Exodus International has been getting a fair bit of media attention lately. As part of the major rebranding exercise we predicted in November last year, Exodus President Alan Chambers has gone far and wide with his message that the group, known as the foremost proponent of the idea that homosexuals can change, no longer puts stock in the idea of a “gay cure.”
Last week, The Atlantic interviewed Chambers under the headline “Sexual Healing: Evangelicals Update Their Message to Gays.” Then, earlier this week, an AP story reported that Exodus was backing away from reparative therapy:
The president of the country’s best-known Christian ministry dedicated to helping people repress same-sex attraction through prayer is trying to distance the group from the idea that gay people’s sexual orientation can be permanently changed or “cured.”
That’s a significant shift for Exodus International, the 36-year-old Orlando-based group that boasts 260 member ministries around the U.S. and world. For decades, it has offered to help conflicted Christians rid themselves of unwanted homosexual inclinations through counseling and prayer, infuriating gay rights activists in the process.
Ex-Gay Watch has been reporting these developments since late last year, and it’s clear that there are changes. As early as September 2011, Exodus purged its online bookstore of materials from NARTH, the main organization promoting the “science” of reparative therapy.
In January, Chambers took the unprecedented step of attending a conference of the Gay Christian Network, where he appeared to affirm LGBT Christians as fellow believers, and stated:
the majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9 percent of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.
More recently, Exodus board member Dennis Jernigan stoked the fires of homophobia in Jamaica, where homosexuality is illegal — but Exodus immediately decried the criminalization of homosexuality, saying said it would “stand with the LGBT community both in spirit, and when necessary, legally and physically, when violence rears it’s head in Uganda, Jamaica or anywhere else in the world.” Jernigan offered his resignation, and Exodus accepted it.
This is a major improvement on how Exodus dealt with an almost identical situation in 2009, when it took 15 months to respond to board member Don Schmierer’s involvement in an anti-gay conference in Uganda. (See the facts about Uganda’s notorious anti-gay bill here.)
There is no doubt that Exodus’s message is changing. It is rebranding, whether for cynical reasons (desperate financial times) or because of a change of heart.
But one thing we have consistently said at Ex-Gay Watch is that we look for actions to support the talk. Exodus has a history of doublespeak, to the point where a handful of statements is not enough. We cannot — and should not — simply take Exodus and Alan Chambers at their word.
Exodus and Gay Christians
Even with the rebranding, we still hear vagueness and doubletalk in what Exodus says about the thorny issue of gay Christians. Are gay Christians “saved”? Are LGBT persons “brothers and sisters in Christ”? Is there such a thing as a gay Christian? Here’s what Chambers told GCN leader Justin Lee in January:
I honestly trust [GCN leader Justin Lee], and I honestly like him, and I honestly believe that he loves Jesus and that we are brothers in Christ and that we will spend eternity together … and because of that, the thing that brought me here first and foremost is: We’re Christians, all of us. We may have diverging viewpoints … but the thing that brings us together, the thing that causes us to even want to have this dialogue, or need to have this dialogue, is the fact that we all love Jesus. We all serve him. We serve the very same God and believe very different things.
Yet in a radio interview the day before, he played directly into his host’s assumptions that there was no such thing as a gay Christian; that gay men and women “don’t know the Lord” and were “still in darkness.”
While he told his gay audience they all loved and served the same God, he later backtracked when confronted by his own anti-gay constituents:
As an adoptive father, my children are irrevocably mine. They may disown me, stop talking to me and sin against me, but that does not change the fact that they are mine and always will be. I believe the same is true of God with His adopted children.
Thus, I believe that people who sin (all of us) can be Christian if they have accepted that free gift of salvation. If someone ever knew Christ, they still do.
He may believe the common evangelical doctrine of eternal security, or “once saved always saved,” but clearly his message to his own crowd was that he wasn’t affirming anyone’s Christian faith or love for Jesus. Chambers has not been honest. (And not for the first time.)
Change Is Possible?
The “99.9%” quote went viral. Here it is again:
The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9 percent of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.
It was widely interpreted as “Exodus says gays can’t change.” Yet self-described post-gay Peter Ould said commentators had missed the point:
[Blog Episcopal Cafe] have taken that to mean that Chambers is saying that no-one ever sees a shift in their orientation, but that is not what Chambers actually means. Rather he is saying that most of the people who attend an Exodus affiliate programme do not come out “100% straight”. That however is not the same as saying that nobody ever sees any change in their sexual attractions and identity.
Alan Chambers didn’t disagree — on the contrary, he commented to praise Ould’s post and thank him for the encouragement. Chambers later confirmed this interpretation in his own reflection on the GCN conference:
I have met a lot of people who have experienced SSA and yet only know one or two women who say that they no longer experience any SSA whatsoever. I cannot speak for others who say that temptation or attraction don’t equal orientation.
