their Hands
Mar 27: Videos Surface of Ugandan Activist Stirring Anti-Gay Fervor; Fears of Violence Grows
Mar 26: Ugandan Gov’t Poised to Take “Stern Action” Against Gays
Mar 26: The “Ex-Gay” Star of the Uganda Anti-Gay Campaign
Mar 25: More on Uganda Anti-Gay Vigilante Incitement
Mar 25: Another Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign May Have Begun In Uganda
Mar 23: Schmierer’s & Lively’s Uganda Talks Continue to Reverberate
Mar 17: Lively Defends Forced Therapy Proposal
Mar 16: Commentary: When Good Men Do Nothing
Mar 13: Sanctimony Alert
Mar 13: Scott Lively and Alan Chambers Respond to Questions About Uganda Conference
Mar 13: Exodus Applauds Schmierer’s Part in Uganda Conference
Mar 12: South African LGBT Advocates Condemn Exodus
Mar 12: Ex-Exodus Minister Condemns Uganda Conference
Mar 12: Ugandan Conference Leaders Call For Another Meeting While Pushing Pedophilia Theme; Exodus Continues Silence
Mar 11: Open Letter To the Exodus International Board of Directors
Mar 10: Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay”
Mar 9: Exodus Removes Link To Scott Lively From Its Web Site
Mar 9: EU Group Condemns Ugandan Conference
Mar 8: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three — Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide & Pedophilia; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Mar 6: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two
Mar 6: Exodus’ Silence About Uganda: Day Five
Mar 6: Exodus Board Member Participates In Uganda Conference Calling For Forcing Gays Into Conversion Therapy
Mar 5: Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Mar 5: Warren Throckmorton Speaks Out Against Uganda Conference
Mar 5: International LGBT Group Expresses Concern About Uganda Conference
Mar 2: Anonymous Ugandan Blogger Wants Answers From American Anti-Gay Activists
Feb 24: Exodus Board Member Joins Nazi Revisionist At Uganda Conference

I (Randy) won’t personally be at this particular event but having been to about 20 of them, every single one had some sort of protest and every single time the LWO team responds lovingly. Would you add praying for Wayne and his friends to your prayers for the conference? We’d greatly appreciate it.

I’ve been around long enough to know exactly what sort of prayers that will elicit. They will either be of the “smite the heathen” variety, or, more likely, of the sanctimonious “convict the heathen” stripe:

Jesus, show Wayne your love. Convict him of his sin. Deliver him from the bonds of darkness and the confusion of homosexuality that Satan has wrapped him in. He’s so devoted to his sinful cause; oh how he could be a warrior for You. Jesus, tug at his heart. Bring him into a relationship with You and show him that he’s wrong and we’re right!!

Well, that last part is never really prayed out loud, but it is the unsaid message behind the rest of the prayer. Praying for someone else’s conviction just makes you feel so good. Not only does it confirm your own certainties, but you get to be all “loving” while you are being self-affirming.

And as an extra-special bonus, you get to tell others, “Oh, that poor young man. It’s so sad. I prayed for him today.”

Which got me thinking.

At times I find myself telling anti-gay activists that I will pray for them. And I’m sure that they assume that if I really do pray for them that my prayers are a mirror image of those above.

But I don’t pray for God to smite them or for God to change their minds. In fact, some time ago I worked out a very different prayer, one that works for me.

It goes something like this:

God, please bless Anti-gay Activist Joe.

Give Joe happiness. Bring him peace and prosperity. Take away any hurt or unhappiness or dissatisfaction with his life. In fact, fill Joe with so much joy that he has no room left over for hatred and anger and bitterness towards my community.

Fill his days with interesting things. Bring delight into his family and merriment into his friends. Make his day meaningful and fulfilling. Fill his life with so much interest and purpose that he has no time left over to spend trying to make the lives of those in my community unpleasant.

And finally, God, bring Joe close to you. Give him a complete understanding of who you are. Startle and shock him with the degree to which you love him. Fill him completely with your love, so full that he only can spill love over to all who come in contact with him. And let him know that whether I’m right, or he’s right, or neither of us is right, it just doesn’t matter. Because it all comes down to love.

Now I know that many of our readers don’t believe in any deities or value any prayers. Many, many, many times that has been made abundantly clear. And some of you are always on the lookout for an opportunity to mock the faith of others. I’m really hoping that you’ll give this one a pass and decide that this thread really isn’t for you, so much.

But for those readers who do believe in God and prayer, I offer you my prayer for consideration. It may not work for you. But if it does, please consider praying for the organizers and participants at this weekend’s Love Won Out Conference. I think they could use some joy, love, peace, and satisfaction.

Exodus will scale down the event and not offer as many sessions or include as many speakers.  They will, however, add sessions designed to more fully equip churches generally and pastors specifically.

She also said that the next Love Won Out event will be March 6 in San Diego, and another one will be announced in the Fall. This pace is down sharply from years past, when they normally would typically schedule about six Love Won Out conferences in various cities per year. Fryrear will continue to be a part of the conferences, serving as the keynote speaker.

See also:
Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word “Change” Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For “Change”

L-R: Don Schmierer, Scott Lively, Caleb Lee Brundidge

The three Americans who kicked off this latest spasm of anti-gay hostility have really outdone themselves. This whole thing started last March when Exodus board member Don Schmierer, Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, and Caleb Lee Brundidge of Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation conducted a three-day anti-gay conference in Uganda. Schmierer was there as the “ex-gay expert.” The result of that conference was the initiation of an anti-gay task force calling for strengthening Uganda’s already draconian anti-homosexuality laws. It also unleashed a wave of anti-gay vigilantism which led to arrests, torture, blackmail and ruined careers. According to Sexual Minorities Uganda, it has also led to several deaths, including the death of Brian Pande at Mbale Hospital as he awaited trial. And it has led to where we are today, with Parliament Wednesday giving first reading to this new proposal to effectively ban all freedoms — even the freedom to exist — for LGBT people and those who would support them and provide safe haven.

