Exodus International, the largest ex-gay organization and increasingly active anti-gay rights lobby, is now making a rather bold claim. Without any explanation, support or fanfare, they have released two radio spots as part of a media campaign to promote their upcoming Freedom Conference in Irvine, California.
Revolution – a sudden, radical, complete change – through Christ – freedom is possible for those who struggle with same-gender attraction…”
Both audio clips use the same script with different background music to fit the various radio programming formats. The page contains no information or support concerning the claim, and as far as one can tell it would only be heard by someone listening to the radio or happening across that particular page. A web search would not find it.
In the past, Exodus president Alan Chambers has denied this kind of immediate transformation, and certainly no proof exists to support it. When confronted by Anderson Cooper about Ted Haggard’s claim to have become heterosexual after three weeks of therapy, Chambers said:
Well, the truth is that’s not my story, and it’s not the story of anyone I’ve ever met. I don’t know Ted Haggard’s journey over the last three weeks, but like Mark, I would say that it’s something that — it doesn’t seem like something that is really the case.
Others, such as Melissa Fryrear of Focus on the Family, have made the claim, again without any substantiation, that it is possible for one to be instantaneously changed from homosexual to heterosexual:
I know some people that God and it’s their testimony that god did an instantaneous work and they never have had homosexual thought or temptation or idea again in their lives and moved on to heterosexuality, that identity, marriage, children and it was an instantaneous moment for them.
These conferences attract not only parents, but a large youth contingent as well. Gay youth are obviously particularly targeted. It is disturbing that Exodus has placed this dubious message, one that does not even match Exodus’ own past official stance, on the radio with no explanation whatsoever. At the very least this will confuse many, and at worst – well we deal daily with what the worst can be.
I think it’s really a tragedy that there is such coercion to alter one’s being in this way. It doesn’t seem to make the Garden more vibrant and lush with all the life and love and interest there offered.
I think, other than peeking in keyholes, taking Exodus word for it, is so frivolous on their part.
They seem like people in a pageant, and not people who are themselves or are courageous enough to reveal what’s behind their masks.
We don’t need to be raw, or naked among each other. Dignity must come first.
But I have to wonder about these people of Exodus, who want nakedness, suplication ABOUT gay people…but THEMSELVES…not happening.
This has no equity or balance of revelations, one about the other.
How tiresome. They seem like weeds among colorful blossoms. For a gay person to reveal, and embrace who they are, and therefore, more honestly convince others…would be a test of faith.
Not distraction from it.
I saw some unusual flowers being sold at Trader Joe’s, and I thought that it’s time I got a picture book on all the varieties out there.
Labels, of course, matter with flora. There are ground flowers, flowering trees, bushes….and bulbs.
People are more complex, as they might be more simple to figure out.
As a straight person, just roaming around The Garden, so to speak. Homosexuality isn’t that hard to figure out. It’s different, but not difficult to understand for someone OPEN to understanding about it.
Flowers can’t speak for themselves. Except their own worth is what we see with our eyes, the fragrance and variety.
But since gay folks can speak for themselves. That IS the greatest gift of all that we have about one another.
Exodus is speaking….but falsely. Those who used to be gay cannot speak for those who are still gay.
So their words will be distorted, and those of someone bewildered by those in control.
Our Garden is truly marvelous and a miracle of Creation.
Adam and Eve were not only children. They had brothers and sisters right along with them coming from the same father and Earth Mother.
I’m no Biblical scholar. And I am impressed by those here who have been committed people of faith, paying attention to their lessons.
One of, but not least of which is to know yourself.
Happily, I have wanted to know you too. It’s like having found a precious stone, or unusual flower along the way.
Exodus discourages seeing as many flowers and stones and people along the path.
Flower cannot reach out to you. First your eyes look out for them.
But gay folks reach out, have the first order of witness that I don’t have.
I wouldn’t argue with a gay person that witness, any more than I”d argue why so many kinds of roses and trees are in the Garden.
Well, here we are, wandering around together…trying to find our way.
With me and the gay folks, we are definitely moving forward towards a compliment to each other.
With the people of Exodus, they are stumbling backwards in fear and away from knowing anything more than something programmed before hand.
It’s structure alright. But it’s someone else’s identity and someone else’s witness.
We are blessed we have so much. Why wouldn’t I be suspicious of someone saying that men ONLY do this, or women ONLY do that?
When clearly NOTHING does anything ONLY at all.
I love this Garden.
But seriously…something MUST be done about these Exodus weeds.
…the NERVE of these people! — “instant change”!
I spent three arduous years in exgay therapy…when the insurance money and other funding ran out, the therapists and I got honest with each other, and admitted that change simply was NOT going to happen, in spite of our best efforts and wishes.