There’s an obvious disconnect between how the statements have been interpreted publicly and how Chambers has interpreted them for himself and his audience. By limiting the 99.9% figure to complete change, he grants Exodus a lot of wiggle room on exactly how gays can change. The bottom line is that while most people outside Exodus’s constituency view orientation as a basic, unalterable fact, Chambers does not really acknowledge orientation. There is no “being gay.” There are just “same-sex attractions,” which can be changed and moved around, just rarely totally eliminated.
Exodus must acknowledge that, when different assumptions are in play, what Exodus’s adherents hear and what the rest of the world hears are not the same. Chambers knows this, but he has yet to acknowledge it and start speaking plainly. On the contrary, Exodus has long exploited this divide, and its rhetoric has always been, and continues to be in some ways, vague.
We are seeing signs of change, but words are never enough. With Exodus, an organization for whom words have been its greatest weapon, we expect more than words — we look forward to seeing those words proved consistently with firm actions, and that is an outcome only time will deliver.
While this may be regarded as a change for the better, in that Exodus will hopefully no longer be deceiving people about the likelihood of change in sexual orientation, its continuing message, that being gay is a form of “brokenness” that needs to be “struggled with” and that gay sexual relationships are “sinful”, means that it will still be a spiritually abusive organization.
I recommend the following article by Zack Ford:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/06/27/507150/ex-gay-groups-rebranding-makes-it-no-less-dangerous-or-wrong/
I have to concur with William. Without the negative connotation of homosexuality, and the ideal that it’s PREFERABLE to not be gay or that being gay renders a person with lesser and unwanted qualities, then the door to abusing vulnerable gay people is wide open.
Without that connotation, or even the very name “Exodus”, it might as well be another club for Christians.
Otherwise known as church.
Ugh. More unclear, nuanced rhetoric from Exodus. Backing away is not the same as denouncing. Chambers even admits in the AP article that some of Exodus’s member ministries may continue offering reparative therapy.
Exodus’s policy statements are an interesting comparison of what they choose to clearly oppose and what they more vaguely not support.
EXODUS OPPOSES:
> “Exodus International is opposed to the therapeutic practice commonly referred to as “holding/touch therapy” as a healing exercise for those with same-sex attraction distress…” A clear, concise statement.
> “…we strongly oppose bullying, name calling and acts of aggression against any individual or group of individuals for any reason…” A clear, concise statement. Obviously, few of their supporters would admit to bullying gay people.
EXODUS DOES NOT SUPPORT (BUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSE):
> “…Exodus International has not supported and will not support any legislation that deprives others of life and dignity based on their sexual orientation..” However, it’s unclear to me if Exodus is willing to oppose, denounce, or call for the repeal of existing anti-gay laws. I read their statement as saying they’re merely willing to turn a blind eye to existing anti-gay laws.
> “…Exodus International does not advocate the practice of exorcism as a means of addressing same-sex attraction in an individual’s life….” Many of Exodus’s conservative Christian supporters are Pentecostal and do believe in some form of exorcism, so Exodus doesn’t necessarily oppose exorcism.
> Official Position on Reparative or Conversion Therapy: “…we do not subscribe to therapies that make changing sexual orientation a main focus or goal….” That’s far from denouncing and even less strong than saying they do not support because they still leave open reparative therapy as an option if it’s not the main focus.
Exodus has always disclaimed promises of changing sexual orientation (although their fine print was hard to read under the “Change Is Possible” billboards). What Exodus and Chambers are really saying is that they don’t want to be held accountable for defending reparative or change therapies. However, I suspect Exodus will continue to uphold theories behind reparative therapy and many of the programs will probably continue to look and feel like some form of reparative/change therapy.
My objections to Exodus have always been on two different levels.
First, and most detrimental to date has been their deception. Only Exodus personnel know for sure if these were conscious lies, but they certainly have spread a great deal of misinformation over the years, the kind that hurts lives. The nature and supposed mutability of homosexuality, the “typical” life habits of gays and lesbians, the degree to which their own sexuality “changed” and support, sometimes tacit yes but support nonetheless for right wing groups with disgusting agendas. These only scratch the surface and they have only just begun to take responsibility for these with their recent actions. This is the realm of hard facts, science and statistics.
Second is their theological/ideological stance. They have and do hold with the idea that sexual relationships (and more) between two people of the same sex is a sin, something of which God does not approve, and in some way it defiles His perfect model for relationships. At it’s core, so goes their belief, it is a lie of Satan, a counterfeit of God’s best. This is the realm of faith and belief, one group of thought among many. To be sure, this causes harm for those who continue to believe it but at the end of the day, it’s just an opinion. If given the option of competing views, people can make choices. The idea that “gay = sin” is not a fact to be proven or disproven.
