Box Turtle Bulletin

Alan Chambers: Exodus “Backing Out of Policy Issues”

Last summer, we reported on Exodus International’s political lobbying activities, specifically the hiring of Amanda Banks as Exodus’ Director of Governmental Affairs. Ms. Banks spoke at the Exodus Freedom conference in Irvine about the many irons they had in the fire to try to make life more difficult for gays and lesbians who chose not to follow the ex-gay path.

There have been some rumblings that some Exodus-affiliated ministry leaders were dissatisfied with this latest move. Some felt that this political involvement was a unwelcome distraction to Exodus’ core mission as a ministry. And more to the point, a few worried that by maintaining such a public anti-gay posture, Exodus might actually interfere with a few of their member ministries’ efforts to engage in non-confrontational and non-judgmental outreach efforts.

Believe it or not, there are a few such ministries — perhaps a precious few, but they exist nonetheless — who really want to try to work in a less confrontational and judgmental manner. In fact, according to Exodus co-founder Michael Bussee, this was a key part of Exodus’ original vision.

More recently, Wendy Gritter, Executive Director of Toronto-based New Directions, gave a keynote address (MP3: 28.9MB/1:03:07) at an Exodus leadership conference in January. She urged her audience to put an end to its political lobbying, to stop emphasizing “change,” and to show genuine respect for those who are comfortable with their sexual orientation. She also joined several former ex-gay leaders with an apology of her own posted at Ex-Gay Watch:

I want to begin by saying I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the pain that some of those who follow this site have experienced from leaders like me and ministries like the one I lead. I’m sorry that some of you connected with this site who identify as Christian have had your faith questioned and judged. I’m sorry there is a felt need for a site like XGW. I’m sorry that it feels like legitimate concerns have not been listened to. I am sorry for the arrogance that can come across from leaders like me.

And now Exodus International president Alan Chambers talked with Ex-Gay Watch’s Dave Roberts and said that he has backtracked from his original decision to take Exodus in a more explicitly political direction. Last August, at about the same time we were reporting on Amanda Banks’ new job with Exodus, Alan “decided to back out of policy issues and our Director of Government Affairs took a position with another organization.”

But to the question of whether these changes were permanent, Alan replied:

One area that we found to be incredibly beneficial was simply sharing our stories with lawmakers. If and when there are opportunities to do that we will.

As for lobbying, promoting policies, etc., I don’t see us being involved in the near or distant future. Will we ever feel the need to get involved? Maybe — as a ministry we care about religious freedom and we are always watching to see how changes in policy might negatively impact our freedom.

They’ve used the “religious freedom” meme as an oft-repeated objection to hate crimes legislation — even though the proposed legislation only addresses violent crime and not speech, religion, or any other Constitutionally protected right.

It’s hard to know what all this means in the long run. But Beyond Ex-Gay co-founder Peterson Toscano is encouraged by some of this:

This is good news indeed and comes after much work on the part of folks both within and outside of Exodus to help the leadership to consider backing away from getting tangled in debates about LGBT rights.

Back in July during the Ex-Gay Survivor Initiative sponsored by Soulforce, ex-gay survivors shared their stories around the country with a recurring theme about harm, but also with a call to ex-gay leaders and church leaders to consider pastoral care and people’s lives before politics.

It’s not just former ex-gays who feel this way. While I was attending the Exodus conference in California last June, I ran into a few “strugglers” there who also disagreed with Exodus’ political activities. A few of them voiced to me some rather sharp of anti-gay statements made by prominent religious leaders, some of whom taped video welcome messages which were played at the start of the conference. There were a few names and faces which flashed on the screen which prompted scattered pangs of anguish and hisses among a very few members of the audience. And particular disgust was registered at those who were known for having used HIV/AIDS as a cudgel against the gay community in the past.

These changes at Exodus are long overdue and will be welcome by many both inside and outside the movement — assuming these changes are lasting and substantial. Whether that happens, only time will tell. I suppose we all will be putting together our own personal litmus tests over the next few months. Here’s mine: maybe this will mark the end of Alan’s appearances like his recent showing at the Family Impact Summit. That would be welcome news indeed.

Exodus’ Little Math Problem

Focus on the Family has congratulated Exodus on their booming success and huge growth:

Exodus International has seen a 59 percent increase in its member agencies, growing from 117 in 2003 to more than 200 in 2008.

But a 59% increase from 117 is 186. And further in the article:

Since 1976, Exodus has grown to include 150 ministries in 17 countries.

I’m pretty sure that 150 does not equal “more than 200”. But what do I know, I wasn’t home schooled.

“How Can Lies Be Truth? – Second Edition”

Since I first created a youtube film examining the “Day of Truth” a great deal has changed at Love In Action and a great deal has not changed at Exodus International and at the Alliance Defense Fund. Since my video is one of the few internet resources available on the “Day of Truth” I have decided to updated it by adding a prologue explaining developments since it was originally released.

I present “How Can Lies Be Truth? – Second Edition”

Alan Chambers “Returns To Sodomy”?

It looks like Warren Throckmorton is on some pretty entertaining email lists. He reports on an email by Fred Hutchison, a columnist on the particularly virulent website Renew America, which has gained wider circulation among social conservatives. That email goes like this:

Ex-gay leader returns to sodomy

According to Paul Cameron of the Family Research Institute Alex Chambers, (sic) Director of Exodus International, the largest Evangelical organization for ex-gays declared that he is no longer ex-gay and is not sure he has ever met an ex-gay! He is now calling to Evangelicals to reconcile with practicing gays.

Don’t you just love it when someone takes Paul Cameron’s word for something?

Warren contacted Hutchison, who responded by citing last June’s LA Times story (which says no such thing) and Cameron again, saying, “I really thought Paul Cameron and the LA Times were adequate sources because I had no intention to publish.”