Now, I am happily “out”, and lovingly partnered for 15 great years.
Congratulations, John. Yours and the voices of others must be heard.
I instantly changed from gay to straight about two years ago. I was all excited until five minutes later, when I instantly changed back.
I was all excited until five minutes later, when I instantly changed back.
Was it because of Jake or Brad?
A friend of mine, an evangelical minister, says he has no proof that therapy or religious groups work to change someone. In fact, he does not know if attraction ever changes. His church even has a exgay group, but there is no proof it has helped anyone. His answer about change: the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost in Acts 2. He argues that everyone was changed in an instant at that meeting (his scriptures even seem to make reference to homosexuality being changed–mine does not). I can understand why Exodus might make a claim like that if you believe in the Bible and believe change happened very quickly on that day. Also, the idea that saving grace completely changes someone instantly if Christ is accepted. Even though that may not have happened to Chambers or others that he knows, many Christians do believe that happens (based on the assumption that homosexuality is a sin to be changed). So, no, probably they can’t prove it, but I imagine that many believe it may happen based on the Bible.
I am not agreeing with Chambers–and honestly, I think they should provide proof, but I can understand the statement from a Christian standpoint–and I am agnostic.
I think that a practice that depends on a miracle occurring should acknowledge up front that only through a miracle will the person change from gay to straight. The person waiting for the miracle could just as well wait for the miracle while going about his/her regular life and forgo the time and expense of ex-gay therapy or participation in Exodus programs.
John, I do think that is a fair point, but I also think many evangelicals are loath to mention the expect a miracle idea. It can seem crass.
The thing is this….
encountering Jesus/Holy Spirit will indeed change you….but that change will be on HIS terms, not yours….
for Exodus to suppose that they can/do manipulate God this way is heresy….not to mention just down right crazy….
Have they ever entertained the thought of just trusting God to do what God will do?? I don’t think so. Because then, if God doesn’t do what they tell him to or tell people he’s going to do(or SHOULD do according to their view of things), well….the whole thing just falls apart. But, it fell apart before it began based on those assumptions.
Aaron,
I sort of think that lying to people about what to expect and getting them to spend enormous amounts of time and money that could be put to better use is far more crass than telling them upfront that the only way that they are going to change is if God decides to perform a miracle on them. People like Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas actually make a living by being just that crass.
Instant change like that?? I’ve not known anyone. But it seems the Pentecostal types and the charismatics have the least success with those they try to help in this manner.
Was it because of Jake or Brad?
It’s all about Katee Sackhoff. Damn you Ronald Moore!!!
How would I put this – “sudden change” seems unlikely for a variety of reasons.
On the other hand, we are talking ultimately about a matter of identity, and it is very hard to objectively know someone’s identity beyond external actions.
As transfolk demonstrate daily, one’s identity and actions may in fact be at significant odds with each other for very long periods of time. So, while “unsubstantiated”, it is difficult to objectively accept or reject those claims on their own merits.
The political motivations of those who make them tend to render the claimants themselves suspect, rather than the claim itself.
Mary said:
How can you make that statement with such miserable results all around? In a process without accountability, as is the case with conversion therapies or ministries, where is the evidence that pentecostal or charismatic “types” fair any better or worse than the rest?
for Exodus to suppose that they can/do manipulate God this way is heresy….not to mention just down right crazy….
Religon is the study of God and his ways. Magic is the attempt to use God’s power for one’s own benefit.
I think that a practice that depends on a miracle occurring should acknowledge up front that only through a miracle will the person change from gay to straight.
Reminds me of this cartoon…
http://www.dimaggio.org/images/Heroes/miracle.jpg
Boo said:
Were I striaght, she would definitely interest me. As it is, Michael Trucco (Anders) is the BSG man of my dreams!
As for Exodus, well I don’t put much stock in their claims. At least the Catholic Church is more honest by just requiring celibacy for gays (not that I agree with that teaching).
Moderator Note: Comment deleted as completely unsubstantiated, off topic, and rambling. Commenter has been repeatedly asked to avoid this type of comment – please do so in the future if you wish to participate.
I have no doubt that if pressed, Exodus would state that the radical change is simply about a life-transforming new relationship with Jesus. The promo pieces are beyond deceptive, though, since they are targeted at vulnerable persons who will without question hear the message that their sexuality can be instantly changed by attending the conference. This is the most blatant abuse I’ve seen by Exodus to date and I’m appalled.
Can Exodus International folks tell us how many of their affiliate organizations were originally started in Pentecostal or Charismatic churches?
Exodus was officially started in a Charismatic Church in Anaheim, CA in 1976.
I would also like to know how many current ex-gay change ministries are no longer headed or not headed by Pentecostals or Charismatics.
