Pro-exgay blogger Disputed Mutability calls the Exodus leaders’ new book, God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door, “profoundly alienating.”
DM is especially dismayed at Exodus leaders Alan Chambers and Mike Goeke for their assertion that celibacy is sinful and for their sloppy repudiation of official Roman Catholic policy on both celibacy and the unlikelihood of so-called “change.”
Says Alan Chambers:
This is why I believe that it is so important to clarify that just living a celibate gay life is just as sinful as living a sexually promiscuous one. The sin is in identifying with anything that is contrary to Christ, which homosexuality clearly is. (218)
Says Mike Goeke:
Many who leave homosexuality behind are unwilling to accept that their only option is to live a life of celibacy, simply managing unwanted attractions. What they really want is a change in identity. They no longer want the gay label attached to them. (69-70)
The Exodus authors seem to be consumed by ideology and labeling, and this preoccupation with labels separates them from the shared day-to-day reality that gay and exgay individuals experience. When the authors advocate “true change,” aren’t they really trivializing true sexual change and turning it into a switch in political and religious afiliation?
In the comments on DM’s article, celibate same-sex-attracted Catholic Ron Belgau, who over the years has been affiliated with the pro-exgay Catholic group Courage, shares his own concern about Goeke’s statements.
This confirms that the ex-Gay movement is what I’ve accused it of being all along: A cheerleading section for heterosexual intercourse. What arrogance! How dare they presume to declare celibacy sinful? Celibacy is a means by which some people get in touch with their spirituality. It’s a legitimate response to sexual addiction. It’s only sinful when it’s imposed on someone against his will.
It’s clear to me now that these anti-Gay ideologues who claim Christian identity are nothing but charlatans! They’re not concerned with matters of the soul; they’re obsessed with matters of the flesh. They only pretend to worship God. What they truly worship is the penis and the vagina, or more specifically, the penis inside the vagina. You might as well call it temple prostitution. This is Christianity? It sounds like carnality to me.
“The Exodus authors seem to be consumed by ideology and labeling, and this preoccupation with labels separates them from the shared day-to-day reality that gay and exgay individuals experience.”
I completely agree. EXODUS has always been preoccupied with labels. In a Love In Action newsletter of 1991 which I have, Frank Worthen wrote: “we should be very careful what labels we apply to ourselves. By our words we are justified and by our words we are condemend and sentenced”.
Apparently EXODUS believes that labels have saving power. Funny, I thought we were saved by grace.
“The Exodus authors seem to be consumed by ideology and labeling, and this preoccupation with labels separates them from the shared day-to-day reality that gay and exgay individuals experience.”
This sentence resonated with me, Mike, and I think really captures the essence of where Exodus’ thinking goes awry. One can almost chart a pathway of thinking that leads to just such a preoccupation, starting with a sincere effort to help people that Exodus feels are in danger to their current compartmentalization of contradictory concepts that allows them to claim a loving goal while commiting unloving acts.
“The Exodus authors seem to be consumed by ideology and labeling, and this preoccupation with labels separates them from the shared day-to-day reality that gay and exgay individuals experience.”
ex-gay
formerly gay
gay identified
formerly gay identified
former homosexual
the homosexual
SSA
formerly SSA
wounded heterosexual
And don’t forget Joe Dallas’s explanation of the label “ex-gay” — “…I don’t think they (people who call themselves ex-gay) mean former homosexual. Rather, it’s a way of saying ‘a Christian with homosexual tendencies who would rather not HAVE those tendencies. It just rolls off the tonhue a little easier.”
Then we have Alan Chambers saying the term (ex-gay)should be done away with entirely and never used again”, even though they still use it at EXODUS Global Alliance.
Robbi Kenney, one of the founders of EXODUS admitted: “EXODUS has always had a problem with definitions”. She cautioned her readers “know what you are promising”, not heteretosexuality, “but the power to move into celibacy…”
Exodus is right. Labels are the important thing. They have power. Hmm…
I am a billionaire!!!
…
Dang.