I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. I also have no idea whether Cameron actually claimed that Exodus President Alan Chambers “returned to sodomy,” or if Hutchison quoted Cameron accurately. I am quite confident that Chambers hasn’t “returned to sodomy” — that much I can say. But is it too terribly wrong of me to think that this sounds like something Cameron might say?

Whenever Cameron has written about the ex-gay movement, he’s been particularly critical of Exodus. This goes at least as far back as his October 1998 newsletter, when Cameron zeroed in on what he sees as the essential problem of ex-gay ministries like Exodus — they’re too nice:

The result among ex-gay ministries has often been an attitude that those who engage in homosexuality are deserving of delicate treatment, precisely because they consider homosexuals “victims of circumstance.” In fact, the tactics of the ex-gay groups sometimes so avoid direct criticism of homosexual behavior that they almost sound like quasi-apologists for the gay movement. They frequently use the same words gays use, words like homophobia, etc. And these leaders are often reticent to call homosexuality what it is — deadly dangerous.

Boy, oh boy. I have no idea what ex-gay conferences or literature Cameron’s been exposed to, but I haven’t seen much evidence of “delicate treatment” from the ex-gay movement. But that might just be a matter of perspective. Maybe Cameron would be more approving if the ex-gay movement adopted some of the “proven techniques” developed by Nazi Germany which Cameron admires so much.

Anyway, Cameron continues:

This is one of the difficulties with the philosophy undergirding Exodus. FRI regards homosexuality not as a disease from which one must be cured, nor necessarily a bruise from an inadequate or defective childhood that must be healed, but a bad habit that must be broken no matter how it came to be acquired. Digging about in a person’s past often involves mining for face-saving excuses, and has no particular relevance to breaking adopted habits.

Since FRI regards homosexuality as merely a habit (Don’t you love how Cameron refers to himself in the institutional third person?), the solution to that habit is simple. Just stop doing it and move on:

But those in leadership positions in the ex-gay movement often appear unwilling to simply move on, get away from homosexuality, and get a life. Being involved with the Ex-ministry keeps them around homosexuality and homosexuals. Instead of “getting away and staying away,” they retain a toehold in the gay world.

Cameron’s opinion of Exodus hasn’t changed much since 1998. He returned to the subject last July, prompted by what Alan Chambers told the LA Times:

Alan Chambers directs Exodus International, widely described as the nation’s largest ex-gay ministry. But when he addresses the group’s Freedom Conference at Concordia University in Irvine this month, Chambers won’t celebrate successful ‘ex-gays.’ Truth is, he’s not sure he’s ever met one.

… [L]ately, he’s come to resent the term “ex-gay”: It’s too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. “By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete,” Chambers said.

Those comments served as a launching pad for Cameron’s long and rambling critique of the ex-gay movement which appeared in the July 2007 issue of the FRI Report (not available online). Here, Cameron loses patience with both arms of the movement – the ministerial branch represented by Exodus, as well as the clinical branch represented by NARTH and personified by one of its founders, Dr. Charles Socarides. In fact, Cameron spends nearly three pages criticizing Socarides’ psychological approaches to homosexuality.

And in the end, Cameron remains dissatisfied that nobody seems to understand what he thinks is so clear: that homosexuality is nothing more than a “habit.” And the best way to break the habit is to stay completely away from anyone else who is prone to that same habit:

‘Common sense’ holds that if one has a bad habit – involving sex or drugs or anything else that can be intensely pleasurable – that individual has got to stop feeding it. Then they must get out and stay away from those with whom they associated while indulging their habit and any of its associated pleasures….

…

FRI believes that the folk involved in Exodus and NARTH are sincere, caring people. But FRI, believing in ‘common sense,’ is skeptical about any ‘curative program’ that physically puts together many of those seeking healing from a particular bad habit.

After recalling Michael Bussee’s example (He was one of the original founders of Exodus before leaving with his partner and fellow volunteer, Cary Cooper, to become one of Exodus’ strongest critics), Cameron finally returns his attention the Chambers’ remarks on the fifth page. That’s where Cameron accuses Chambers of potentially making the same “mistake” Bussee made:

These ‘healing programs’ defy common sense. Instead of running away from homosexuality and those who participate in it, ex-gay movement leaders immerse themselves — albeit with a different motivation, a motivation to help their fellow former-habitué’s. Who knows how much this ‘re-immersion’ affected Bussee’s decision making?

And when it comes to Chambers, perhaps he hasn’t met an ex-gay because those who leave the lifestyle AND distance themselves from hanging around homosexuals or former homosexuals aren’t around for him to talk to. And why should they?

Cameron concludes:

Perhaps Alan Chambers’ ‘spilling the beans’ might be the wake-up call that the Evangelical Church can hear. If the main defense of the Church against the homosexual movement boils down to ‘converting’ homosexuals away from participation in homosexuality, it is hard to see how victory can be denied the gay movement. Yet this very tactic is being vigorously pushed by Focus on the Family at its ‘Love Won Out’ conferences.

… Chambers is calling for the Church to abandon its historic stance against homosexuality and adopt instead the ‘insights’ of psychiatric theory. He is in step with Joe Dallas, an ex-gay who delivers the last address at many of the ‘Love Won Out’ conferences. In that address Dallas compares the Church’s treatment of those who practice homosexuality to the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis’s. That’s what FRI would call taking psychiatric theory seriously!! [Emphasis in the original]

Imagine the impertinence of Joe Dallas using the Nazi angle! Why, that’s Cameron’s domain!

Clearly Cameron is not Alan Chamber’s greatest fan, nor does he think much of Exodus, ex-gay ministries or secular “reparative” therapy. Throughout his career, Cameron has made it clear that he’d rather go the punishment route instead.

Cameron seems to think that Chambers’ continuing association with “homosexuals or former homosexuals” is flirting with danger. What’s more, Cameron is outraged that Chambers occasionally speaks out about “compassion” towards the gay community. Again, I have no idea if Cameron actually claimed that Chambers “returned to sodomy.” I personally doubt it myself. But given his writings on Chambers and the ex-gay movement, it would appear that Cameron sees little difference.