I could be mistaken; but, from what I could figure out, when John Paulk was caught in that gay bar in DC in September 2001 and he was the Board President of Exodus International and Bob Davies was the EI CEO, neither Paulk nor Davies were Charismatics or Pentecostals.
I guess I had an “Instantaneous” change: One word from a colleague of mine (I am a pastor) and the Holy Spirit descended upon me and told me to quit pretending to be straight. I was not fooling anyone, why was I trying to fool myself. The hour before, I would have claimed to be straight, then, *whoosh* I was gay! (Of course I had been sruggling for years, but why get caught in the details?)
And I have never regretted it! Miracles do happen!
Halleluyah!
Exodus’ list of acceptable churches is not primarily charismatic. There are a number of churches affiliated with mainline denominations – which surprised me.
Notice the lack of Pentecostal and Charismatic.
I wonder if those churches are directly affiliated with Exodus because I know of other churches that have ex gay groups and such that are not listed.
Every time EXODUS pulls a stupid media stunt like this, it only provides ammo for their critics. Sudden? Radical? Complete? Hardly. Isn’t lying a sin?
Mary said:
If they are a member of Exodus, they are an ex-gay group, but just because they are an ex-gay group does not mean they are a member of Exodus.
I would still like to know how you support your statement about pentecostal and charismatic ex-gay efforts – their involvement with Exodus or lack thereof has nothing to do with efficacy. Is this just an offhand opinion or do you have some sort of evidence? Your statement implies that others do have success and I know of no authoritative source for such a conclusion.
Can you support your statement?
The church list is definitely a work in progress. Notice that there are no chuches in TN where Love In Action is located. I can rattle off 5 churches off the top of my head that are staunch supporters of LiA.
As far as change is concerned, I agree there is no such thing as “sudden, radical, complete change”.
I believe this all goes back to Exodus and their affiliates amorphous, nebulous definition of what change is. Change has been everything from identity to behavior to social dynamics. If you nail them down, they will admit…howbeit, circuituously…that change is about behavior.
Speaking from personal experience, when you walk through the door of a ex-gay ministry (particularly a residential one…which is all I can really speak of with any authority), your behavior does change. You no longer associate with the same people you did before. You don’t participate in the same activities you used (or least not to the same degree). By walking through the door you accept upon yourself the label of exgay.
Within the confines of the artificial, self-contained bubble of society they have created, there is change. Now, when you step outside that bubble or leave it……
In the AT&T “Greater Tulsa (Oklahoma) Region” Phone Book, there is only one Charismatic church that has a “ex-gay” ministry headed by a heterosexually-married ex-gay. That church which used to be called “Grace Fellowship” is now “Grace Church.” Isn’t even located in any neighborhood, it is out the country surrounded by open fields SE of Tulsa and South of Broken Arrow.
It used to be listed on the EI listing but, it has not been on it in quite a few years now. It has become an “outreach” to people with all kinds of sexual problems. It was odd that a member who was a pedophile and also a coach at Grace Christian School was arrested and convicted. He’s serving time in the OK State Penal System now. While he had college degree, he was not certified to teach in Oklahoma because he was not an education major.
As far as I know, there are no other ex-gay ministries in the Area; but, there is a Homosexuals Anonymous group. I know a now openly gay man who met his partner at HA.
The Assemblies of God denomination does support Exodus International.
Maybe I should just leave your Blog, Mr. Roberts. It’s not really a Group with Discussion Forums.
It is next to impossible for me to keep a rarrow focus on one subject when the actual topic covers a broad area. I am normal human being who does not have a one-track mind. Even the railroads in the USA are not mono-rails.
It it quite obvious that there is a great deal of discussion here Joe, but XGW is not your personal blog. We don’t allow anyone to habitually monopolize threads with entirely off-topic matters, while totally ignoring repeated requests by moderators to stop. You are welcome to comment here under the same conditions as anyone else, but you can’t make up your special rules.
In addition, you also tend to pounce on others with dogmatic doctrinal statements, repeatedly insisting things as insignificant as whether one calls oneself a Christian or a Believer. Others have complained that you are oppressive, and unwilling to allow them their own faith. This is not what we are about. And again, I find it troubling that you have ignored my private and public prompting to help you recognize these problems and the need to correct them.
When you have responded, it has been with some sort of declaration that you are called to preach and will not change, followed by your own suggestion that you should perhaps just leave and stop commenting. At this point I would have to agree – you have given no indication that you are willing to make any effort to participate by any rules but your own, so I suggest you concentrate your energy on a personal blog.
Your actions seem to have made the choice for you.