While human rights activists around the world have been quick to raise their voices for the defenseless, one might ask where’s Exodus in all this? Early signs indicate that you needn’t bother looking. Exodus Vice President Randy Thomas left a comment on Warren Throckmorton’s blog in which, speaking strictly for himself and not on behalf of Exodus, he condemned the proposed bill. It’s interesting that he can only say this speaking strictly for himself. Would Exodus be willing to say the same thing officially? Will they try to tamp down the wildfire their own board member helped to ignite? Thomas says don’t count on it:

Not sure that a statement from Exodus will happen. As for the past, Don never needed our permission to spend his own money to attend a non-Exodus conference to talk about topics from his books. He is one of the most caring people I have ever met and am glad those folks had a kind person to minister to them. That said I’ll be praying for doors to open for ways to try and speak love and redemption into what is obviously a very hostile environment.

This is a cop out. They knew about the conference long before it took place, when it was still possible to do something about it. And since then, they’ve tried every way they knew how to wash their hands of their board member’s handiwork. And they’ve refused to address the situation in Uganda where it really matters — in Uganda. This isn’t beyond their facility to do so. Uganda media has telephones, fax machines and email just like everyone else, and Don Schmierer has contacts over there. Exodus is not helpless or without resources.

And Exodus leaders certainly aren’t incapable of raising their voice when they want to. Anyone following Exodus International knows that this is not a shy outfit. We know well that they are very eager to have their voices heard on issues they really care about. They quickly went on record as being “troubled” by the ELCA’s vote to affirm same-sex relationships. On something like that they have no problem whatsoever finding their voice, loud and clear. Obviously, the decisions of a church to minister to those who are comfortable with their same-sex attractions — a decision which has no impact to conversion therapy or ministry to those who are “struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions” — is something that Exodus nevertheless cares deeply about.

But ask them to take responsibility for their own handiwork in Uganda, and we get unofficial excuses, denials, and crocodile tears. But no official statement, even though, according to Sexual Minorities Uganda, Exodus already has blood on its hands. And Exodus may well end up with more blood on their hands when the first HIV-positive gay person is executed by the Ugandan government.

Does Exodus Support Criminalizing Homosexuality?
Exodus’ silence is puzzling. But as disturbing as this silence is, it is in keeping with Exodus’ pattern of saying one thing to one audience and saying something else (or keeping silent) for another audience. And we see this whenever the subject of criminalizing homosexuality comes up.

For example, Alan Chambers told the American publication The Christian Post that Exodus doesn’t support Uganda’s policy of criminalizing homosexuality. He added that “neither Schmierer nor the ministry agrees or endorses Uganda’s criminalization of homosexuality law, imprisonment of homosexuals or compulsory therapy.”

That’s great as far as it goes. But this statement appeared in one specific forum to one specific audience concerning one specific set of circumstances. Uganda’s current law, which provides for lifetime imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality, ought to be an easy law to denounce. So good on them for doing so. But they did it to that limited American Evangelical audience only, addressing only this particular set of circumstances. There was no attempt to make their position known to leaders in Uganda, not even to the evangelical Ugandan leaders who hosted the conference where the three Americans spoke. That’s where the message counts, not on the pages of the Christian Post.

So what if someone who hadn’t seen the Christian Post article wanted to know if Exodus supports criminalizing homosexuality? One would hope that the simple answer is no. And to find that simple answer, a natural place to look might be on Exodus’ own web site. But it turns out that the answer is not that simple, and perhaps not that “no” we were hoping for. It turns out that when one searches Exodus’ web site, one is left with the distinct impression that Exodus actually supports criminalization — at least as it existed in the U.S. before the Supreme Court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas.

I have found only two statements on the Exodus web site related to criminalizing homosexuality, and both are reactions to the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In this “News Media Highlights,” Randy Thomas posted excerpts from “one who believes sodomy to be a sin and is directed to people who share that belief.” Thomas quotes the reaction of that unnamed writer with no further comment:

If the Supreme Court does repeal these laws, it will rob citizens, of all beliefs, the opportunity to enter their voice into the public record over this issue. Yet on the same hand it is this writers conviction that sodomy laws work against our redemptive witness.

So clearly that unnamed writer that Thomas quoted was against the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. But what about Exodus themselves? The only other statement I could find, this one quoting Alan Chambers, is equally negative:

As a result of today’s ruling, young people will be led into further confusion. Alan chambers [sic] states, “Our young people are not going to grow up under the same teachings about morality that we did. The school books will simply state that homosexuality was legitimized by the Supreme Court on June 26, 2003. We are risking the moral upbringing of all the generations to come. …”

Unfortunately, the political pendulum could swing harshly the other way. Americans of all conservative faiths are facing a serious problem; now that this decision damages the traditional view of sexuality and relationships, progay initiatives across the country will gain momentum. People of faith could potentially experience marginalization if we do not implement loving concern and active civic involvement.

Why won’t Exodus Speak Up Where It Matters Most?
So the question remains: What is Exodus International’s position on the criminalization of LGBT people? And if their position is any different from these two examples posted on their official web site – as Alan Chambers implied in the Christian Post — then why can’t they just say so on their own web site?

And more pressing, why can’t they raise their voice in Uganda? They ought to be able to do that pretty easily. After all, their own board member has some pretty powerful contacts over there.

One possible explanation for Exodus’ silence — and if this is true, then it means that they are far more petty than anyone can imagine — is that they don’t want to be seen as caving to “gay-identified activists.” But look at what’s happening. This isn’t some comparatively petty culture war over employment non-discrimination legislation or Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We’re talking about a very real and imminent matter of life and death in Uganda. At some point, if Exodus had an ounce of integrity or a smidgen of conscience, they would have to see that it’s time to suck it up, drop the defensive ego trip, screw whatever the “gay-identified activists” might say and do what they know in their hearts what needs to be done to try to fix what Schmierer helped break.

But so far — and you don’t know how eager I am to be proven wrong in this! — it looks like they have neither the integrity nor conscience. Their silence — or their actions; it’s their choice — will tell us everything we need to know about their character. Everything.