XGW has mostly dealt with issues falling into the first category, while certainly offering commentary and highlighting inconsistencies on those from the second. Personally, I could not disagree more with Exodus’ theology on this matter. And I know it has hurt others who are locked into a very narrow ideological spectrum that we often call fundamentalist Christianity. It can be a tragic belief system which drives people to dark places when they are unable to fulfil it’s requirements. I think this comes from an extremely literalistic view of the Christian scriptures, but that’s another discussion.
If Exodus does do what it takes to atone for all their disinformation, we will be left with a religious activist organization with what many would call incorrect and even bigoted beliefs. This can certainly be debated in the proper venue, but I’m not sure if we have the same moral mandate to fight that. We can say we disagree, that they are wrong and dig into scripture to show how, but people of differing faiths and atheists have been doing that for a long time on many issues.
I guess what I’m saying, and I’m mostly throwing this out for opinion, is that — as far as Exodus goes, if this plays out as suggested, will we be left with anything to really fight about? Will they mostly fade into obscurity? Or will the fight just take on a different focus?
This has nothing to do, btw, with what I think about the veracity of Exodus concerning the current changes. I think the jury is out and will be for some time on that, but the ball is in their court.
@David Roberts: I don’t know. Wendy Gritter tries to leave space for all sorts of spiritual journeys, including those of same-sex attracted people who interpret the Bible in such a way that they choose celibacy for themselves and might wish the alleged support of a group like Exodus.
And while on the one hand, I have no theoretical problem with an adult who chooses that path of self-determination without outside coercion (and I view ALL fundamentalist/evangelical forms of belief as coercive, punitive, abusive)… I have a huge problem believing that most people would feel the need to take that route in the absence a vocal social network (e.g. church) insisting on it as superior righteousness (or necessary righteousness, for that matter).
For me, what I would most want to see from Exodus (and any other “exit ministry”) is their unequivocal support for LGBT civil rights. I doubt, however, that will happen. But even if they were to stop all the disinformation and outright lies about LGBT I am of the opinion that until their opinion (as you describe opinion) of us changes the abuse will not stop.
The delivery system for their opinion is congregational. It is children and youth who hear that opinion. In other words, vulnerable people who are not necessarily allowed access to competing viewpoints – and by the time they finally DO have that access, the damage is done and they are already being preyed upon by horror shows like Exodus, if they haven’t by then offed themselves in despair.
Until a concept like celibacy disappears as an avoid-damnation requirement for specific orientations and groups stop insisting that same-sex attraction is something that must be struggled against, and LGBT rights are no longer denied or even questioned – until then the fight continues.
I was raised with a religious education, and fortunately my family didn’t have the kind of social situation that RELIED on the church for so much interaction and connection from week to week.
I think we all can agree, that the messaging and influence of religious communities doesn’t seem to encourage interest in another point of view. Wearing the shoes of another. There is no common suggestion that perhaps people ‘struggle with unwanted religious beliefs’, or that a straight person try to pursue the same disciplines they charge gay people to engage in and see how much THEY succeed at it to claim it can be done.
The burden is placed on the shoulders of the gay person, and not the religious community that isolates them.
I have said it in other forums that faith communities have had the floor and are ungracious about someone else’s turn with their own story, needs and experience.
There is so much of the ‘if I want your opinion, I’ll give it to you’ attitude. I think most of us have experienced the kinds of people, who insist they know something, and they can fix the situation, and couldn’t care less that they not only have no idea or care, but are indifferent to when they are screwing it up badly.
I wish I could laugh, for example at how the anti gay insist that gay parents are bad parents. That it’s inherent in gay parents to be incompetent, abusive or selfish.
Yet, no one questions the hetero parents that have screwed up and badly damaged their gay children.
Most of all, that inconvenient dictum of treating another as you’d be treated is never in the forefront of what motivates faith communities to attack the intents and purpose of gay people.
Gay people shouldn’t have to explain, and justify themselves or their existence to anyone.
After all, this is a part of all humanity that’s been a stable and consistent minority among men, whereas, religious beliefs and it’s influence on everything has not.
In other words, it’s smarter to trust gay people as the allies of humankind, than the agendas of religious groups throughout history.
I know that’s a broad statement to make.
But Exodus, deserves irrelevance. If they were anything else, they’d be another church community getting together for choir practice and Bible study.
But they are a COMMERCIAL entity, for profit, in some areas.
And when it comes to pathology, there are clinical, credentialed counselors who are SUPPOSED to handle those issues.
The problem is, people like Exodus still try to wrongly and dangerously diagnose homosexuality AS a pathology unto itself.
What Regan said. Especially this:
Clarifying thought for myself: David, I firmly believe that the basis of your second objection, theology/ideology, is exactly what drives the disinformation/lies/harms that are the basis of your first objection.
In other words, homophobia is not dead until all its religious roots have been dug up and dealt with. And the fight isn’t over until this happens.
This topic mentioned today in a New York Times article (with EGW comment).