I can concur with what David has said. He is not pulling things out of thin air and is not bullying anybody. I don’t mean to be “pouncing” back but the long dogmatic diatribes can get out of hand. They are difficult to follow theologically as well, because I can’t tell exactly what verses support your view and what verses are ones you yourself do not support (but that other christians might) even when you are quoting from the New Testament. I’ve never heard of a Christian (sorry, “Believer”) who does not support the book of Psalms as being authoritative, when Paul himself makes great attempts to use it as proof that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied messiah. This is fine, but it confuses others of faith who cite scripture in response and makes the back-and-forth difficult – apples and oranges. Also:
This contradictory statement wasn’t called for. It would have been better if you had said “I believe [this] because of [that]” but you didn’t – you said, in not so many words, “That is incorrect” and then cited scriptural “proof” from Matthew, a book I don’t consider, as a Jew, to be of God’s hand- and therefore has no meaning for me anyway. I backed up my personal belief with my scriptural prooftexts – you naturally felt you had to do the same – however, I did not say you (or other Christians/Believers) were wrong and i was right. A gay evangelical preacher is still an evangelical preacher – and evangelicals believe that people who are not believers in the Christian doctrine of salvation are in the wrong and are destined for – well, not-so-nice things after death. Having this belief is perfectly fine. But driving it home with a sledge hammer to others on the board is not.
I felt the need to express my opinion, and I hope it was in an appropriate way for XGW. Please heed David’s continual requests for easing up on your posts.
Okay, last post here. I don’t consider it my blog even though some folks think it looks like I am trying to make it mine..
IMO, the person who would be the most qualified to conduct an ex-gay watch forum would be Michael Bussee himself since he was the founder of Exodus in the 1st place.
I found out about Exodus in the first place in the Trinitarian Pentecostal General Council of The Assemblies of God’s weekly magazine, The Pentecostal Evangel. If my memory serves me correctly, the first article endorsed by Exodus appeared not long after the organization was founded.
The church where Exodus was started no longer exists because the pastor got into a whole lot of legal troubles.
Joe Allen,
I hear you implying that since your rambling and off-tangent comments are not being welcomed here, the folks running the site aren’t qualified. Or, not as qualified as some other person would be, who I’m assuming you think would tolerate your conduct.
You seem like a nice person, and certainly a Christian one. And I don’t doubt that you have been called to preach the gospel and all that. I’m probably wasting my finger muscles here in trying to appeal to your common sense. But, did it ever occur to you that you might be the one who needs to change in this instance?
I’ll use your last post as an example. The entire 3rd paragraph could be easily left out. When you first found out about Exodus just has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion here. Stating your opinion that someone else could better run the site is a relevant opinion. It’s also completely irrelevant that the pastor got into legal troubles to what’s being discussed here. We weren’t even talking about a pastor. We’re talking about you, Joe. You have some great nuggets of insight. But it’s literally like mining for gold with a faulty flashlight…… just way too much effort and not enough clarity to see our way past the parts that are just filler.
Hey, does anyone know if Alan Chambers has had anything to say about these “sudden, radical and complete” ads?
I don’t want to seem callous towards XGW or to construe anything as a personal attack with what I’m going to say.
First rule of a public relations stunt: Say or do something to get your attention. (Did I get yours?)
We see how the Ex-gay industry does it. We see how their billboards suggest change is possible. We hear how some Ex-gay radio advertising makes the same suggestion. I see how many ex-gay supporters are on talk-shows / public debates and say the same thing. From a good majority of churches/synagogues we have preaching from their countless pulpits: Gays can change.
What do we have to counter such overwhelming PR stunts? Gay Pride parades?
We all know to read the fine print when we see something like that. Many of my friends/family/co-workers hear these PR messages from ex-gays and they don’t really care to read the “fine print”. The general public has not an inkling about the “fine print” when you press ex-gays about the word: “change”.
Now for the fine-print: [change font here] “Change” is relative and we can spend time on semantics about what change constitutes. What level of an ex-gay am I? Am I considered an ex-gay because I now no longer wish make random one-night stands and tear up my IML membership card? Or am I only considered “changed” if I go out and marry a woman and raise a brood. (Silly isn’t it?) [resume normal font]
XGW…you’re good. You’re doing exactly what needs to be done. You provide a forum. It just needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
Michael Bussee wrote:
I haven’t seen him quoted anywhere on this , but maybe Alan is going to attend the conference hoping for his own “radical, complete” change from homosexual to heterosexual.
According to an audioclip of Alan speaking at Love Won Out Phoenix posted on Box Turtle Bulletin, Alan says he still gets up every day praying for the strength to avoid temptation that day and get through his lifetime of denial. Sounds like he could really use whatever magic dust they are going to tossing around this Irvine Exodus conference.