BTB’s complete coverage of recent anti-gay developments in Uganda:
Nov 14: Anglican’s Communion’s Tangled Ties To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Extremists
Nov 11: Nigerian calls on Anglican Communion to oppose Ugandan “Kill Gays” bill
Nov 9: Uganda’s Most Wanted
Nov 9: Uganda’s “Kill Gays” bill is “Providing Leadership to the World”
Nov 9: More American Evangelical Ties To Uganda’s Anti-Gay Politicians
Nov 7: The “Biblical” Worldwide Anglican Communion
Nov 6: Australian Senate Refuses to Oppose Uganda’s “Kill Gays” Bill
Nov 6: Uganda Women’s Group: “Kill the Gays”
Nov 2: Throckmorton Appeals to Ugandan Christians
Nov 2: US Reps Condemn Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Nov 2: Uganda Parliament Committee, Religious Leaders Weigh Death Penalty for LGBT People
Oct 28: Uganda Religious Leaders All Calling for Anti-Gay Bill… But Maybe Not Death
Oct 28: A Call for Christian Action in Uganda — A Time to Show the Love
Oct 23: Uganda Civil Rights Coalition Denounces Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 22: Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill Put Off Until 2010
Oct 18: Take Action: Tell Uganda To Respect Human Rights And Dismiss the Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 17: Uganda’s Daily Monitor: All Ugandans Should Fear Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 16: Does Exodus Support Criminalizing Homosexuality?
Oct 15: Human Rights Watch, Sexual Minorities Uganda Condemn Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 15: Here It Is: The Text of Uganda’s Proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill
Oct 14: Uganda Parliament Takes Up Anti-Gay Bill Adding Death Sentence and Bans on Free Speech”
Sep 15: Draft Anti-Gay Bill Circulating In Uganda
Jul 26: Uganda Parliament To Take Up Bill Banning LGBT Free Speech
Jul 6: Sports Figure Latest Victim Of Ugandan Anti-Gay Offensive
Jul 3: Uganda May Ban All LGBT Advocacy
Jun 1: Nazi Comparisons
May 14: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Campaign Snares LGBT People and Rival Pastors, Tabloid Promises More “Outings”
May 4: Uganda Gays Arrested, Blackmail Attempts Reported
Apr 24: Uganda Anti-Gay Activists March, “Storm Parliament”
Apr 20: Alan Chambers Addresses Developments In Uganda
Apr 19: Uganda’s Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign Is Now In Full Swing
Apr 17: Uganda Government Attacks Human Rights Groups for “Promoting Homosexuality”
Apr 10: Uganda Columnist: “Happy Easter …Irrespective of Sexual Orientation”
Apr 6: Uganda Press Crank Up “Predator” Rhetoric
Apr 3: Uganda to Ban LGBT Advocacy?
Apr 2: Exodus Maintains Month-Long Silence Amid Ugandan Gov’t Calls For LGBT Arrests
Apr 2: Press Release from Ugandan LGBT Advocacy Group
Mar 31: Forced Outings Continue As Uganda LGBT Advocates Allege Oundo Is In It For The Money
Mar 31: Uganda Activist Cites Disbarred “Therapist” As Authority on Homosexuality
Mar 30: Uganda Situation Continues To Deteriorate; Exodus Washes Their Hands
Mar 27: Videos Surface of Ugandan Activist Stirring Anti-Gay Fervor; Fears of Violence Grows
Mar 26: Ugandan Gov’t Poised to Take “Stern Action” Against Gays
Mar 26: The “Ex-Gay” Star of the Uganda Anti-Gay Campaign
Mar 25: More on Uganda Anti-Gay Vigilante Incitement
Mar 25: Another Anti-Gay Vigilante Campaign May Have Begun In Uganda
Mar 23: Schmierer’s & Lively’s Uganda Talks Continue to Reverberate
Mar 17: Lively Defends Forced Therapy Proposal
Mar 16: Commentary: When Good Men Do Nothing
Mar 13: Sanctimony Alert
Mar 13: Scott Lively and Alan Chambers Respond to Questions About Uganda Conference
Mar 13: Exodus Applauds Schmierer’s Part in Uganda Conference
Mar 12: South African LGBT Advocates Condemn Exodus
Mar 12: Ex-Exodus Minister Condemns Uganda Conference
Mar 12: Ugandan Conference Leaders Call For Another Meeting While Pushing Pedophilia Theme; Exodus Continues Silence
Mar 11: Open Letter To the Exodus International Board of Directors
Mar 10: Scott Lively: The Gay Agenda Is “To Turn The Whole World Gay”
Mar 9: Exodus Removes Link To Scott Lively From Its Web Site
Mar 9: EU Group Condemns Ugandan Conference
Mar 8: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Three — Gays Blamed For Rwandan Genocide & Pedophilia; More Exodus Ties To Holocaust Revisionism
Mar 6: Uganda Anti-Gay Conference: Day Two
Mar 6: Exodus’ Silence About Uganda: Day Five
Mar 6: Exodus Board Member Participates In Uganda Conference Calling For Forcing Gays Into Conversion Therapy
Mar 5: Anti-Gay Conference Kicks Off In Kampala
Mar 5: Warren Throckmorton Speaks Out Against Uganda Conference
Mar 5: International LGBT Group Expresses Concern About Uganda Conference
Mar 2: Anonymous Ugandan Blogger Wants Answers From American Anti-Gay Activists
Feb 24: Exodus Board Member Joins Nazi Revisionist At Uganda Conference

The largest and best know of these is the Love Won Out conferences previously run by Focus on the Family. Blaming a lack of finances, Focus is reassigning the conferences to Exodus. This is a move that is logical and will probably help both organization focus on their own mission.

But there was another consolidation that occured last month that is even more interesting. on July 17, Focus’ news site CitizenLink announced:

One by One, an outreach equipping the Presbyterian and Reformed faith communities to compassionately and effectively address biblical sexuality and Transforming Congregations, a likeminded ministry to The United Methodist Church, announced plans to merge with Exodus International. Exodus is the world’s largest Christian outreach to those dealing with same-sex attraction.

Together, the ministries will form a new division under the leadership of Exodus that will equip church leaders worldwide to break the polarizing debate over homosexuality through an approach that is both biblically orthodox and truly compassionate.

One by One came out of a Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) conference in 1994. They are a ministry within the Presbyterian and Reformed faith communities and, as such, have traditions and religious perspectives that are a bit outside the fundamentalist/charasmatic/megachurch affiliations that seem to dominate Exodus’ spiritual sphere. One by One’s website expresses an intention to establish a church network, but there does not seem to be one in place. They seem, to my eyes at least, to be less harsh and less political than either Exodus or Transforming Congregations.