Well, Boo, if you’re not a billionaire, just start calling yourself one anyway and the change (and bills!) will start to accrue naturally, through the mercy and love of God. After all, you chose NOT to be a billionaire, right?
If you’re not eventually swimming in piles of cash, however, you must not have really wanted to be rich in the first place. Deep in your heart, you get your kicks from being poor. Your lack of pure faith is responsible for your unimproved financial situation, obviously.
I wonder if they know they’re taking cues from classic name-it-and-claim-it theology– just replacing “health and wealth” with “heterosexuality.”
The problem Exodus has is that of any Christian sect whose theology considers the Bible as its only gnosis for human behavior and nature and yet probably has the word “homosexual” in their accepted Bible in 1 Cor 6:9. In the Exodus Policy on Homosexuality this viewpoint is clearly evident. Their use of the word is almost hypocritical as they choke on it every time to think that homosexuals don’t exist, nor that homosexuality as a human nature exists. That facet of reality… or truth, if you will, is not a complement of their philosophy concerning the homosexual orientation.
I’m reminded of an old forum I frequented about Catholicism when I was trying to resolve my feelings. There was a poster, even older than myself there who was, as he identified, homosexual and yet celibate. He specifically did not identify as gay, primarily as it would speak to one actively homosexual. He was well accepted by the other folk there who were quite conservative in their Catholic outlook.
I got there after failing again at an attempt to change my identity to heterosexual (purely a personal journey). In short, I very much fell in love with her and do to this day. But I found that the only real love I could offer her was not to do so. It was a very strange experience for me to find that my love for her opened up my capacity to understand my real focus to love other men.
Anyway I came to that Catholic forum with that revelation and speaking of it as almost a transcendant and spiritual experience. That was the beginning of the anti-gay sentiment on that forum, which grew as I tried to speak of being gay and spiritual at the same time. People started speaking of demons and fallen man and other more Protestant ideas (much as Exodus does) about homosexuality. It got to a point that I started gettting “attacked” in print on the forum.
And then this lovely man, who has led an entirely celibate life, did something that set me to tears and made me want to kiss him across the 600 miles that separate us. He stood up for me, if he could not stand for my ideas, against the – for want of a better word – homophobia which was being expressed there (it reminded me of my ’60s Catholic schoolyard) and told them he did not want to be known as a homosexual any more, that he was gay.
There is a very real power in labels when people band together under a name. Exodus knows it and unfortunately for them they must necessarily deal with the idea that their group’s label is to be not something, since their Protestant ethic demands that they deny their former state as even existant (how can you not be something you weren’t in the first place?).
My celibate friend is an anathema to them. Living with the ‘lust,’ yet one be celibate, is not supposed to be the mind of one given to Jesus. But he is perhaps even moreso because he identifies as gay, politically, to fight that “unjust discrimination” of which the Catholic catechism speaks. Exodus is attempting to make their hardline Protestant positiion known (probably for political/money reasons). But it is no less a position, and no less hypocritical, than is asserted by groups like Focus on the Family, American Family Association, the Family Research Council and perhaps even that of the Traditional Values Coalition.
…
Liadan asked:
“I wonder if they know they’re taking cues from classic name-it-and-claim-it theology– just replacing “health and wealth” with “heterosexuality.”
You can stop wondering. That’s EXACTLY how EXODUS began in 1976 — at the height of the “name-it-and-claim-it”, neo-charismatic movement of the 1970’s. EXODUS began at Melodyland Christian Center in Anaheim. In huge revival type “healing” services held weekly, congregants were told that WEALTH and HEALTH were their God-given right and that all we needed to do was “claim it”.
If we saw a car we wanted, the health/wealth evangelists actually told us to lay our hands on the hood of the car and “claim it for Christ”. Those who were struggling financially or how had some terrible physical/emotional ailment were told that they “did not have enough faith” — or had “unconfessed sin in their lives.”
I remember one wonderfully faithful older woman who had been paralyzed since her teens. She came forward to “claim her healing” one Sunday. When she did not get up out of her wheelchair, the visiting “healer” told her (and the entire congregation) that she had “little faith”. It absolutley CRUSHED her since she had loved the Lord all her life — and had done great service to the church even though wheelchair-bound.