On Dr. Throckmorton’s blog, we have been having a lenghthy and often heated debate on the meaning of words like “change” and “ex-gay”. So far, this is what we have learned (from some ex-gays themselves) as to what ex-gay does NOT mean…
It does not mean, straight, heterosexual, bisexual, gay, homosexual or former-homosexual.
It does not mean that the person’s sexual orientation has changed.
It does not mean that the person has stopped having gay sex or that they have stopped masturbating to gay fantasies.
Alan Chambers refers to himself on the EXODUS website as “former homosexual” — even though he doesn’t like the word “ex-gay” because “exgay” is “more negative than anything” and “does not accurately describe what the change process in really all about.” So, I guess he prefers the more descriptive term, “former homosexual.”
I wonder… Does “former homosexual” NOT mean the same things that “ex-gay” does not mean?
Alan Chambers described himself to Terry Gross on her “Fresh Air” program on NPR within the last year as “completely heterosexual.” He was emphatic about it.
I don’t know what ex-gays in general really think of themselves; it is a moving target at best.
Alan Chambers though is clearly a liar. He described himself as a “pathologic liar” in the past. I would say that he has graduated to a professional liar now, since he now draws a paycheck for his lies. He cannot logically be all the things he claims at the same time.
The terminology used by Chambers such as ‘completely heterosexual’ or ‘former homosexual’ is of course his personal variation of ‘ex-gay’.
But I would be curious to know just how many times the word ‘struggle’ had been popping up often from these groups but without definition?
What kind of struggle are they talking about?
I only noticed the only struggle homosexuals face is external (discrimination, misinformation, bias etc etc)
I would be curious to ask Chambers about his struggles, it sounds so internal to me, the way he just lets his personal validation of what he perceives God wants him to be.
Is that not a self inflicted struggle?
Or if he were gay, he would have faced the external struggles before. So, my question is, with no intention to judge, is he confusing an his external struggles with his internal struggles now that he is a former homosexual (or whatever box he puts himself in)?
David Roberts:
All I have are anecdotal impressions (just like everybody else on this subject, alas), but I will say that based on those, I think I kind of agree with Mary about Pentecostals and Charismatics. I have no clue whether they have more or fewer successes than others, but it seems to me that their particular brand of failure is far more damaging and devastating than the alternatives.
(I should note that I am not Pentecostal or Charismatic (hereafter “P/C”). I was led to Christ by P/C believers and have been influenced by them over the years, and I admire many of them greatly and consider them my friends. But my theology and practice have never been theirs. While I have observed some of what I share below directly, much of it has been gathered from the experiences of P/C and formerly P/C folks I know–mostly exgays and exexgays, but some everstraight folks too.)
1. Pentecostals/Charismatics are far more likely to try deliverance. They will pray over you, deliver you, and tell you you are fixed, released from your bondage and demonic oppression, end of story. The people I know who went through this consider it hurtful and damaging to their faith.
2. Because of their greater emphasis on spiritual power and miracles for today, P/C folks in my experience get much more impatient much more quickly with one’s lack of progress.” Other kinds of evangelicals usually accept that miracles and radical transformations don’t happen that reliably. P/C folks, well, some do and some don’t. I know several people, some exgay, some exexgay, who were in my opinion outright abused by their churches for not changing fast enough. “Surely if you really had faith something would have happened by now!” these people got told day in and day out. There may be a slight hint of this in other branches of the church, but in my experience it is an order of magnitude greater among the “Spirit-filled.”
3. Five words. Name. It. And. Claim. It. This is a thoroughly Pentecostal phenomenon. And it mandates fakery–it demands that the believer claim total healing, regardless of whatever he’s feeling. I trust I don’t need to spell out the implications of that here.
4. The P/C emphasis on believers getting revelation today (and sharing it with you, out of the goodness of their hearts) can also be hurtful. Joe Schmoe has a word from the Lord for me, that I’ve been healed, that I’m supposed to marry so-and-so. And who am I to reject the word of the Lord? He does seem to have a prophetic gift–after all, he knew about Suzy’s sore elbow and she hadn’t even told anyone! In contrast, as a non-P/C, if someone in my church tells me what they think I should be doing, they speak for themselves, definitely not for God. Both they and I are fully aware of this. So I don’t feel bad about blowing them off. In other words, I think the P/C church encourages too much trust in other fallible (and often ignorant) human beings. Which I think can be disastrous when it comes to this issue.
*****************
I don’t mean to claim that ALL Pentecostals and Charismatics are like this. But I would say that the problems I describe are peculiarly P/C in nature, in my experience. Other branches of evangelicalism, in my limited experience, just aren’t like that!