Transforming Congregations was founded in 1988 to address the issue of homosexuality within the United Methodist Church. At one time it had at least 75 congregations that affiliated with the organization. However, now Transforming Congregations is a national education and lobby group within the church and they have for some while left individual ministry to Exodus.

Over the years, we have found that to be impractical. A change in pastors or lay leadership often resulted in an “about face” on the issues of human sexuality. Because most of these churches did not request removal, it became virtually impossible to keep our list accurately updated. So now we refer folk to the Exodus International Church Network.

Neither organization appears to be focused primarily on individual one-on-one ministry or even on addressing the specific needs of same-sex attracted congregants. Rather, they seem to be organizations within their denominations that seek to support and encourage those who have an anti-gay theology and to encourage others who may not yet have addressed the issue of the roll of gay men and women within the body of faith.

One by One’s mission statement is:

OneByOne’s mission is to educate and equip the church to minister the transforming grace and power of Jesus Christ to those in conflict with their sexuality. OneByOne’s goal is therefore two-fold: (1) to serve as a resource for educational material; and (2) to help create and/or support local ministries to those struggling with sexual brokenness, including but not limited to homosexuality. OneByOne representatives are available to provide seminars and workshops for church leaders and/or members who want to learn how to minister Christ’s compassion without compromising Christ’s standards.

And that of Transforming Ministries is:

Our Purpose: Equipping the Church to model and minister sanctified sexuality through Biblical instruction … Personal and Public Witness … Compassionate Outreach

So it seems clear that Exodus is not merging with external collections of congregations to increase their base size. Nor are they establishing new relationships; these two organizations – along with Focus’ Love Won Out – already work closely with Exodus.

What they are getting, is two mainline denomination affiliated groups that are, as best I can tell, dropping the denomination affiliation and becoming a “project” of Exodus, an outreach to mainline churches under the Exodus label. They are picking up two voices for anti-gay theology from a mainline perspective.

Why?

I can, of course, only speculate. But here’s what I think is happening:

Mainline churches are adopting a welcoming and affirming approach to gay Christians at an astonishing rate. While neither the PC(USA) or the UMC are as fully inclusive as, say, the United Church of Christ or the Episcopal Church, they are steadily marching in that direction. “Compassionate” condemnation, such as that coming from such Presbyterians as Dr. Robert Gagnon or Methodists like Karen Booth is increasingly seen by their fellow worshipers as bigotry and outside of the message of Christ.

If I had to guess, I’d suppose that Exodus is recognizing that anti-gay activism is losing the home front. Perhaps they are wanting to let up on some of the anti-gay political activism and bolster their forces in the pews. And that may be reflected also in Exodus pulling a bit away from the highly political Focus on the Family.

So it may well be that these groups are experiencing fatigue and losing heart. Perhaps they think it best to retreat and consolidate resources so as to present one face of anti-gay protestant Christian response to same-sex attracted persons.

But that comes at a cost. Those who fight from without are never as strong as those who fight from within. I very much doubt that Exodus can be as effective a lobbyist on church policy in either the PC(USA) or the UMC as were One by One or Transforming Ministries. And neither organization was, frankly, doing that great of a job to begin with.

We’ll have to wait and see what eventually happens as a result of this transition.

This did not sit well with those organizations who build their existence on convincing their public that gay persons can “change” and that because such change is possible then public policy can be punitive to gay persons that do not submit themselves to such a change.

In response to the APA’s Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses To Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts, NARTH (the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) declared

They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study. Had the task force been more neutral in their approach, they could have arrived at only one conclusion: homosexuality is not invariable fixed in all people, and some people can and do change, not just in terms of behavior and identity but in core features of sexual orientation such as fantasy and attractions.

And Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International spoke to USA Today.

Its president, Alan Chambers, describes himself as someone who “overcame unwanted same-sex attraction.” He and other evangelicals met with APA representatives after the task force formed in 2007, and he expressed satisfaction with parts of the report that emerged.

“It’s a positive step — simply respecting someone’s faith is a huge leap in the right direction,” Chambers said. “But I’d go further. Don’t deny the possibility that someone’s feelings might change.”

So it was with great joy that those opposed to equality received news of evidence of change. The Baptist Press is crowing. Just “four days after an American Psychological Association task force released a 130-page report that said “gay-to-straight” therapies are unlikely to work”, they are trumpeting some amazing results of a study on Exodus International and their ex-gay ministries.

In findings that directly contradict mainstream academic thought, 53 percent of subjects in a new seven-year study reported successfully leaving homosexuality and living happily as heterosexual or celibate persons.

These “latest findings” are actually an update of the multi-year study of participants in Exodus ministries presented by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse in their 2007 book, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation.

The authors were not pleased that the study which they proclaimed throughout Christian media as an evidence of change in sexual orientation did not convince the APA.

“They selectively apply rigorous scientific standards,” he said. “So when it comes to examining the evidence that sexual orientation change can occur, they apply extraordinarily rigorous standards, and those standards allow them to disregard significant evidence that sexual orientation change can occur. That’s what happens with our study. They, I think, invalidly applied several methodological concerns to dismiss our study.

Indeed, the APA did apply concerns and dismiss the study.

Dr. Judith Glassgold, a clinical psychologist who led the APA task force, said the paper was not written in response to Dr. Jones’ work, though it did dismiss his findings.

“We don’t believe the claims were proven, to be honest,” said Dr. Glassgold in an interview. “In our looking at all the research we find that people don’t change their underlying sexual attraction. What they do is figure out a way to control their attractions. And some learn to live a heterosexual life but mostly for religious motivation.”

Presented as a counter-point to the APA’s declaration that there is inadequate evidence that therapies designed to change sexual orientation are effective, Jones and Yarhouse argue that:

the findings of this study would appear to contradict that commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable and that the attempt to change is highly likely to produce harm for those who make such an attempt.

I won’t speak to the likelihood of harm, but when it comes to change in orientation, their study convinced me of exactly the opposite.

When the Jones and Yarhouse book, was released in 2007, we hosted an exchange between Jim Burroway, BTB’s editor, and Stanton Jones.

