Ex-gay survivor Shawn O’Donnell has documented the personal harm done to him on his blog and in recent videos as well as a collage that was personally delivered to NARTH.
Exodus President Alan Chambers retorted on O’Donnell’s blog:
Harm? Come on, Shawn. No one is being harmed by Exodus offering people a choice. You KNOW better.
But no one said that choice causes harm, and Chambers knows that. What at Exodus has caused harm?
- Exodus’ practice blaming of parents, sex abuse, and modern gender roles for the roots of all individuals’ homosexualities, and its suppression of information about biological roots
- Its abusive combination of youths with sexually troubled adults in group counseling sessions at Love In Action
- Its misrepresentation of diverse Christian views regarding homosexuality
- Its failure to provide informed consent to those who are pressured into making a “choice”
- Its refusal to provide aftercare to those who have been mistreated by reparative therapists
That harm often occurs is beyond debate: It has already been proven — by survivors of these programs, by mental health authorities, and by independent study of those who have survived ex-gay programs (Shidlo, Ariel; Schroeder, Michael. “Changing Sexual Orientation: A Consumer’s Report.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 33, no. 3 (June 2002): 249-259; abstract available here).
By essentially telling his organization’s former patient/clients to shut up and go away, Chambers demonstrates a cavalier contempt not only for doctors and experts, but also for the very people whom Exodus claims to treat and minister to.
Chambers’ recent inhospitality to former ex-gays suggests to me that he is not, at the moment, in possession of Christian grace. To him, human souls — especially sexual strugglers — are just political pawns in his culture war.
Additional analysis:
Christine Bakke [on the unethical “choices” that are marketed by Exodus]
Peterson Toscano [on the “choice” that Chambers must face]
I think the assumption of total change from gay to straight is a definite harm issue. Now, Exodus may not be saying that per se, but the perception is that Exodus can help to do that. This hurts individuals, marriages, and society.
One week after some people all but fell over themselves to congratulate the “new Alan”, we are again reminded of the “real Alan”. Yet another confirmation of a history stretching back to the beginning of his involvement with anything exgay.
All the sweet-talking in public to flog his baseless product cannot hide the stench: Alan Chambers is nowt but a steaming heap of callous indifference in that role. An indifference from greed, a burning need for self-importance and a long history of personal dishonesty.
There is no harm in “choice”.
It is also not what Exodus offers.
Exodus deliberately aligns social prejudice with heart-felt religious fervour and blind faith, and causes some people think the choice is to either submit to the cracked, overwhelmingly futile programs of Exodus — or face ignorance, hatred and discrimination in this life; and eternal damnation ever after that.
That isn’t choice. That is thuggery.
It results in repression, or vindictive recrimination. It causes people to doubt their own worth, and mutilate themselves and those around them.
There’s the harm, and even in the face of their evidence you have nothing to offer the victim but abuse. Blind, deaf, stone-cold abuse.
Alan, you’re dangerous charlatan.
To repeat: one day your children will be ashamed of you.
I think that, within the mental health field, there is harm in some choice. For instance, many of the methods and techniques used during the “recovered memory” craze of the 1990s were found by good, empirical research to have created at least some of those memories. The techniques most implicated in the creation of false memories are generally considered unethical to use or offer now, regardless of a client’s perception that such therapies might be beneficial.
Okay, a bit of a tangent, I know that neither Chambers nor Exodus are wholly or solely aligned with the mental health field, but it seemed a relevant point.
That’s because when it comes down to it, a psychologist or counselor is employed for their expertise and knowledge, not listening skills, just as MDs are hired for their knowledge about disease, not their ability to comfort the ill. To describe it as consumer choice is to miss the boat, and when the concept of consumer choice is dragged into the mental health professions, as NARTH attempts to do, it undermines all of our abilities as scientists and clinicians to provide the expertise we are paid for.