Fundamentally, I would say that the problem is that this problematic kind of P/C pits faith against self-awareness. I feel this way BUT I’ve been delivered! I feel this way BUT if I had more faith I wouldn’t, Lord help my unbelief! I feel this way BUT I must claim otherwise in faith! I feel this way BUT this person has a word from God for me saying otherwise. So, to my mind, the troubled P/C viewpoint I describe above tends to lead to the perspective that one’s feelings are liars. I do not think that is a healthy place to be. Better to treat my feelings as real, and go on from there to determine what to do with them, how to respond to them.
I’m getting Exodus Youth ministry enewsletter and their enthusiastic praise for the upcoming conference in Irvine.
I looked at it again since I was this thread. There really isn’t anything that points to referrals or anything specific to what process can be expected for change.
It’s just more claims, and praise and more praise for a life in Christ, or that God had everything to do with who got changed (saved).
For such raves concering their motive….but not any raves for the work that has to be done in the meantime.
And I think those buzz words that are euphemisms for homosexuality like: bondage, tragedy, sin, and addiction are guaranteed to play to anyone’s darker fears. I think I”ll be looking at language and it’s uses and also why people like Chambers and Joseph Nicolosi have so little backbone for challengers.
Christine Bakke provided me with the Living Waters manual. And I”m trying to imagine such dense material for a teenager.
It’s hard enough to get them through the required reading for school, so I”m presuming there is something more reader friendly for a kid.
As you well know homosexuality is treated like an affliction worse than cancer-and it would be hilarious if so many lives weren’t affected by this misinformation based on the flimsiest of statistics and myth.
I guess now what I”m investigating is this language in advertising. I left the analysis of this to some legal eagles over at the Williams Project, but I like to check this stuff out myself.
I’m wondering what kinds of people care about stuff like this and who we could find in the mainstream about this kind of fraud?
Anyway, it’s just one of those days when I’m sitting and thinking about stuff like this.
I’m reading the book “Prayers for Bobby”, by the late Leroy Aarons.
I met Mr. Aarons years ago on several occasions and this book makes me more committed to understanding the dangers that Exodus represents to young people and their families.
I’d read it before. But this subject has me reading it again. I asked Alan Chambers what would have happened in his life had he been a fully accepted and supported gay teenager?
He didn’t even want to answer THAT question, and now I wonder why no ex gay ever wants to.
Was that an offensive question?
John says:
Then what is the point of going to an ex-gay ministry if nothing is going to change? A change of identity does not qualify someone as being ex-gay or former homosexual. To my understanding it means moving from one orientation to another. If we can see through this deception surely God can. No one can lie to God. And all the time I have been coming here on XGW that is what it seems those involved in these ministries do. Lie. They are willing to play heterosexual house in order to be acceptable to thier families, churches, and mainstream society. They don’t care whom they hurt in the process as long as they fit into what they consider the norm.
It’s no wonder those seeking change are more confused coming out of ex-gay ministries than they were going in.
My upbringing was Pentecostal Church of God (the Assemblies of God were “too liberal”). I can’t speak for how Pentecostal faith operates today, but as my father was a pastor, I am familiar with the thinking or the more conservative branches of Pentecostalism in the 70’s and early 80’s.
I think the three biggest obstacles for ex-gay success in the Pentecostal thinking (of that time) are:
1. an inclination to think of homosexuality as demonically influenced (either demon possession or demon oppression) brough about by willful rebellion.
2. a hesitancy to “rely on the hand of man rather than the hand of God. The recommended solution for illness was prayer and doctors were for the weak of faith.
3. a deep hostility towards psychotherapy.
This combination is likely to result in a heavy emphasis on prayer and deliverance and a hesitation to provide values therapy or tools for behavior modification. It would be pretty much, “let’s stop all this talking and this excuse making and start praying for God to do the work”.
Should God, indeed, decide to suddenly, radically, and completely change your orientation, well then this method might be effective. Otherwise, I don’t think it’s much use at all.
I do know that demands for God to suddenly, radically, and completely change something are not always met. And making decisions based upon assumptions about what God will do – if you have enough faith – can have catastrophic results.
When my mother became ill with cancer, she relied on the hand of God not the hand of man. That included foregoing pain medication. She was convinced that God would see her faith and raise her up.
If you’ve never watched someone die in excruciating pain without anything to dull it… well, let’s just say I don’t recommend it.
disputed mutability said:
My original church experience was with the Assemblies of God, both pentecostal and charismatic and the fastest growing I believe. I would have to agree with everything you have said – their failures probably carry a particularly damaging sting because of the emphasis on the miraculous in everyday life, sometimes approaching nothing short of magical heresy in my opinion.
My question to Mary was concerning their relative success or failure in effecting change.
The problem with that statement is that it hides a bit of unsubstantiated propaganda (the idea that someone out there does have success in making heterosexuals out of homosexuals) inside a statement which might be taken for granted as being true (that Pentecostals and charismatics do not have much success making heterosexuals out of homosexuals).