My synopsis of the results, as published in the book, was

the Jones and Yarhouse study revealed little to no statistically measurable change in orientation in the prospective sample. The much touted “successes” were either in recollection (which again were quite small) or were those who had decided to no longer call themselves “gay”. However, they still identified their orientation as homosexual (”I’m not gay but my attractions are”).

In short, the Jones and Yarhouse study was funded and fully supported by Exodus and conducted by two researchers who were avid supporters of ex-gay ministries. They wanted to study 300 participants, but after more than a year, they could only find 57 willing to participate. They then changed the rules for acceptance in order to increase the total to 98. After following this sample for 4 years, 25 dropped out. Of the remainder, only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” Another 17 decided that a lifetime of celibacy was good enough.

What the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse book revealed, and what this update further confirms, is that the “change” which NARTH and Exodus loudly proclaim is not a change in sexual orientation at all and, in fact, may be nothing more that a change in identity or recollection.

Prospective v. Retrospective
In order to understand the J&Y study, you have to understand the distinction between retrospective and prospective sampling. Prospective uses currently measured data, and retrospective uses recollections about the past.

For example, if one were wanting to compare changes in the length that a student has to walk in their morning commute to school, a prospective study would select a random sample (say a selection of schools), measure the distance the students walked, and repeat the process over a long enough period of time to determine if there is change. A retrospective study would go ask Grandpa and compare today’s walking distance to “ten miles through the snow, barefoot, uphill both ways!”

Obviously, measured differences are far more accurate than recollected differences. Time has a way of providing support for what we want to believe and recollections tend to be very selective. Things were simpler then, or tougher; summers were hotter, or milder; politicians were more honest, or scoundrels.

So the best studies are prospective rather than retrospective. Oddly, the J&Y study is both.

Of the 98 participants, 57 were more-or-less prospective. These were persons who had been involved with an Exodus (ex-gay) ministry for less than a year. So while there may have been some recollection error, it was at least a discussion of reasonably recent events. These participants are called Phase 1.

Unable to get a sample size that the authors felt was sufficient, they then recruited Exodus participants that had been in the programs for one to three years. These participants are called Phase 2 and to the extent that there is a measurement from a recollected starting point, their participation is retrospective.

Fortunately, it is possible to distinguish between the results for these two groups.

The Update
The paper presented by Jones and Yarhouse to the APA is significantly less detailed than was their book, as could be expected. Specifically, the several scales of measurement were reduced to two, Kinsey and Shively & DeCecco, and while the book provided information on interim points, the paper uses only the starting point (T1) and the final point (T6).

The results in the book are based on 75 of the original 98 participants. Since J&Y presented their results in their book, an additional 14 participants have dropped out of the study, bringing the sample size down to 61. The remaining participants have now been part of the study for six to seven years.

The Results
Because the total sample is a hodge-podge of two very different subpopulations, it is informative only to the extent that it reveals information about the difference between those subpopulations.

The group that is most accurately studied, and that whose results are most revealing about the extent to which Exodus is successful is Phase 1, the prospective study. And this is what Jones and Yarhouse report about that subpopulation:

• There was, on average, virtually no change in sexual orientation on the Kinsey scale using measures of behavior, sexual attraction, emotional/romantic attraction, and fantasy.
• There was, on average, a small but not significant increase in homosexual behavior.
• There was, on average, a slight but not significant reduction in homosexual attraction.
• There was, on average, virtually no increase in heterosexual attraction.

In other words, on average, after six to seven years of participation, those who went through Exodus ministries reported over the period of their involvement no change in sexual orientation at all.

Averages v. Individuals
Averages, while meaningful to statisticians and to those who are evaluating the effectiveness of Exodus International, do not tell the full story. We must also look at individual results.

For their book, Jones and Yarhouse classified their participants into categories based on their individual reports. They came from a religious evaluation model and defined two groups as successful (conversions and chaste), two as failure (identifying as gay and considering identifying as gay), and two in the middle that were still trying but seeing little to no results. For the final report, the authors changed their procedure and allowed participants to select their own category.

As I am less interested in adherence to religious identities and more interested in sexual orientation change, I’ll group the failure and the middle two together. After time T6, J&Y report:

Success: Conversion – 14 (23%)
Success: Chastity – 18 (30%)
Non-Success – 29 (48%)

This does not, however, present an accurate story of the study participants. It does not account for those who dropped out of participation and thus overstates the success rates. One could extrapolate from this reporting method that eventually only those who are successes of some sort will remain and the authors could declare with great fanfare that 100% of all Exodus participants eventually succeed.

But that would not be truthful.

When I made the observation that drop-outs should be considered a likely failure, those who defended the skewing upward of success rates argued that because we don’t know the reasons for discontinued participation, it was just as easy to believe that these individuals were now happily heterosexually married and not wanting to be reminded of their old life as that they had embraced a gay identity. But additional information in this report reveals otherwise.

Of the 14 persons who left the study between T3 and T6, two were Conversion, one was Chastity, and the remaining were Non-success. We know from the book that one of the Conversion drop-outs reported that he had never been heterosexual and was simply reporting what he thought the authors wanted to hear. So it is rather unlikely that these drop-outs went off to live heterosexual lives. Nor is it (or ever was it) likely that any sizable chunk of those who dropped out before T3 left because they are now happily hetero.

Considering drop-outs as their own category, a more accurate reporting of the self-identified placement into categories would look like this:

Success: Conversion – 14 (14%)
Success: Chastity – 18 (18%)
Non-Success – 29 (30%)
Drop-Outs – 37 (38%)

And considering just the Phase 1 participants, the results are

Success: Conversion – 5 (9%)
Success: Chastity – 6 (11%)
Non-Success – 18 (32%)
Drop-Outs – 28 (49%)

When looking at these numbers, we should consider two things about the “conversion” category shown above.

First, much of Exodus’ efforts go into changing identity. They view a “gay identity” as sinful and contrary to a “Christian identity”.

So this change in identity may not be related to an actual change in orientation. As I noted above, the first measurement of “change” reported in the book – the one trumpeted in anti-gay press upon the book’s press release – was a change in self identification. Yet is was accompanied by a measurement that spoke of one’s orientation as separate from one’s identity and found that those who claimed that they were not homosexual were willing to admit that their orientation is homosexual. It was literally a declaration that, “I’m not gay but my orientation is.”