Fun with Numbers

It’s a Friday. It’s time for Fun With Numbers.

Today’s exercise looks at Exodus’ retention rates. Let’s assume, for the sake of this exercise, that the sample used by Yarhouse and Jones is representative of all new Exodus participants and see what it tells us.

To start we know that 98 participants started in the study (point A) and that at some point 30 to 48 months later (point C) there were only 73. We’ll take three years as our point C for the simplicity of math. Further, we know that at the midpoint (point B) there were 85.

This tells us that between point A and point B there was a retention rate of 86% (85/98) and that between point B and point C there was also a retention rate of 86% (73/85).

But wait. We also know that of the 98 participants, 57 were new and 41 were one to three years into the program. Just for fun, let’s apply our retention rates backwards to see if we see anything about these participants.

If we assume the same retention rates, the 41 would have been 48.2 a year and a half before and 56.7 at three years back.

Wow, that’s the same as the current size sample. Perhaps a coincidence? Or perhaps this suggests that there is a consistent drop off rate of 15% every year and a half that continues for at least four years. This translates into roughly a 91% retention rate per year.

Now let’s make some guesses about how many new participants there are each year in Exodus programs.

The researchers claim that not all Exodus ministries were willing to cooperate. Even after pressure from Yarhouse and Jones and, presumably, Exodus national. So let’s suppose that only a third of new Exodians participated in the study.

Well then, in any given year there would be about 171 new Exodians. With a 91% retention rate, the following six years would show retention of these Exodians of 156, 142, 129, 117, 106, and 96. Let’s charitably assume that after six years there is no longer any drop off at all.

Obviously each new year brings more Exodians to count up. There would be 171 new participants and 156 hold overs from the previous year along with 142 from the year before that. And so on.

Also, we have to assume that these participants will some day die. Since the average age of participants was listed at 37.5 years, let’s assume they’ll live for another 40 years to the ripe old age of 77.

So let’s see how many years it would take to reach Alan Chambers’ favorite number of “hundreds of thousands”.

OH NO!!! We can’t get there!! It turns out that with the above assumptions, the number of Exodians participating in Exodus ministries plateaus in its 39th year at 3,989. (Thank God we stopped dropping off in the sixth year or it would plateau at 1,854).

Oh gosh!! Well, maybe Yarhouse and Jones got less than 1/3 participation. Maybe only one out of ten Exodians joined the study and maybe really each year there are 570 new recruits. Ah, that’s much better. The peak participation rises to 13,430.

But that’s still a far cry from “hundreds of thousands”. In order for there to be 100,000 participants ever at Exodus, with a 91% annual retention rate for six years after which there is NO drop off, and a 40 additional year life expectancy (and participation), Exodus would have to have 4,249 new participants each year, or an average of 28 new participants each year in each of Exodus’ 150 affiliates (news reports suggest that the total membership in any given group is in the single digits).

Which would mean that Yarhouse and Jones’ study used a 1.3% population sample of 57 and called it representative. Or, alternately, that Chambers’ claims of “hundreds of thousands” is nothing more than a figment of his imagination. You do the math.

Exodus Press Release Spins Study

Yesterday, I made the mistake of promising a detailed review of the synopsis from Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse of their new ex-gay study. Little did I know that unexpected company would be dropping in this weekend. So watch this space for my review sometime Monday.

Meanwhile, Exodus is pleased as punch about Jones’ and Yarhouse’s ex-gay study:

Alan Chambers, a former homosexual and President of Exodus International, responded to the study findings at today’s press conference, “Finally, there is now scientific evidence to prove what we as former homosexuals have known all along – that those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction can experience freedom from it.”

Alan Chambers’ sweeping generalization “that those who struggle.. can experience freedom” isn’t supported by the study. At best, a few (namely, eleven out of this sample of seventy-three) found freedom — that is, if freedom means “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment” as Jones and Yarhouse so carefully put it. Another seventeen decided that celibacy was good enough. Not what I’d call freedom, but hey — different strokes, right?

Update: Here’s the review I promised: A Preliminary Review of Jones and Yarhouse’s “Ex-Gay? A Longitudinal Study”

Exodus Sharpens Its Political Presence

Attending the Exodus Freedom Conference last June in Irvine, California, was an eye-opening experience for me. For one, it blew away many of my stereotypes, which is always a good thing. But I also learned a few new, disturbing things that had escaped my attention before. And one of the things that dismayed me was how increasingly political Exodus had become.

While I was dismayed, I can’t say I was surprised. Exodus under Alan Chambers has always had a political edge to many of their activities. Last fall, Alan Chambers told Terry Gross on NPR’s “Fresh Air” that he was proud of political direction he has brought to Exodus:

And so as the President of Exodus, I have brought a new dynamic to the ministry in reaching out and dealing with these very sensitive policy issues and that’s something that I believe will continue to be a part of the life of the ministry of Exodus.

I got to see that firsthand on Wednesday June 30, the second day of the Exodus conference, when Amanda Banks, Exodus’s brand new Director of Governmental Affairs held an informal talk called “Revolutionizing the Public Square.” Playing on the “Revolution” theme of the conference, she talked about the unique role Exodus is playing in “bringing about a revolution, to affect a radical change in” the larger culture — more specifically, in public policy.

The Focus-Exodus Connection

Unlike most employees at Exodus, Amanda Banks is not a “former homosexual,” although she said she has a family member “affected by homosexuality.” She graduated with honors in public policy from Indiana University, and joined Focus on the Family to spend four years as Focus’s chief liaison to Congress working as a federal policy analyst.

It just so happened that her cubicle at Focus’s Colorado Springs headquarters was located next to Melissa Fryrear’s, a prominent Love Won Out speaker. Through Banks’s day-to-day association with Fryrear, she got to know Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas and their “growing desire to be relevant to the culture” — in other words, to make Exodus a more explicitly political organization. She and her husband moved to back to their home state of Indiana and she was hired by Exodus last March. She works from her home in Indiana.