This is why I personally feel it is so important that the next movement within the APAs be to remove this red herring of “consumer choice,” and focus on the real issue – providing meaningful and empirically validated treatments to our clients. As the aforementioned Shidlo & Schroeder article demonstrates, the likelihood of “change,” of any sort, is generally specious. Likewise, the Spitzer study so widely touted by Exodus was riddled with methodological flaws that have been rehashed so many times I won’t do so again. Presenting the idea that such change is a service that a psychotherapist can offer, however, has never been demonstrated, and with over a century of claims and case studies under our collective belts, the idea that it is ethical to either provide “choice” or be “neutral” is quickly disappearing. An MD that prescribed snake oil and positive thinking for cervical cancer, as opposed to medication or surgery, would be considered remiss. If psychology is going to retain its salience as a clinical field, it also needs to become more responsive and punative toward therapists providing fictitious therapies for non-disorders.
When is someone going to sue Exodus for the harm done by its programs? In my view, that is the only thing that will stop Exodus and its supporters from continuing to market false and dangerous claims/techniques of treatment. I’d be happy to lend my time and experience to such a worthy cause.
Michael Hamar
Michael B. Hamar, P. C.
Norfolk, Virginia 23517
Exodus and its affiliate ministries are very careful to claim they are just that: ministries. Suing religions for the harm they’ve brought upon the public is a slippery slope, but could certainly prove to be a rich source of revenue if the constitutional protections afforded religion could be circumvented.
Most of the successful prosecutions have been in areas where religions have engaged in the practice of professions without a license or in cases where children have been endangered by specific practices. (Most related to the practice of Christian Science.)
Except for the minors who are forced to attend, involvement in these programs is generally voluntary, and the claims made by Exodus are non-specific, which makes any claim of non-performance very difficult to prove.
Mike,
Do you think that there’s a chance that the comment in question was not posted by Alan Chambers? If you look closely, the comment is not tied to a Blogger account — otherwise his name on this page would be a link to a Blogger profile — but rather was made using a write-in identity.
I understand that there’s a high volume of content circulating the internet following the Exodus Freedom Conference and Ex-gay Survivors Conference, however it grieves me to witness a decline in the high standards of research that this blog is known for.
Just my thoughts,
James
James,
I’m in communication with Alan Chambers and I’ll be posting an update within the next 36 hours.
Thank you, Mike.
I appreciate your willingness to follow up and to utilize the open channel of communication that you have with Alan.
I will say that the comment in question was patronistic and unbecoming of a ministry leader, regardless of the terms of communication that Alan and Shawn might be on. It is my hope that Alan did not post that comment, seeing as it would be inconsistent with what I perceive to be a concerted effort within Exodus to improve and clarify their public image, both to people within the reach of their ministries (as made clear by Alan’s session at the Freedom Conference this year) and to people who simply observe it.
Even if Alan did not make this statement, he has made it clear in the past he is more than ready to make comments “unbecoming of a ministry leader”. It is going to take a LONG time and many more words and actions for Alan to repair the damage he has done not only to gay people, but to Ex-Gay people and Ex-Ex Gay people as well.
Regrettably, I’m fairly certain the comment was made by Alan. The comment presupposes something of a relationship/knowledge of each other (as Alan and Shawn do have), which an anonymous commenter who wished to merely make Alan look bad would probably not have known. In addition, the “offering a choice” language is new language-spin that is starting to come from the Exodus folks, and also would not likely be known or used by someone outside of Exodus leadership.
That said, I still appreciate Ex-Gay Watch’s commitment to checking facts, and it’s always good to double check that someone’s comments (especially those that might indeed be “unbecoming of a ministry leader”) really came from them. It’s just that in this case, I think most of us who are familiar with Alan and some of his recent writing and commenting, as well as his history with Shawn, felt that these were (sadly) Alan’s words, and I’d be surprised if he denied writing them.
Any word from Chambers or Exodus, Mike?
James,
Mr. Chambers wrote to me with specific objections to the four bullet points in my original article. However, he didn’t provide explicit permission to reprint his objections in full; he simply argued that I should correct what he considers to be half-truths.
Until he provides permission or simply posts the objections via comment, the most I can do — since he did ask me to address his concerns — is to paraphrase his objections:
1. He says Exodus does not blame parents or one-size-fits-all causes of homosexuality. He says Exodus views homosexuality as multi-causal. But he doesn’t provide any links to the Exodus web site which would counter the claims of Love Won Out speakers (such as Joseph Nicolosi and Melissa Fryrear) that mediocre parenting and sexual abuse do in fact cause homosexuality in every gay person that they claim to have met. Why does Exodus allow these false statements to be made under its auspices, and where do the Exodus web site or other Exodus resources discuss multi-causal factors in sexual orientation?