They used the same reasoning with homosexuality. You “claimed” heterosexuality regardless of the fact that you had NO heterosexual feelings. When you did not “change”, you were told that you didn’t have enough name-it-and-claim-it faith. It was YOUR fault, not the faulty teaching.
It drove many of the gay folks who came to EXIT/EXODUS to leave the church in despair, convinced that God had forsaken them because they were gay. “He turned them over…” Some of my clients attempted suicide. Again, a problem with THEIR faith, not the name-it-and-claim-it theology.
I can’t imagine its just me that thinks Exodus comes across as totally looney tunes when they claim celibacy is a sin, surely the vast majority of people are going to think they are.
Being single is a sin? So people who are unable to find a love are sinners? Unless I missed something I think Jesus was supposed to be single and celibate, I guess Exodus is saying he’s a sinner too – how profoundly stupid can they be.
That previous comment was me, my boyfriend deletes cookies and I don’t notice all the time.
Randi
I didn’t realize that “name it and claim it” had ties to prosperity evangelism, which I consider a very widespread postwar American heresy.
While Exodus had its origins in the “conservative” charismatic movement in Anaheim in 1976, my childhood faith had its origins in 1970 to 1973 in the antiwar charismatic movement in Northern California.
Those two charismatic movements — one centered on worldly prosperity, moral compromise, injustice, and nationalistic warfare, and the other centered on a poor, anti-political, anti-nationalist Jesus who advocated economic morality and social fairness as well as personal salvation — couldn’t have been more different.
And that difference between Exodus’ worldly “faith” and my own spiritual perspective persists to this day.
Mike: You expressed it very well:
“the other centered on a poor, anti-political, anti-nationalist Jesus who advocated economic morality and social fairness as well as personal salvation…”
When I realized that we were harming, not helping people at EXODUS with the “claim you are straight” mantra, that’s also where I went — and also where I, thank God, remain.
If we saw a car we wanted, the health/wealth evangelists actually told us to lay our hands on the hood of the car and “claim it for Christ”. Those who were struggling financially or how had some terrible physical/emotional ailment were told that they “did not have enough faith” — or had “unconfessed sin in their lives.”
I hereby claim Alan Chambers’ car. Um… for Christ. Also, I claim his house, his bank account, his wallet, and his watch. For Christ. But I don’t want the label “thief” attached to me, because God sees that label as a sin. So, per Alan Chambers, I will need to come up with a better label to fool God. Any suggestions?
Religion is manknd’s attempt to understand God’s ways. Magic is man’s attempt to use God’s power for his own self-interest.
Name it claim it, the Prayer of Jabel, etc. etc. – this is the practice of magic – plain and simple.
Someone once told me that “religion” came from “ligio” (to connect) and “re” (again). That stuck with me. It was not about dogma, political agendas or “name-it-and-claim-it” self-interest. It was about being “reconnected” with our Creator.
Someone once told me that “religion” came from “ligio” (to connect) and “re” (again). That stuck with me. It was not about dogma, political agendas or “name-it-and-claim-it” self-interest. It was about being “reconnected” with our Creator.
That is a lovely sentiment, but wouldn’t it apply even further – to connections among one another? If religion has any good outside of a purely worship context (e.g., be a “good” religious person and “get” heaven as a reward), it is in the way religion can bind us to our neighbors and help us overcome the natural human tendency of “otherness.” We have a biological tendency to see anyone different as an “other” – someone against whom we fight for the limited resources around us. The members of our “tribe” are as worthy as we are to gain those resources, but all “others” must be prevented from gaining them.
It is a classic evolutionary strategy that came about because of the real scarcity of resources, but is now just a vestige of that time. IMHO, when religion works to better society, it is in destroying those labels of “us” and “them.” Like the parable of the Good Samaritan, religion should teach us to see others as worthy, decent, respectable human beings – part of the “us” as it were, and rise above the pettiness of tribal/national/ethnic/religious superiority.