But Amanda Banks still retains extensive ties with Focus on the Family. In addition to her position with Exodus, she is also vice-president of The Wabash Group, a public affairs firm dedicated to conservative political candidates and causes. Her husband Jim Banks is President. He is also a former Focus on the Family organizer for their Family Policy Councils, and the Wabash Group list Focus on the Family at the very top of their list of clients and employers.

During her remarks at the Exodus conference, Banks repeated Exodus’s mission statement: “Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality.” She noted that when most people discuss the mission statement, they focus on the last part of the statement: “a world impacted by homosexuality.” But she said that her job at Exodus was a little different, emphasizing the first part: “mobilizing the Body of Christ.”

To Exodus, “mobilizing the Body of Christ” specifically means political engagement. Banks cited the “radical impact of the gay lobby” and lamented that there was no “alternative voice,” a void that she said Exodus is uniquely qualified to fill by acting as “a door to our stories and our truth.” And by way of example, she described the political lobbying trip that Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas and others took to Washington, D.C. last April.

The Look On Their Faces

Everyone in Washington had met gay activists — she claims that the Congressional majority “is in the pockets” of the Human Rights Campaign — but according to Banks almost nobody is aware of the existence of ex-gays. And so several Senators and Representative were visibly surprised to meet and talk to Thomas and Chambers who said they had “changed.” (She didn’t say which definition of “change” Chambers used.) This was a new concept to them, and she said their presence and testimony served as a power example to those they met.

And this gets to the heart of Exodus’s involvement in the political arena. By presenting examples of people who claimed to have changed — even if they really hadn’t — it drives home the message that because they could change, sexuality in general was changeable and not deserving of recognition of any sort in Federal law.

Banks later added that the April trip was not limited to Exodus staff. There were fifty Exodus members and friends representing five like-minded groups. They held fifty-five meetings and dozens of drop-offs when they couldn’t meet with Senators or Representatives personally.

Since then, her role with Exodus has been to perform coalition leadership activities, direct lobbying, and provide talking points to like-minded politicians. On that last point, she claimed success in helping politicians talk about issues affecting the gay community without sounding like a bigot. She also said that one Senator regularly consults with Exodus to formulate his messages and fine-tune his speeches.

Choosing the Issues

Banks described the process they go through in deciding which political issues to get involved in. The chief consideration was “policy proposals that would infringe on the ministry that we do.” And in deciding whether to get involved, she said they ask themselves two questions: 1) Does the issue affect our ministries or members, and 2) Do we have an opportunity to offer a unique perspective and opportunity to influence? And on this second point, the role of Exodus’s “door to our stories” becomes very clear: if “change is possible” then laws granting equality and protections for gays and lesbians are unnecessary.

She talked about a couple of specific examples, starting with hate crime legislation. She repeated the same lies that we’ve heard before (it elevates one group of victims above another, it threatens pastors ability to preach the gospel, gays aren’t economically disadvantaged and therefore aren’t oppressed, it creates a category of “thought crimes”). And for good measure she threw in a few more, saying that hate crimes legislation would include other “orientations” such as pedophilia and polygamy — a charge that comes straight out the Traditional Values Coalition’s playbook, and one that I haven’t heard any Exodus official use before.

Banks also talked about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which she falsely claims would require religious organizations to hire people who would threaten their mission. In fact, section six of the bill specifically exempts religious organizations from the act.

Building a grass-roots organization.

Banks then announced the creation of ExodusRoots, a grass roots initiative which sends out email alerts (like the one you see here — click to see the full size version) to members urging them to contact their representatives on various issues. She urged her audience to call their Congressional representatives rather than using email or mail, saying that phone calls are more effective at the federal level. But at the state and local level, she said that emails are much more effective because staffs are either much smaller or nonexistent, and the officeholder is much more likely to receive the email directly.

And speaking of the state and local level, future plans for Exodus’s political activity includes expansion to state and local politics. She noted that Chambers and Thomas both testified in Massachusetts against same-sex marriage, and lobbied against domestic partnership benefits in Orlando.

With Banks’s new position dedicated solely to political lobbying, Exodus under Alan Chambers’s leadership is now locked and loaded to take on all fronts in the culture wars. Exodus has moved far beyond its original mission of being a non-political ministry dedicated solely to helping men and women who are dissatisfied with their sexuality. Exodus’s previous protestations that they only want to “reach out” have now fallen by the wayside.

Now they are committing valuable resources to fight against gays and lesbians who are perfectly satisfied with who they are, with the intended result of making their lives as difficult as possible. Exodus is spending the money it raises from its member ministries to raise the political stakes ever higher. But it’s hard to imagine how their latest efforts will serve their clients and make their lives any better — unless it’s to make sound alternatives to the ex-gay “lifestyle” as untenable as possible.

See also:

Is Exodus a Lobbyist Group?

Part 5: “Love Won Out”: A Candid Explanation For “Change”

As I said in previous posts, most of the people who attended the “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix on February 10 were not gay or lesbian “strugglers” seeking change. That audience was mainly made up of concerned parents, family and friends of gays and lesbians. In fact, the whole purpose of the all-day “Love Won Out” conference was to introduce people to the world of ex-gay movement and the idea that “freedom from homosexuality is possible.”

But the very people most affected by this message — gays and lesbians themselves — were largely absent. There was just a small smattering according to one show of hands. And so most of the concerned parents, family members, and friends of gays and lesbians who made up the bulk of the audience were typically unaccompanied by the very people everyone was talking about. This meant that as these people heard speakers from Exodus, NARTH and Focus on the Family (some of whom described themselves as “former homosexuals”) talking about what it meant to be gay, but most of these audience members didn’t have their own children or loved ones with them to talk about the things they heard. So the speakers were free to characterize these loved ones’ lives without fear of contradiction.