I’ve noticed a lot of mixed messages of this type in Mary’s comments, both here and on Dr. Throckmorton’s blog, so I am inclined to ask for clarification. On their own one might not see much damage, but after a while they do introduce inaccurate assumptions into the debate without clear points of entry at which others can offer challenge.
Regan DuCasse wrote:
Regan,
For me it’s not so much that I don’t want to answer the question or that I’m offended by it, but that I simply don’t know how. How can any of us really know how our lives would have turned out if things had been different? It’s sheer speculation, from my point of view.
I was not a fully accepted or supported gay teenager, but I like to think I made out okay in spite of that. In the years before my conversion to Christianity at age 20, I saw a series of therapists for other issues, but all of them noted approvingly, some perhaps even admiringly, how well-adjusted and self-accepting I was with regard to my sexuality. I remember once meeting with one therapist with my mom, and my mom kept blaming my troubles on my sexuality, until the therapist, exasperated, interrupted and said, “Look–she clearly doesn’t have any problems with her gayness. The only one here who has problems with it is you!” That shut her up nice and quick.
Of course they could all have been wrong. And I myself don’t think I fit the self-loathing stereotype, but I could be wrong too. 🙂
If you ask me to guess, I would guess that I would be roughly where I am today, even if my parents had been perfect PFLAG parents, and even if my school had been gay-friendly. But that’s because I believe that my spiritual conversion was genuine–God’s touching and transforming my heart and opening my eyes to His truth. I believe that God in His love would have shown me this path through Scripture, regardless of what kind of background I came from. Since I believe it and embrace it as being from God, I obviously don’t think it is merely the fruit of self-hatred or internalized oppression.
In other words, if I really believed that I was only doing this because of the unfortunate circumstances of my youth, I sure as heck wouldn’t have done it! 🙂
Richard “I’m not actually a doctor, licensed, or Jewish” Cohen tells of how he was accepted as a gay man in his youth – he tells this on CNN and on his wonderful Daily Show appearance. But he still, for some reason, desired to exit the “lifestyle” because he “knew it wasn’t for him.” This, of course, fully contradicts what he said years before about how he had been “raped” by a man at his father’s gym (according to Wayne Besen’s research on the man), but that’s not the point – his most recent claim is that he was happily out but still wanted to leave it all behind. You know, if you’re happily anything, why would you want to leave the “happily” part behind?
Regan: Ack! I realize I may have just totally misread you. I read you as asking Alan what he thought would have happened in Alan’s life if he had been fully accepted. I just realized that maybe you’re saying that you asked Alan what he thought would have happened in Bobby’s life if he had been fully accepted. My apologies for misunderstanding, if I misunderstood. Pronouns are such pesky creatures.
To answer the Bobby version of the question, I would have to say that first of all, like I said above, we can’t fully know. (I only skimmed through Prayers for Bobby once in a bookstore many years ago, so I don’t remember it super well.) But I think we have reason to hope that he wouldn’t have killed himself if he had been more fully accepted. At least that is how it seems to me.
But I personally believe that acceptance and support are compatible with believing and teaching homosexual sex to be sin. So if the lesson you want me to take away from Bobby’s story is that unless I endorse gay sex and sexual relationships, I am killing kids…well, I’m not persuaded.
David Roberts: Yeah, I knew what you were getting at, but I was trying for a peaceful and non-confrontational way to make the assumptions explicit. 🙂
disputed mutability said:
I don’t think Regan said you were killing kids DM but the idea that change must be met because a conservative christian portion of society demands it by their interpretation of the Bible does lead to some of those children to kill themselves. The worse thing anyone could do is make their child feel they are not worthy of being on this Earth all because of their sexual orientation.
As a person who describes themselves as being ex gay for lack of a better word – I would say that my orientation has changed and is now towards men. I know that the ex gay term is loosley defined by a variety of people. But to say say in broad strokes what it does not mean – does NOT mean that is true for all ex gays. One of the descriptions up above seems to clump everyone into one category and that just is impossible. As it would be impossible to clump all gay people into one category (you know – the way christian extremist who hate gays try to make all gays sex fiends without morals?)
I am often amazed at how people can read the samething and pull entirely different meanings out of it.
I have a relative, a woman, who dated men – then dated women – then dated men, and married a great one a couple years ago. She did not go into any kind of therapy. She also did not try to change herself sexually. She went with what felt natural.
While dating women, she took it seriously and seriously considered being with women as long-term partners. But then, she felt that dating another man was the best course. So she did.
Today, there’s not a doubt in my mind that she’s absolutely in love with the man I married, a man I’m proud to call part of the family. Does that obliterate her genuine same-sex attractions of years past? No, not according to me, and probably not according to her, either. However, I don’t think she would describe herself as “bisexual.” I think she would describe herself as “human.”