We should be careful to recognize that those claiming conversion at T6 may be doing so for themselves and not for their orientations. The authors do acknowledge that such success may be seen as relating more to identity than to orientation:

Some may see these results as reflecting not a change in sexual orientation for most participants who reported such change, but rather a change in sexual identity. Such a change might result from how one thinks of oneself and labels one’s sexual preferences (that is, attributions and meaning-making).

But with Exodus placing heavy emphasis on identity, by allowing unanalyzed self-assignment the authors may have created a scenario in which there is an inflated increase in the “success” categories.

And second, this report differs from the book in that the qualifiers are removed. The book provided discussion of the non-traditional definitions of “heterosexual” used in the study and how those who were so identified also experienced wandering eyes, erotic dreams, and other situations that are most often associated with a homosexual orientation. In the paper, it is limited to

[W]hile we found that part of our research population experienced success to the degree that it might be called (as we have here) “conversion,” our evidence does not indicate that these changes are categorical, resulting in uncomplicated, dichotomous and unequivocal reversal of sexual orientation from utterly homosexual to utterly heterosexual. Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at T6 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and they did not report their heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated.

I don’t think that I’m alone in noting that few of the heterosexuals that I know experience much homosexual arousal. Perhaps Stanton Jones himself said it best in an interview.

“A typical hetero male finds himself attracted to a wide range of females. But among the successful people who reported conversion the typical response was I’m very happy with my sexual responses to my wife, but I don’t experience much hetero attraction to other women. Also, when asked and pressed about whether they still find attraction to men, they will say: ‘Yes, if I let my mind go in that direction.’ “

And finally, when comparing the individual with the average, it must be noted that without an average change, any individual change experienced is offset by an equal and opposite experience.

In other words, for every person who came to Exodus and found that they became one Kinsey point more heterosexual, there was a person who found that Exodus made them one Kinsey point gayer. If Exodus sees their mission as rescuing those sinking in a sea of sin, for each person they pull into the lifeboat, they hit another over the head with an oar.

Failure to report Phase 2 Results
Jones and Yarhouse report the “whole population”, a commingled combination of Phase 1 and Phase 2 as though it is informative. While they do break out Phase 1 results, they do not disclose Phase 2 results.

I believe that were Phase 1 to be visually compared to Phase 2, the variances between the two would be startling. The question jumping out from the report might shift from whether there is a significant effect size in responses to why these two subpopulations are reporting opposite conclusions.

And, indeed, the results from Phase 2 can be deduced to be significantly different from Phase 1. If we know the average response of the 29 remaining participants in Phase 1 and the total average responses of all 61 remaining participants, we can back into the Phase 2 reported change.

A comparison of the two would show:

Kinsey – behavior only
P1, -0.21
P2, 1.79

Kinsey Expanded
P1, 0.55
P2, 1.01

Shively & DeCecco homo
P1, 0.40
P2, 0.99

Shively & DeCecco hetero
P1, 0.05
P2, 0.62

As we can see, there are sharp differences in the results of these two subpopulations. And although no information on Phase 2 is directly reported, the authors somewhat acknowledge that the two subpopulations vary in results

We expected that the results of change would be somewhat less positive in [Phase 1], as individuals experiencing difficulty with change would be likely to get frustrated or discouraged early on and drop out.

That is a round-about way of admitting that the Phase 2 subpopulation does not include those who got frustrated early and dropped out in the first one to three years. It avoids pointing out that results for the Phase 2 subpopulation are already skewed towards those who either believe they are experiencing “change” or have a stronger more deeply dedicated commitment to Exodus ministries.

But even so, with such astounding results in this subpopulation, why wouldn’t the authors include this separate information. It may be that isolation of Phase 2 raises questions about the validity of including them at all and, more importantly, what it says about the claims made by Exodus members both included and not included in the study.

The real difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is more than just that P2 has been in the program for a few more years. It is more than that they have fewer drop outs. The real difference is that P2 is based on recollection to a much greater extent than P1.

And Phase 2 participants recalled being more gay than Phase 1 reported. Significantly, especially in the area of behavior. The Kinsey 1 report was 4.52 for Phase 1 and 5.49 for Phase 2.

There is no reason to believe that those in Phase 2, having eliminated the drop outs, actually were any more homosexually oriented than those in Phase 1. Rather, it seems likely that they simply recalled being more homosexually oriented when they established their base point some one to three years later.

So all reported change in Phase 2 – and indeed all reported change – may be attributable to this variance in starting point due to reliance on recollection. Ultimately, all of Jones’ and Yarhouse’s announced success may be nothing more than, “I remember being much more gay three years ago than I am today.”

Truly Gay
The one subpopulation that Jones and Yarhouse are excited about is what they call the “truly gay subpopulation.” These are defined as those who “scored above the scale midpoint at T1 for homosexual attraction, and for homosexual behavior in the past, and for having previously embraced full homosexual or gay identity.” This subgroup reported the most change.

It is difficult to know whether these persons are mostly Phase 1 or Phase 2, but it would appear that they are a combination of both. We know from the break out of results in the book that a number of the non-successes in the truly gay subpopulation were also Phase 1. This lends itself to assumptions that those in the truly gay subpopulation that reported progress were likely in Phase 2 and that much, if not all, of their progress consisted solely of exaggerated recollection.

This is further supported by noting that most of the change reported over the seven year life of the study was between the first measurement (often as recollected) and the second. In discussing the possibility that reported change is largely identity, the authors noted:

This might also explain to some why the Truly Gay subpopulation showed more dramatic change, as their shift was away from a more pronounced gay identity. Such a departure may have been measured as a greater movement away from something that had previously been more salient to them.

Or, more likely, a greater movement away from the recollection of being very gay three years ago.