If there is one part of the “pro-family,” or “ex-gay” movements that really galls me, other than the tendency to be unable to tell the truth, it is the sense of moral superiority inherent in the belief system. Rather than fighting the tendency to look down on those who are “others,” this theology seems to feed that feeling, to encourage it as a way to avoid the “temptation” of competing belief systems. And so the members of these movements tend to feel they can prescribe and proscribe behaviors and actions for all of those “others,” because they themselves are allegedly so superior. In that way, perhaps, the “pro-family” and/or “ex-gay” movements block and minimize the potential good of their religious beliefs, and unfortunately emphasize the bad.
“That is a lovely sentiment, but wouldn’t it apply even further – to connections among one another? If religion has any good outside of a purely worship context (e.g., be a “good” religious person and “get” heaven as a reward), it is in the way religion can bind us to our neighbors and help us overcome the natural human tendency of “otherness.”
You nailed it exactly. This is PRECISELY the sort of “religion” Jesus was teaching — and what made the bigotted moralists of HIS day so angry.
“Everyone is you NEIGHBOR” — he taught. There is no “otherness” spiritually and morally. You are to LOVE you neighbor as yourself. You mus even love your ENEMY. WOW! This is radical religion.
And what are its roots? “Thou shalt love the Lord with all your heart and soul and MIND.” We commanded to THINK. Not only about ourselves, but more importantly, about God’s OTHER children — regardless (and prehaps even BECAUSE of) of their real or imagined “differences.”
CPT,
Sister Bertha-Better-Than-You may not stop feeling better than you when you become “ex-Gay,” either. I’ve heard a reformed “ex-Gay” man talk about how members of these fundamentalist churches look down their noses at avowed converts to heterosexuality. Some fundies are never quite convinced that the conversion has “taken.” I guess they’re hip to the high failure rate!
religion
Sigh… let’s try that again.
Exodus has long held contempt for celibates gays, even those who are part of their movement. Their big ad campaign promised some big “CHANGE” and featured pictures of “happily married” exgays. I notice that Randy Thomas, who once made a big deal about proclaiming his commitment to celibacy now has, in his blog, a mysterious new character labeled “The Girlfriend.” (How obvious is THAT distancing technique?). I suppose he has finally realized that you can’t be the President of Exodus without a trophy wife. The celibate ungays of Exodus are basically kept in the basement like the crazy old aunt. And the celibate gays are now being told that they might as well go ahead and get laid because it’s the same thing. JOIN OUR CLUB OR BURN IN HELL.
Nice.
No one said or even implied that celibacy was a sin. We said that accepting a gay identity was just as sinful as acting on one’s feelings.
None of you will agree with that, but it is far different than what you all claim we said.
Thanks for the drive by, Alan. Nice to know that you’re still reading. Now would you care to revisit the post where we documented statements you’ve made that we feel were untrue?
Alan Chambers said:
We said that accepting a gay identity was just as sinful as acting on one’s feelings.
Ok Alan, let me see if I understand (because I honestly don’t). Say a Christian disagrees with your position concerning the nature, indeed the very existence of homosexuals, but nevertheless believes that acting on their sexual attractions would be a sin. They accept that, for whatever reasons, they are homosexual but because of their faith they remain celibate. You claim they are sinning just the same as if they were having sex with men?
David, I believe that the identity is sinful in and of itself, yes.
I have many friends whose feelings have never and might never change, but they have changed their identity. I do not believe that ‘freedom from homosexuality’ is most about a change of feelings or behaviors, but rather identity.
So Alan, how does your definition of identity differ from the common understanding of pretending to be something you’re not?
Alan,
To many people including some affiliated with the exgay movement, “gay” means “same-sex attracted” — nothing more, nothing less.
You stated that someone “living a celibate [same-sex-attracted] life” is sinning.
Your assertion that it is sinful to identify one’s same-sex attractions, or any other temptation, is itself immoral.
The Bible “identifies” some of Christ’s own temptations. But it is becoming apparent to me that the Exodus leadership is too proud to name its own temptations.
It seems that you would have the public believe that, by concealing (lying about) rather than identifying temptations, one can be more pure and more Christ-like than Christ himself claimed to be.