2. Chambers notes that Exodus passed a youth policy this year which might prevent future abusive environments such as the LIA/R program. However, in my original article, I was speaking of the past as well as present: Youths such as Lance Carroll and “Zach” were, in fact, jeopardized and harmed at LIA/R, and it seems to me that Chambers is refusing to acknowledge this obvious fact.
3. Chambers challenged my assertion that Exodus misrepresents diverse viewpoints about homosexuality, but I await specifics. I stand by my assertion.
4. In response to my concern about failing to provide informed consent to those who are pressured into making a “choice,” Chambers responded that no one is pressured to do anything. “People seek Exodus Member Ministries of their own free will.”
5. Regarding my concern that Exodus fails to provide aftercare, Chambers said that Exodus does not do reparative therapy. He believes that perhaps only four of out of three dozen Exodus member therapists provide reparative therapy. He asked that we name specific therapists. He also asked us to identify specific forms of aftercare. He suggested that persons who are mistreated can file an ethics charge. (With whom? Exodus’ therapists such as those at LIA claim religious exemptions from professional review boards.) Chambers said that therapists found to be guilty of ethical violations would be removed from the Exodus network.
If I have misquoted or misrepresented Chambers’ concerns, he is again welcome to comment here.
I love that point. Thanks for that update Mike. I’m eager to see how any potential progressive change at Exodus will resolve with Dr. Nicolosi and others that, to me, would seem the most ardently against the same.
I seriously hope there’s a backlash against this soon, legally. We cannot live in a society with freedom of and from religion, as guaranteed by the first amendment, when a pharmacist can refuse to sell contraceptives or a psychologist can offer (and charge for) make-believe therapies.
The troubling reality is that taking legal action would raise the temperature of an already hot debate. The rhetoric among some in our country is such that many in conservative religious circles think that persecution of their beliefs is just around the corner. Filing lawsuits would definitely feed this notion and what is meant to be a civilized attempt to hash things out in court might end up as an all out public screaming match as the fear that many have been pumped up with comes to the surface. We must remember that there is a lot of fear out there; fear that is not based on reason but on beliefs that cast GLBT people as villains and their acceptance by society as the end of civilization. As ridiculous as we might find this kind of thinking, it exists and has to be kept in mind as we continue as a society to discuss issues impacting the GLBT community.
Then PW, in your opinion, is it too late for the separation of the church and the state? There are real living people involved here. We all have our fears too.
I am the former founder and director of Parnts and Friends of Ex-gays. I lived in the gay lifestyle for 9 years and decided to leave all the lies of that lifestyle behind after I became a real Christian and began to see 40 of my friends die of AIDS. You can’t really blame anyone who is sick and tired of the lies and disillusionment of the gay subculture. I am now married and have children. Was it very hard to become straight…IT WAS LIKE COMING OFF HEROIN…but it was worth it because”what good is it if you gain the whole world and lose your soul! If the gay world really does love everyone…then they must also love the ex-gay movement because it gives the ones who tried the gay lifestyle who really weren’t happy the “life preserver” out of a lifestyle that was killing us physically and spiritually!!!!
Anthony, non of us here are against anyone that pursues the desire to be ex-gay. What we are against is the lies that “change is possible” when in fact many of the former ex-gays, ex-gay leaders, if not most, like Alan Chambers, are still attracted to the same sex. There is no change or shift in their sexual orientation. They don’t tell others that what Exodus is really promoting is life long celibacy to most of those that they consider strugglers. If they were truefull to begin with then it would have helped many from experiencing the self-loathing that many former ex-gays experienced during these programs. Not to mention all the money spent on trying to fix something that doesn’t need fixing.
Became a real Christian? Are you saying that unless those that believe as you do are not real Christians? Those that are GLBT are not real Christians? Part of the Christian faith is not going around judging and announcing whom is a “real” Christian or not. That is for God to decide. Also, the GLBT community is not out to “gain the whole world”. So I seriously doubt we will be losing our souls anytime soon.