And this, I believe, was one of the worst shortcomings of the whole experience. During breaks between sessions, I heard several parents project what they heard onto their own children — sometimes without any evidence that what they heard actually applied to their child’s experience. I personally witnessed one parent break into tears with the new-found certainty that her son must have been molested. “You heard her. That lady (Melissa Fryrear) said so,” she said between tears. I also heard other parents who had already had these conversations with their children but didn’t believe them because what they heard from the “experts” at the conference. “Well, she said nothing ever happened, but…”

And if the abject fear that one’s child might have been molested wasn’t bad enough, there were the fathers who blamed themselves for their sons’ homosexuality. My heart sunk when I heard them groan on hearing NARTH Presdient Joseph Nicolosi saying, “We advise fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, another man will.” I talked to quite a few fathers who seemed to take Nicolosi’s theory quite personally, and they were greatly burdened by it. More recently, I spoke with a father who attended a different Love Won Out conference. He referred to Nicolosi’s talk and confided, “I can only hope that someday Jesus will forgive me.”

The other main focus of the conference — when it wasn’t focused on the presumed “causes” of homosexuality — was on the meaning and nature of “change.” As speaker after speaker promised a “complete and radical change,” these parents pinned their hopes on each of these promises. And for every one of the featured speakers in the general sessions, the nature of change was simple: a very specific change in sexual attractions or orientation.

Joseph Nicolosi was the keynote speaker that morning, and he described a succession of clients who had “no more homosexual attractions” and whose homosexuality became “nonexistent.” Immediately following Nicolosi’s talk, we heard Exodus Board Chairman Mike Haley give his life story as a former homosexual, complete with pictures of his beautiful wife and children on the large multimedia screen behind him. Soon after that, we heard Focus On the Family’s Melissa Fryrear declare her infatuation with red-headed men who would look good in a kilt. (She jokingly declared, “That movie Braveheart changed my life!”) And later that afternoon, we heard Nancy Heche, actress Anne Heche’s mother, describe a special blessing that delivered her daughter from a “lesbian affair” with Ellen DeGeneres.

A Candid Exception

While I believe most of the descriptions of change were either misleading or unrealistic, there was one candid exception that I wish more of these parents could have heard. It would have given them a better idea of what their sons and daughters would be up against in pursuing “change” — especially the sort of change promised by the featured speakers.

During the first set of breakout sessions just before lunchtime, Exodus president Alan Chambers gave a talk titled, “Hope for Those Who Struggle.” As the title suggests, this workshop was targeted towards the few who were struggling with their sexuality — although undoubtedly there were a number of parents and family members there as well. But only about 75 people attended his session, a tiny fraction of the 800 attendees at the conference overall. So generally speaking, this was a relatively “safe” audience, safe enough for Alan to try to set realistic expectations for change and describe what change really means.

Alan began his talk by describing his own unrealistic expectations for “change.” When he first began to attend an Exodus-affiliated ministry at the age of eighteen, he thought that his sexual attractions would change from gay to straight in pretty short order. But after a few years in the ministry, he learned that his goals were unrealistic, and he warned his small audience that they needed to adjust their goals as well:

And I’m going to shatter your world here: heterosexuality shouldn’t be your number one goal. Whether that’s for yourself or for your kid or for your loved one or your friend or your family member. Heterosexuality shouldn’t have been my number one goal. The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality. It’s holiness.

And I think we in the church often get that wrong. We think, okay, the best thing for this person who’s involved with homosexuality or involve with lesbianism is that they come out of that lifestyle and go into heterosexuality. If that’s all we think is necessary, we’re setting people up for a terrible fall. The opposite of homosexuality isn’t heterosexuality. It’s holiness.

Part of this statement reinforces a larger theme of the conference, that homosexuality is incompatible with Christianity. Here, he sets it as being “opposite” of holiness, which only adds to the burden of those who were there. After all, wickedness is more commonly understood as being the opposite of holiness. So casting homosexuality on the same side of the spectrum as wickedness is a terribly damaging way to characterize the lives of gays and lesbians everywhere. Besides, heterosexuality is not, in and of itself, holy either. But that went unsaid, which was pretty much on par for Love Won Out.

But most of this statement represents a dramatic departure from the rest of the conference in terms of the nature and likelihood of change. It certainly stands at the polar opposite of Dr. Nicolosi’s absolute confidence that homosexuality becomes “nonexistent” once an emotional connection is made. According to Allan, same sex attractions may not necessarily diminish no matter how hard one tries or how many prayers are said. Instead, the “change” that takes place is not a change in sexual orientation; it’s a change in faith. The “conversion” is not sexual orientation conversion, it’s a religious one.

“I Deny What Comes Naturally To Me”

More specifically, this change is actually the exchanging of one’s identity from gay to Christian, since the two identities cannot coexist in the worldview of Exodus or Focus On the Family. This emphasis on a change in identity is at the very heart of the ex-gay message. But even with this new identity as a Christian, merely forsaking the old identity of gay or homosexual doesn’t mean that one’s homosexuality will actually go away:

… Second Corinthians 5:17 says those who are in Christ are a new creation. The old is gone and the new has come. And again in the Christian community — I’m pointing my finger at myself too — we often hijack that verse to mean those who come to Christ, those who come to Jesus are perfect. Everything’s gone, the old life is gone, and the new has come and it’s all going to be wonderful from here.

And I think again, we do a disservice to people that we share that Scripture with, that we explain that Scripture to when we say that once you have a relationship with Jesus Christ that it’s all going to be better and you’re never going to struggle again. And the truth is, you’re going to dash your expectations that way. If that’s what we expect of ourselves and what we expect of other people, we’re going to be endlessly disappointed.