Alan Chambers said:
I do not believe that ‘freedom from homosexuality’ is most about a change of feelings or behaviors, but rather identity.
So even if one is attracted to the same sex 100%, claiming to be heterosexual is the only biblical answer in your opinion? What exactly does it mean to “identify” as heterosexual when one is attracted to one’s own sex?
You do realize that this is quite a shift from Exodus’ earlier stated positions, and different from the current positions of many ex-gay ministries, don’t you?
I’m really trying to understand you here Alan, but this sounds a lot like a position one would take to avoid dealing with the problem that people are not actually “changing,” i.e. what happened to “change is possible?”
Alan,
It would seem that this “sin” of being celibate while acknowledging to yourself that you are gay, homosexual, same-sex attracted or whatever has nothing to do with God. Since God cannot be fooled by lies (even when we are lying to ourselves), he would know what our orientation is. No amount of public proclamations of heterosexuality could ever fool Him.
So this particular sin is clearly not about God and all about man. This is some sort of ideological or political sin.
I wonder if you tell people at these Love Won Out conferences all over the country that your group isn’t really about people changing their orientation or changing their behavior. It’s really all about changing what they call themselves. It’s like some Orwellian conundrum where lying leads to virtue and truth leads to sin.
Exodus and all its supporting “Family/Values” groups define “gay lifestyle” by only one thing, homogenic sex.
So what does Alan Chambers mean by a “celibate gay life(style)” by comparison? If one is celibate by the previous definition his own people have unilaterally decreed concerning “gay lifestyle” then a “celibate gay life(style” is oxymoronic. Celibate and gay cancel each other out. That someone still recognizes his feelings and yet works to oppose them cannot be a sinful by any stretch of Christian imaginings.
An alchoholic never forgets what he is, if he does he risks returning to it. Not that I think homosexuality has a direct comparison; but that is a label which constitutes a sinful nature which the person forever carries with them…. though I imagine that you will say people can with Christ not think of themselves in that ways.. Hallelujah!
David, I believe that the identity is sinful in and of itself, yes.
I have many friends whose feelings have never and might never change, but they have changed their identity. I do not believe that ‘freedom from homosexuality’ is most about a change of feelings or behaviors, but rather identity.
So what you are talking about then, Mr. Chambers, is nothing more than a religious conversion. I, for instance, was raised Roman Catholic, but now reject that label, that identity, because of my own problems with the religion’s teachings and values. I have not changed chemically or biologically, but I have changed the label. If that is all you expect “ex-gays” to do, then I have to feel the rhetoric and public face of the “ex-gay” movement/ministries is even more deceptive, and your alignment with the anti-gay political agenda even more confounding.
I have no problem with anyone choosing any religious “lifestyle,” but to equate “change” with solely rejecting the label of “gay,” you completely undermine the use of “ex-gays” to promote opposition to gay-friendly legislation. So often we hear that the very existence of “ex-gays” shows that homosexuality should not be covered by antidiscrimination laws. But if the “ex-gay” change is nothing more than a relabeling of one’s self, without any fundamental internal change required, then the existence of “ex-gays” is a moot point where gay rights laws are concerned, because there will always be gays and lesbians who, using their First Amendment rights, reject the religious traditions that require such “change” to be attempted. It is akin to saying that Jews can convert to Christianity, so they should not be covered by the First Amendment.
I find it also very interesting that using Alan’s definition, Father Mykal Judge, whose death is officially recorded as the first at the Twin Towers, was “sinning” because he was celibate, but did not reject his gay identity. He was open with gay people, and quite a few straight ones, about his attractions, although I do not believe there is any evidence he acted on them, and he treated the gay and lesbian community with love and compassion, which is too often lacking from the offical Roman Catholic response to gays and lesbians.
I have many friends whose feelings have never and might never change, but they have changed their identity. I do not believe that ‘freedom from homosexuality’ is most about a change of feelings or behaviors, but rather identity.