Conclusions
Based on the Jones and Yarhouse book, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, and on their follow up report, Ex-Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, we can observe the following:

• The prospective sample reported, on average, virtually no change in attractions and a small increase in homosexual behavior.
• A retrospective look at ones perceptions of prior orientation from the perspective of one to three years yields a sharply different result from that seen by a prospective sample. This change in perspective may account for all reported change in Exodus ministries.
• Most change reported away from homosexuality and towards heterosexuality was in the interval between the starting point (T1) and the second measurement point (T2). This change occurred most strongly in the retrospective sample and may be due to variances in recollection.
• A combined prospective and retrospective sample experienced, on average, no significant increase in opposite sex attraction.
• A small percentage (perhaps 9%) of those who start Exodus programs may eventually self-categorize themselves as “experiencing substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction and functioning. These persons will be unlike other heterosexuals in that they will continue to experience homosexual arousal and not experience much attraction to the opposite sex.
• Another small percentage (perhaps 11%) of those who start Exodus programs may eventually achieve a life of manageable homosexual attraction and chastity.
• Others may continue perpetually in Exodus programs without ever achieving any significantly reduced homosexual attractions.
• Eventually, most of those who start Exodus programs will drop out.
• On average, for each person who enters and Exodus program and finds any movement away from homosexual attraction, another will find movement towards homosexual attraction.

But these observations are not readily obvious from the media reports of either the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse book nor this follow-up report. And those seeking “proof” that homosexuals can “change” have used both to advance a false image of the results of this study. Exodus, NARTH, and many others will spin this study to come to conclusions that are far from of those I’ve stated above.

The authors have a moral responsibility to discourage those who will make false statements or who will falsely claim that this study justifies their ex-gay or anti-gay endeavors. And they have a moral obligation not to allow their wishes about the mutability of sexual orientation cloud the results of their study and give false hope to those who believe Exodus’ slogan that “change is possible”.

Facing a $6 million budget shortfall, Focus on the Family is shifting control of its Love Won Out conference to an outside organization.

Exodus International, a group that claims people can overcome unwanted same-sex attractions with the help of its ministry, announced Tuesday it will take control of the program starting in November.

“Exodus is the ideal organization to transition Love Won Out to,” said Melissa Fryrear, director of Love Won Out. She noted that Focus on the Family and Exodus have been closely aligned for years.

Funny. I’d noticed that also.

While Exodus does not fully agree with the APA’s criticisms of clinical techniques such as reparative therapy and its view of sexual orientation change, the report does recognize that some choose to live their lives in congruence with religious values. The report also encourages therapists to avoid imposing a specific outcome on clients.

As I noted earlier, the APA resolution cautions Exodus, NARTH and other proponents of change therapy against “distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality.” So where does the phrase about “imposing a specific outcome on clients” come up in the APA report? (PDF: 1,092KB/136 pages) You don’t have to go far; it’s on page v in the report’s abstract:

Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation. Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

The APA report goes into more detail on page 88:

Self-determination is the process by which a person controls or determines the course of her or his own life (Oxford American Dictionary, n.d.). LMHP [Licensed Mental Health Professionals -- ed.] maximize self-determination by (a) providing effective psychotherapy that explores the client’s assumptions and goals, without preconditions on the outcome; (b) providing resources to manage and reduce distress; and (c) permitting the client herself or himself to decide the ultimate goal of how to self-identify and live out her or his sexual orientation. We were not persuaded by some accounts that suggest that providing SOCE increases self-determination, because these suggestions encourage LMHP to offer treatment that (a) has not provided evidence of efficacy; (b) has the potential to be harmful; and (c) delegates important professional decisions that should be based on qualified expertise and training—such as diagnosis and the type of intervention. Rather, therapy that increases the client’s ability to cope, understand, acknowledge, and integrate sexual orientation concerns into a self-chosen life is the measured approach. [Emphasis mine]

In other words, the report was very clear that by encouraging therapists to avoid imposing a specific outcome on clients, the APA was not giving a license to Exodus and others to promote therapies that are unproven or potentially harmful. In fact, throughout the report, the APA emphasises the importance of allowing the client chose the path, and for the therapist to provide affirming and positive support.

As long as the client wants to try to suppress his sexuality, then what Exodus offers is in line with the APA’s recommendations — as long as Exodus doesn’t promise a change in sexual attractions as a likely outcome. But somehow I doubt that Exodus-affiliated therapists will be willing to follow this advice if the client decides to fully embrace rather than suppress his sexuality.

So unless Exodus is signalling that they are ready to step in a new direction, their press release is disingenuous at best and a “distortion and selective use of scientific data” at worst. Either way, it looks like more of the same ol’ same ol’.

When I was first starting out in ministry and sharing my testimony, I often heard the comment from gay individuals and activists, “You’re just in denial, Alan.” That comment always incensed me because it seemed to negate my message and intelligence. However, as I began to pray about it, I realized that we, as Christians, are indeed called to a life of denial, and as such I should not despise something the Lord commands of me nor should I get angry when someone calls me on it. Those who reject the concept of self-denial haven’t reaped the joys that result from it.

…Every day for more than a decade, I have made denial, as Jesus taught in this verse, the major focus of my morning prayer time. I am keenly aware that I am prone to blowing it in this area of my life and am, therefore, in desperate need of help. … And you know what? I love my life of denial.

Chambers repeated much of this in his CitizenLink interview:

CitizenLink: Now, I’ve heard it, and you’ve heard it: Gay activists are going to read that and say, again, “Alan Chambers is living a lie. He’s suppressing who he really is.” You make a great point in the book that is very applicable to anyone who struggles with any temptation—and that is, self-denial isn’t a bad thing. How do you respond to those who say you’re just living a lie?

CHAMBERS: For so long I’ve heard gay activists say to me, “You’re just in denial. You’re not grasping the reality of the situation. You’re just denying who you really are.” The truth is, I am in denial, but it is self-denial. I’m not in denial of who I used to be. I’m not in denial of the temptations that I could still experience. I am denying the power that sin has over me.

This has certainly gotten a lot of attention. Queerty and Dan Savage have both commented on this, among many others. Dan Gilgoff, at US News and World Report, wonders of this is the start of a new consensus between gays and religious conservatives. Unfortunately, he appears to have misread the statement as “shift away from promoting conversion therapy.”