And this is where Alan’s talk turned very personal. He cited Matthew 16:24 (“Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.'”) before getting to the very heart of the matter of “change” in his own life:

…In the early days of when I started speaking and debating and doing all sorts of things related to the issue of homosexuality and took my position with Exodus, people used to say, “Oh Alan, you’re just in denial.” I used to get so mad when they’d say, “You’re just in denial. You’re just denying who you’re really are.” And I’d say, “No I’m not. I’m not in denial! I’m not in denial!”

And then I came to the place where I realized, you know what? God calls us as Christians to a life of denial. I love that today I realize that I do live a life of denial. Not denial of who I used to be, not denial of who I could be today, but I deny what comes naturally to me.

…And so every single morning — this is a ritual for me — I wake up and I say, “Dear Lord, I can’t make it today without You. I choose to deny what comes naturally to me. I choose to submit my will to the Lordship of your Son, Jesus Christ. And I choose better. I choose to follow You, I choose to allow Your Holy Spirit to walk before me, to guide me, to speak for me.”

… And if we think we can get up one day and decide we don’t have to pray about it anymore, then we’re mistaken. So expect a life of obedience. Expect a life of denial.

Only 75 people heard this message that day, which is a terrible shame. This was, I think, the most honest, honorable, and vulnerable talk I heard the entire day. It seems to me that this was the message that everyone should have heard at Love Won Out.

Two Audiences, Two Messages

But it appears that this reservoir of truth and vulnerability is rationed only to safe, like-minded listeners. How else to explain this talk talking place in a small breakout session instead of one of the main plenary sessions?

If everyone had heard that talk, they would have understood without question what “change” was all about. So why was this talk reserved for a small, safe audience of “those who struggle”? Were they afraid that parents would become disillusioned on hearing what the reasonable expectations for change should be? Did Love Won Out organizers not want the larger audience to know that their sons and daughters faced a lifetime of struggle? Were they afraid of shattering those parents’ dreams of weddings and grandchildren?

One thing’s for certain. If most of the Love Won Out audience wasn’t safe enough for Alan’s message, then the general public certainly isn’t. Four months before the Phoenix conference, Alan Chambers appeared on NPR’s “Fresh Air” and told Terry Gross:

I have talked with and met people who say that they have walked completely away and will never struggle with that again or have never struggled with that again. I believe it’s …. there’s everyone on the continuum. I often like to use the phrase that I will never be as though I never was. I can’t forget where I used to be and I can’t deny the fact that I’m still human and that I could be tempted in every way.

But today where I live my life, and I believe this is true of those who would say they have successfully left homosexuality, homosexuality isn’t something that controls them anymore. Where at one point in our lives, in my life, I could not resist homosexuality. I could not resist the urge. I could not get those thoughts out of my mind. I was exclusively attracted to members of the same sex and acted out on that on a regular basis. Today I have what I would describe as a Garden of Eden relationship with my wife and that she is the object of my desire. She is who I am attracted to…

Then, just a few days before this Love Won Out conference took place, Alan Chambers appeared on CNN where he denied trying to control his thoughts, while at the same time repeating the oblique phrase, “I will never be as though I never was.”

But just a week before the 2007 Exodus Freedom Conference, in Irvine, California, it appears that Alan decided to test the waters by giving the larger world an explanation more consistent with what he had been telling his much smaller Love Won Out audience. The Los Angeles Times reported:

With years of therapy, Chambers says, he has mostly conquered his own attraction to men; he’s a husband and a father, and he identifies as straight. But lately, he’s come to resent the term “ex-gay”: It’s too neat, implying a clean break with the past, when he still struggles at times with homosexual temptation. “By no means would we ever say change can be sudden or complete,” Chambers said.

And yet this small concession — which focused mainly on what sort of language to use for describing “change” — appeared to be too much. After mounting pressure from fellow anti-gay activists, Alan issued a partial retraction through an American Family Association web site:

“[‘Ex-gay’ is ] something that comes across as confusing,” he says. “And while I understand why people have used it over the years — it’s easy to use in a soundbite — to say that someone is primarily described by the behavior that they used to be involved in I think is a disservice to the people who have found freedom from homosexuality.”

And that includes himself, says Chambers. “[R]eally, more accurate labels for me would be, ‘I’m a man. I’m a Christian. I’m a husband. I’m a father. I’m a son.'” Chambers says he is considering whether to ask the newspaper to issue a clarification of his remarks.

Exodus and Focus On the Family appear to provide two distinct faces when they talk about change. There is the public face, the one that is given to the general population through billboards, radio commercials and web sites which promise that “change is possible.” A radio commercial promoting the Exodus conference in Irvine promised a “sudden, radical, complete change.” At Love Won Out, parents, friends and family members heard specific, clinical language in which homosexuality becomes “nonexistent.” And whenever Exodus and Focus On the Family speakers appear before the cameras and microphones of major media outlets, they are very careful to leave the definition of change to the assumptions of the audience: a change in sexual orientation, even if they rarely say it explicitly.

But in a small workshop targeted specifically to “those who struggle,” we get to see a far more private message about “change.” And Alan repeated and expanded on this message during the opening night of the Exodus Freedom conference in June. There, before another “safe” audience of more than eight hundred people (unlike at Love Won Out, the overwhelming majority of this audience was “strugglers”), Alan repeated and expanded upon the remarks he made during that tiny breakout session at Love Won Out. And here, he challenged his audience to think about how they might respond if their orientations didn’t change:

And the truth is, what if circumstances never change? I think you have to ask yourself that question. What if your circumstances never change, like my friend that I said her feelings haven’t changed much in twenty years? What if your feelings don’t change? What if your circumstances don’t change? What if it’s still difficult in a year as it is today? Are you going to stand on the promises of God? Are you going to choose to fight? Or are you going to give in?

Michael Bussee was one of the original founders of Exodus before leaving the organization and later becoming one of its sharpest critics. He described one current ex-gay Exodus leader as saying they were just “Christians with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies.” Alan appears to be inching towards that candid assessment.