So what you are talking about then, Mr. Chambers, is nothing more than a religious conversion. I, for instance, was raised Roman Catholic, but now reject that label, that identity, because of my own problems with the religion’s teachings and values. I have not changed chemically or biologically, but I have changed the label. If that is all you expect “ex-gays” to do, then I have to feel the rhetoric and public face of the “ex-gay” movement/ministries is even more deceptive, and your alignment with the anti-gay political agenda even more confounding.
Actually, it comes off more like he’s saying you can still go to Confession and Mass and stuff as long as you don’t “identify” yourself as a Catholic.
CPT makes some valid points Alan. Care to respond?
I can’t understand what Alan is trying to say unless its that its a sin to simply admit one is same sex attracted and refer to that as gay. Anyway you slice it Alan’s statements are nonsensical and hateful.
We said that accepting a gay identity was just as sinful as acting on one’s feelings.
I’ve read this statement over and over to try and make some sense of it without success. I grew up in a fundamentalist evangelical home and attended a fundamentalist Bible college. This doesn’t square with anything evangelicals teach or believe.
The believer accepts his total depravity – fill in the blank with whatever vice(s) you have – and believes that God sees him as justified by Christ’s sacrifice. If I were to accept that my homosexuality was sin, and I turned away from that sin through God’s freely offered grace, is Alan saying that grace would be denied me because I was still homosexual, even if, by grace, I was able not to act on that in any way? There’s no way I can pretend to myself or God that I’m heterosexual, and I don’t believe in cheap grace wherein I go act out trusting that I’ll be forgiven. I believe Alan is saying that grace for the homosexual is contingent on the achievement of fundamental reordering, not on the hope of it.
That’s just messed up – even for Alan. A new low. I can only guess that his masters at FOF are increasingly uncomfortable with Alan, Randy, and the rest of them. They’d like ex-gays which weren’t still quite so gay.
And all these years I lived in celibacy are for naught? I’m still not worthy? My only redemption from hell might be if I let Mr. Chambers parade me around as a token recovering gay? Do I get any further redeeming value if I force a smile when I’m say I no longer identify with being someone afflicted with S-S.A.?
If celibacy is not enough and there is no way to certify my thoughts about my “identity” then what will be enough? Becoming a certified asexual eunuch?
I could be wrong, but I really can’t recall any glorification of “asexual eunuchs” in the Bible. So, I am guessing that Alan would be completely dissatisfied with that particular path as well. You should probably check with him first before going to all the trouble…
An administrative note:
I’ve changed the title of this article from:
“New Book by Exodus Leadership Calls Celibacy A Sin”
to
“New Book by Exodus Leadership Calls ‘Celibate Gay Life’ A Sin”
though I maintain that, for people who are same-sex-attracted, both headlines effectively mean the same thing.
Cowboy:
Actually, there are several verses in the OT about eunuchs and their being glorified after a sort (Isaiah 56.3-7). I don’t think that is what Alan was talking about, though.
He seems to be saying something along the lines of his belief that identifying as “gay” in any way is a statement of identity in a “sinful lifestyle.” Even if celibate.
Pretty odd, since the relevant “clobber texts” emphasise explicit acts, not identity. Identity as gay or homosexual is beyond the conceptual fabric of the verses.
I think SharonB is hitting on Alan’s meaning. As you all know, it helps to speak evangelical when dealing with Exodus. It’s their native language.
What Alan is saying (I believe) is that identifying as gay is identifying with and accepting sin. A comparison would be perhaps to stealing. If one said “I’m a thief, I just don’t steal” then they are still condoning theivery in others.
Of course that analogy doesn’t work because a thief is defined by their behavior and Alan is specifically differentiating “gay identity” from gay behavior.
Naturally, there is no Scripture whatsoever that supports Alan’s assertion that “accepting a gay identity was just as sinful as acting on one’s feelings.” That concept is not in either the Old or the New Testament. Nor can it be extrapolated from any other principal of faith. Neither “Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free” were required to reject their identity to be one in Christ. The Early Church was not comprised of ex-Greeks or ex-Sythians.
Claiming biblical principals that are not in the Bible is nothing less than taking God’s name in vain.
But we must recall that Alan is not in charge of a religious organization. He’s helming a political organization. And in politics, identity is FAR more important than behavior.