For those who may mistake this as a new position that will somehow remake Exodus, it’s important to gain a historical perspective. Longtime readers of Box Turtle Bulletin may remember that this “new” line isn’t so new. As I reported two years ago, Alan Chambers said essentially the exact same words at a workshop he gave at Love Won Out. Later that year, I made a video in which you get to hears a small audio clip of Chambers making that statement:

Click here to view the embedded video.

When I attended the Exodus Freedom Conference in Irvine, California later that summer, I heard Alan give almost precisely that same talk on the opening night of that five-day conference. That was the same summer when Alan Chambers told the Los Angeles Times that he had never met a successful ex-gay.

Those who may be tempted to believe they detect a shifting position are mistaken. Chambers had staked this position out as early as two years ago, and he may have been exploring that theme even earlier. But despite that, we’ve seen little change on Exodus’ work in opposing equal protections and other public policy initiatives against gays and lesbians who choose not to pursue change. Exodus has turned the phrase, “Change is possible” into a mantra. But that doesn’t mean that change is likely from Exodus.

One, we hope to exhort the church at-large to stand confidently and boldly on the truth of scripture with regard to homosexuality. Two, we hope to equip churches to minister to the individuals within their own congregation who are struggling with unwanted homosexuality, as well as the family members of a gay loved one. And three, we hope to create a nationwide referral list of churches, including your church, for those who are searching for a church family that will walk alongside them in their journey.

Alan Chambers, the President of Exodus, often speaks of how churches need to become loving and welcoming of those “struggling with homosexuality”. But what does this loving welcome look like?

In the Exodus Church Network application package, Exodus emphasizes the importance of these churches in the life of the struggler.

Central to this redemption is Exodus’ desire to unite and equip the Church to carry out this healing process. Exodus bridges the gap between Christians who respond to homosexual men and women with ignorance and fear, and those who uphold homosexuality as a valid, Christ-centered lifestyle. To Exodus, both extremes fail to convey to the homosexual the fullness of redemption found in Christ – He who embodies grace and truth, and invites us to partake of Him.

If would certainly appear, from this, that Exodus Churches do not respond with “ignorance and fear.” Rather, they convey “grace and truth.” But what does this grace and truth look like?

To get a sense of the ideal Exodus Church, perhaps we can look to Alan Chambers’ newest book, Leaving Homosexuality. In this book, Chambers again takes “the church” to task and implies what an Exodus Church does better.

In fact, if I had one thing to say to my fellow believers who are the body of Christ regarding how we have historically treated homosexuals it would be, “We were wrong in our attitudes and thus mishandled the situation.” In the name of Christ many people helped create the angry and bitter Pro-gay Movement because of their pride and arrogance and un-Christlike heart toward people in need. Let’s wake up. Let’s repent of our hostility and recommit to boldly loving sinners as Christ did…and does.

So an Exodus Church will not treat homosexuals as they historically have but would instead boldly love sinners as Christ did and does. But what does this bold love look like?

Perhaps we can look at the ideal Exodus Church, the one that Exodus so admires that the pastor has spoken at Exodus’ Freedom Conference, the church so in line with boldly loving grace and truth that Alan Chambers invited the pastor to write a recommendation published with his new book: Miles McPherson of The Rock Church in San Diego. Here’s what McPherson said about Chambers’ new book:

Alan’s stories will break your heart, convict your conscience, and hopefully inspire today’s church to reexamine its message on this complex issue.

But what does this reexamined message look like?

You may recall The Rock as being the home church of “opposite marriage” endorser Carrie Prejean. But The Rock and Miles McPherson are so much more: they are examples of what Exodus upholds as a glowing beacon of Christlike love for homosexuals as expressed in grace and truth.

So what does grace and truth looks like at The Rock?

Well, according to this article written by Miles McPherson and hosted on The Rock Church’s website:

God’s Word tells us differently and He provides us of the evidence that homosexuality is not natural or normal. There are physiological repercussions from homosexual behavior; male homosexuals are 430 times more likely to contract HIV than a heterosexual, while heterosexuals have a 1-in-750,000 chance of contracting the virus responsible for HIV, a male homosexual has a 1-in-165 chance of getting HIV. A 20 year old gay male has a 30% chance of either dying or contracting AIDS before the age of 30. They are also 23 times more likely to get other sexually transmitted diseases than a heterosexual.

There are also moral repercussions stemming from homosexual behavior as evidenced by the fact that one third of all sexual crimes against children are committed by homosexuals even though they are representative of only one percent of the population. Pedophilia has even been called central to the gay lifestyle. The agenda of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is to lower the age of consent so that sex with children will be legal.

Emotionally people suffer from homosexuality. Gays are five times more likely to commit suicide than a straight person. They are suffering depression because of God’s judgment and their alienation from Him. So God not only tells us what is right and wrong but that by continually doing what is wrong there will be consequences and this is all evident to us so we have no excuse in suppressing the truth.

and

The homosexual agenda is being pushed upon this nation, to the point where it may become illegal for pastors to preach against homosexuality from the pulpit, that is where even such preaching is deemed a crime. In some countries this is already the case.

and

It is clear among statistics that homosexual relationships are mainly about sex, this is attributed to the fact of the amount of sexual partners a homosexual person has a year, regardless of whether he is in a monogamous “marriage” relationship.

This is presented, of course, as justification for McPherson’s and The Rock Church’s political efforts to deny rights to gay and lesbian Californians. And, of course, as an example of The Rock’s “grace and truth.”

Have we heard all of this before? Yes, we have. And we have debunked it time and time again.

These are lies. They are not misstatements, they are not exagerations, they are not misunderstandings. They are deliberate and intentional demonizations of gay men and women with the express intent of horrifying the reader and firing them up to attack the civil rights and liberties of the segment of the population that McPherson despises.

Oh but wait, it gets better:

Recently in Pennsylvania, a woman was arrested and sentenced for 47 years in prison because she had the following bumper sticker: God loves homosexuals, but homosexuality is a sin. This is only one of the many current and shocking examples of Christian prosecution presented in today’s message.

WFT?? This is a new one even for me. And it’s a new one for Google as well. This appears to be a flat out fabrication, apparantly made up by Miles McPherson himself to scare his flock through ignorance and instill hatred and fear of gay people, precisely what Chambers claims to oppose.

This is evil.

This is what “grace and truth” looks like in the Exodus Church Network.