Btw Anthony, there is no such thing as the “gay lifestyle”. If the “gay lifestyle” is working, paying bills, and making sure you have 3 square meals a day then we are all “living the gay lifestyle”.
Anthony Falzarano’s lifestyle was that of a sexual “kept man” to archconservative Roy Cohn.
Falzarano lived the life of a Seventies barfly, sex addict, and sexual servant to the rich and famous. He did not live a gay lifestyle as the term is understood in modern times (since 1990).
I am glad that Falzarano has apparently freed himself from his past unhealthy choices of behavior. It continues to sadden me, however, that — having rejoined a community of Christians — Falzarano seeks to lock the door behind him and prevent anyone else from joining with Christian communities unless they agree to his leftover, elitist political agenda from the Roy Cohn days.
Decades ago, Anthony Falzarano “changed” — but only a little bit. Since then, God has been calling Falzarano to change a great deal more, to mature at a new level of Christian faith. Falzarano is not yet listening, but I pray that eventually he will.
Anthony,
I agree that you have the right to live your life as you see fit. I don’t have a clue as to what you mean by “gay lifestyle,” or what choices (good or bad) you made at that time. I hope that you can live a happy life.
The group that you founded, however, is committed to denying gays and lesbians the right to live their lives as they see fit. It is little more than an anti-gay political group.
I am curious though about one thing: Why do all the ex-gays (that I am aware of) who publicly claim to have completely converted from homosexual to heterosexual work so diligently against equal rights for gays and lesbians?
Among the general population of heterosexuals, support for gay rights is widespread (especially among those under 30). Yet ex-gays who claim to be heterosexual appear to be uniformly hostile to equal rights for gays, lesbians and transgendered people.
Perhaps this is just another way that ex-gays don’t realy fit in with the heterosexual mainstream.
Was it very hard to become straight…IT WAS LIKE COMING OFF HEROIN…
So… you were up for 2 days straight sweating, vomiting, and scratching at imaginary bugs?
I don’t think my gay lifestyle is like your gay lifestyle.
Anthony, I don’t think you will find many gay people who care if you are exgay or anyone is exgay. Fine. People are happy for you. We have a problem when the exgay movement is politicized and suggests that everyone must be heterosexual (or at least have the ability to do so). What is a real Christian? From what I understand it is simply one who accepts the divinity of Christ. So how does that make your brand of Christianity different from others. You mention that you saw the death of many from AIDS–this is a common narrative. But we know that AIDS is not solely related to the gay community and that it is largely managable at this point. I have been out for almost twnety years, and I have never had a sexually transmitted disease. You then state that becoming straight was like coming off heroin. Again, this suggests something more than just sexual orientation. It suggests you had some serious issues to deal with in addition to homosexuality. You state the gay world suggests they love everyone–who ever said that? Religion is the only community that suggests total inclusion and love, but we also know that is not true, but I have never heard any gay person say that being gay meant that they loved everyone.
Frankly, if I left being gay and abhored what it stood for, I would not be posting on websites that are gay oriented. Many exgays though seem to linger (Paulk, Johnson, Glatze, yourself, Chambers). When I left the Mormon church, I did not look back. Their religion was their own, and I respected it, but I had no interest in it. I don’t go to Mormon websites, visit Mormon events, or even care to talk to Mormons about my experience for the most part. It is a part of my past, but I divorced it. If I believed in choice, as many exgays state, then I would respect the environment where choice existed. I would also support their rights fully. If the gay “life” was so bad, you would think people would live in shame, hide it, and really try to leave “it” but instead the public for the most part and the gay community see it as something that we should be open and honest about (adultry, crime, and drug abuse have not faired the same). John Waters once said that lesbian and gay elements in his films were once shocking and horrifying to the public, but now they are boring fact of life things. No one really cares.
I forgot–Isn’t looking back for an exgay like Lot’s wife? Won’t it turn the exgay to a pillar of salt?
I though that was the point of the story–if you look back to your past, it will destroy you. So why do so many exgays do it?