But I have to wonder if he can maintain this message for larger audiences while still holding out hope for a “complete, radical change.” And I have to wonder if he can sustain that message when Exodus’ political lobbying on Capital Hill depends on the assertion that if “real change” is possible, gays and lesbians don’t need equal rights. It seems that too much is at stake to allow too many doubts to creep in on what change really means.

We already saw the howls of protest when Alan made his comparatively innocuous remarks to the Los Angeles Times. While we can hope that the two-audiences, two-messages may fall by the wayside, only time will tell whether abandoning that approach will be compatible with the broader cultural and political goals of Exodus and Focus On the Family.

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

Contrasting National Ex-Gay Hype with Local Ministries

For years we’ve heard tales of “former homosexuals just like me” touted by national spokesmen with a sincere delivery, a confident smile, and a wife and children hovering just within view of the cameras. That is the public face of the ex-gay movement, the one presented when politicians seek justification for denying civil equality to gay individuals or couples.

The Miami New Times featured a story today on their local ex-gay ministry, Worthy Creations. Those familiar with the movement will not read much new; it covers the history of the movement and its many embarrassments along with its wishes, dreams, and claims. But these stories that sporadically appear around the nation which highlight local ministries give a flavor that seems miles from the slick image that Exodus’ national office sells.

Although Exodus’ Randy Thomas claims an informal study in 2003 resulted in 11,000 weekly attendants at their 150 ministries (an average of 73), at the meeting attended by the reporter, there were only six strugglers – a number far more consistent with what we read in other local reports. And unlike the happily married ex-gays that show up to press conferences and White House events, the local ex-gay seems to be more like those described in this article:

Bowing his clean-shaven head, he flutters his dark eyelashes and nods reassuringly toward the effeminate, lanky Miami Beach man seated across from him.

“Exactly!” [Joe] Alicea beams, palms open, arms outstretched toward the heavens. “You are not homosexual.”

Lowering his hands, he purses his lips, raises a tweezed eyebrow, and pensively taps a manicured finger on his cheek.

“You’re not homosexual,” Alicea repeats, in the same stupefied tone an astronomer might use if someone suggested the Earth were flat. “You are just s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-e.”

It’s immediately clear that the journalist wasn’t impressed or convinced by Worthy Creations. Yet even considering bias, it’s hard to dismiss the anxious hope, but obvious futility that was evident behind the bright claims of those she interviewed:

In the half-decade since joining the ex-gay ministry, Sarah has not had any sexual contact with a man. She hasn’t felt an urge to kiss one yet, either. In fact she hasn’t even reached the point of wanting to go out on a date with a guy. But she is convinced she will someday.

“I’m not there yet, that’s all. It’s a process; it takes time,” she says with a half-hearted smile. “Am I attracted to men? Of course,” she adds. Asked what kind of physical traits she finds attractive in men, she repeats the question and then pauses. “It’s more about who the person is inside.”

Or that of the leader

“When I left the gay lifestyle after 13 years, I wasn’t struggling. I was gay, period. I had a boyfriend,” Alicea recalls. That was five years ago. Like Sarah, he tells his flock, he has yet to embark on a heterosexual relationship. Like Sarah, he says he isn’t ready yet.

Instead he is celibate. But he is happy — happier than he has ever been.

Or even of some in national leadership

“My sexual orientation shift isn’t alleged. I assure you it’s real,” says Thomas, who “left” the gay lifestyle in 1992. “I have dated women over the years and I’ve had two very serious relationships…. I won’t have sex with a woman until I’m married, though, because of my Biblical sexual ethic.”

All in all, the article leaves the reader with a deep sense of sadness. And your heart can’t help but go out to those who, like Sarah and Joe, struggle on and on, year after year, in the hopes attaining an easy celibacy and seek that point where – perhaps after 15 years or so – they too can have sexless “serious relationships”.

Exodus’s “Dialogue” Turns Ugly

Peterson Toscano and Christine Bakke, two of the organizers of the Ex-Gay Survivors Conference repeatedly invited several Exodus leaders to use the opportunity for their all being in town at the same time to begin a dialogue between ex-gay ministries and the survivors of those ministries. Despite tremendous pressure, a very few Exodus-affiliated ministry leaders were brave enough to engage in that private and confidential dialog.

I’m not privy to those conversations. But I’m pretty sure no minds were changed and no arguments were won. But I’m also happy to see that there are those who dedicate themselves to ministering God’s Word, and who trust in Him while reaching out to those with whom they disagree. I personally saw a few people wearing Exodus conference wristbands at the Survivor’s conference. They were respectful and respected.

But as that was going on, Exodus president Alan Chambers turned up the volume with an unusually snarky and sarcastic response to the apology issued by former Exodus-affiliated leaders:

In the early 1990’s I was a participant in an Exodus Member Ministry and was negatively affected by Darlene Bogle’s decision to go back into homosexuality. To have a leader who had written a book, led a ministry and spoken at conferences make such a decision was challenging for me in those early days. I was disappointed and mad. But, I also understood as an adult that we all make mistakes and that just because Darlene went back didn’t mean that I couldn’t make it. I appreciate the apology she made, but I don’t think she was apologizing to people like me.

Chambers’s statement goes on like this. He thinks Michael Bussee, one of the original co-founders of Exodus should “move on” and (apparently) just go away.

This is a very surprising response to be coming from Alan, but he has been under some pressure lately. He took a lot of flack for his brave stance in a recent LA Times article. When Chambers delivered his opening remarks to the Exodus conference, he promised that he wasn’t going to back down from that position.

And on top of that flack, maybe the Ex-Gay survivor’s conference was just too much for him. Alan is more accustomed to dealing with protesters who, frankly, know very little about the ex-gay movement. But this time Exodus was met not with protesters but with ordinary people who know very well what the ex-gay movement has meant in their own lives. This clearly put the Exodus leadership in a situation they hadn’t seen before, and they handled it poorly.

Exodus vice-president Randy Thomas is quoted as saying, “We are always in ongoing communication with people who disagree with us, people with similar testimonies… We definitely will be in communication with them.” But the response so far has been to treat this “communication” as yet another battle in the culture war.

There may be many reasons for Alan to lash out the way he did, but there really aren’t any excuses. When one person apologizes to another, a third person doesn’t act like a jerk in reaction. Alan met heartfelt sentiment with snark and sarcasm. This behavior is beneath him. I find this response to be particularly disappointing because I know that Alan is a much better man than this. I’m sure this won’t be the last chance for dialogue, and maybe next time Alan will be more free to respond according to his better nature.

Update: Darlene Bogle Responds

Exodus Measures Dialogue in Win/Lose Terms

During the Friday morning session of the Exodus Freedom Conference, Randy Thomas made several general announcements — please turn off the cell phones, a car is parked in a no parking zone, if you lost your room key please check with Lost and Found, general stuff like that.

And then he had another announcement. A group of “homosexual activists” invited several Exodus leaders to dinner for Friday evening for dialogue. He said that they didn’t know who all received the invitation, or whether activists might have “infiltrated” the hall to distribute more (As far as I know, they hadn’t). But if anyone had received an invitation, they were to meet with Alan Chambers.

Throughout the week of the Exodus Freedom Conference, several of the speakers spoke movingly of the need for dialogue, repentance and reconciliation because of how some Christian leaders have adversely interacted with gays and lesbians. They even denounced what they see as the false polarities of the culture war, recognizing that Americans are tired of the constant bickering. They appear to be acutely aware that many of those in that very hall who are struggling with their sexuality have been victims of the culture war along with the rest of us who aren’t struggling.

But when an opportunity comes along to engage in dialogue with those who were among their brothers and sisters, it seems Exodus is not ready to talk. At least one ex-gay ministry leader indicated that there is tremendous pressure being placed on them not to attend the dialogue. And anther Exodus leader defended that decision saying, “If we go, they win. And if we don’t go, they win.”

Win or lose. That is the calculus of a culture war. It’s unfortunate that Exodus choses to value dialogue according to who wins or loses. Such calculations merely perpetuate the culture wars. And when that happens everybody loses.

Los Angeles Times Coverage of the Apologies by Former Ex-Gay Leaders

This morning’s Los Angeles Times reports on yesterday’s apology, as did several local radio outlets in Southern California. The apology by three former Exodus and Exodus-affiliated leaders is getting a lot of attention, although it’s probably not the attention Exodus would like to see.

Meanwhile, the Exodus Freedom Conference continues on its third day. Tonight’s featured speaker will be Rev. Ken Hutcherson, the virulently anti-gay pastor from Redmond, Washington who has been stirring up anti-gay sentiment in Latvia.

Transexual Children and Exodus

Paula Zahn NOW offers a chance to hear from people who matter, talking about the most pressing, most relevant and most essential topics of the day. – CNN

Tonight at 8:00 pm Eastern Time the people who matter will include Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International and Dr. Warren Throckmorton. Also interviewed were a board member of the Transyouth Family Advocates and her 7 year old affirmed female daughter. The subject matter will be

Boys who want to be girls, women who want to be men and gays who want to be straight. Uncovering changing attitudes and changing lifestyles.

Those who can, please tune in and report back. I, for one, am curious about the connection CNN is making between transexuality and religion-based reorientation efforts.

Which Conference is that, Randy?

This weekend in Irvine, CA there will be two seminars which address ex-gay ministries.  One, Exodus International’s Freedom Conference which started today, will be those who struggle with same-sex attractions but have “walked away from the homosexual lifesyle”.  The other will be the Ex-Gay Survivor’s Conference where our own Jim Burroway will be a presenter.

The Christian Post reports the beliefs of the executive VP of Exodus, Randy Thomas, this way:

There are many people, however, at the conference who have “been there, done that” and can share what God has done in their life and in bringing about freedom, according to Thomas.

Ummmm… which conference is that, Randy?

Randy Thomas Projects His Experiences Onto All Of Us

Exodus vice-president Randy Thomas responded to the Ex-Gay Survivor’s conference by claiming that the conference will “try to project their experience onto all of us” and, as reported by CitizenLink, “deny people hope.”

The Ex-Gay Survivor’s conference, taking place on the same weekend as the final days of the Exodus Freedom Conference in Irvine, will provide a forum in which the approximately 70% of those who fail to change (according to Exodus’ own admission) can share their stories. Peterson Toscano counters, “Our gathering next week is about people, not protest. It’s about pastoral care, not propaganda.”

And since it’s not about propaganda — or projection — Peterson notes that those stories will likely describe the good and the bad:

As we gather this week in Irvine with people from as far away as Australia, England and NYC, we will unpack our pasts, the motivations behind our actions to change and suppress our sexuality, the good we gained from our efforts, and the harm that affects some of us even today.

But if Thomas is concerned about “projection,” he should mind his own house. There, he will find homosexuality described as a disorder, the vast majority of gays will be described as victims of a poor childhood or sexual abuse, and a succession of prominent ex-gay leaders will describe homosexuality as a miserable existence of meaningless relationships, rampant narcissism, promiscuity and drug abuse. Gays and lesbians will be reduced to merely being “those are struggling with same sex attraction,” and the “gay-identified” will be denied the dignity of their own experiences by people who were not born Christian but who have since chosen the lifestyle of the “Christian-identified.”

By Exodus’ own admission, for every person who “comes out of homosexuality,” there are at least two more who don’t. (This assumes Exodus’s “success rate” can be verified. So far, it can’t.) But at that Exodus gathering, those who decide to gather elsewhere to share their experiences — many of whom fell outside of Exodus’s own promises and lost the very hope that Thomas accuses Beyond Ex-Gay of denying — will be dismissed as “protesters.”

I don’t know about you, but I think Randy Thomas doth project too much.

See also:

Exodus to Ex-Gay Survivors: I’m Just Not That Into You