Oh, and also, she is a religious Catholic. But for some reason that never got in the way of her embracing her true self. Sometimes things are very grey – her “change” wasn’t instantaneous, but then, we’re not talking about a woman who struggled for 15 years to find attraction to a different group of people. Maybe compared to Chambers’ and Paulk’s experiences, it IS kind of instantaneous.
Emily, that reminds me of a friend. I haven’t been in contact with her directly in a few years but know through other friends that she was recently married to a man she started dating before I lost contact with her. Before that she was in a 17 year relationship with another woman. She was and is quite active in the local gay community, though there isn’t nearly as much activity (potlucks, movie nights, etc) as there was in the 90s.
I had almost forgotten but even back then while in a relationship with a woman, she didn’t call herself bisexual but said she felt she could fall in love with a man or a woman with the right qualities. In those days I didn’t put much stock in that kind of comment to be honest; being on the extreme gay side of the scale I just couldn’t easily identify with that.
But if she had had a crisis of faith between her first relationship and her second, and had gone through some therapy (or as in Mary’s case not) then attributing her marriage to a man would have been a raving success story for changing one’s orientation. As it is, I understand she is still quite open with the fact that she could fall in love with a woman again if she met the right one, but is perfectly happy in her marriage.
As you said, I think this is just part of the human equation. To use it as evidence that one can cause such change if the desires are not already there would be wrong. To further use it as an excuse to deny equal rights to gay people is unconscionable. Yet this is what we see every day.
I’m going to make a note to get in contact with her. I have much more intelligent questions to ask than I did years ago 😉
I wrote in love with the man “I married” but i meant “she married.” i missed that typo.
Thanks for the good response, David. Hope you can get in touch.
No one’s life should be used as a tool to constrict others. Some would agree that whatever their challenge or perspective or “outcome” is that that is a personal issue to be shared but not to be “used”, explioted.
Mary, I know you don’t really want to get this started again, but the “broad strokes” I made about what “ex-gay” does NOT mean were derived directly from what ex-gays themselves have posted here and elsewhere. They told me what it does not (necesarily) mean and they repeatedly explained that what it does mean is extremely variable and personal.
You are correct whten you point out, that “to say say in broad strokes what it does not mean – does NOT mean that is true for all ex-gays.” As you have acknowldeged else where, it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. In your case, I think you mean that your orientation has changed completely from gay to straight. But that, I submit, is extremely rare.
After our lenghty discusssions, I still am not clear on whether you already had some heterosexual attractions before becoming “ex-gay” — or if these are new. I also am not clear on whether or not gay attractions or temptations are completely gone, or if (like almost all others who use the term “ex-gay”) you continue to struggles against them.
Most English speakers would use the term “bisexual” to descibe a person who once had and still has both. Just looking for clarity I don’t want to re-start the debate. You are free to use the words in whatever way makes sense to you. In any case, are you willing to admit that “change” is not sudden, radical or complete?
I can’t be more clear. I am oriented towards men. I do not have struggles with same gender attraction at this time, I was a lesbian.
I would not and I doubt most people would consider me bisexual. I am not attracted to women in a romantic/sexual way. What else can be said Michael??
Change is not sudden for most people I have known. I have not met in real life a person who changed in an instant. But not discounting that someone in 5 billion people could experience dramatic instant change – just rare. Sort of like chemerics. Rare.
Sorry to annoy you, Mary. That’s clear enough. I won’t ask you again. Promise. I do have to say that you are the first person I have ever spoken to, in over thirty years of asking, who has experienced such a complete and total change in sexual orientation. The very first — and I have talked to many, many ex-gays and ex-ex-gays over the past three decades — including members and leaders of EXODUS.
I believe you are sincere and I have no reason to doubt what you are saying. Congratulations. Now, if I could only talk to a man who has had this complete change in sexual orientation. That would be great! But, heck, I am getting old and I don’t know if I’ll make it another 30 years… 🙂
For you, the change was gradual. And you are right, in terms of possibilities, perhaps there is “someone in 5 billion people who could experienced dramatic, instant change”. Still, it seems kinda inflated for EXODUS to imply that it’s there for the asking (or believing). I think Ed Hurst (EXODUS pioneer and still-defender of the term “ex-gay”) was on the money when he called such a claim “hype”.
Humanity’s great, isn’t it? It’s so diverse and unpredictable. The human condition is rife with uncertainty and variety. Mary had a complete change- but I’m proud that she is a supporter of XGW and not a poster child for EXODUS. I can almost see Chambers kicking himself saying “Gosh darnit! if only she’d come to OUR side first! what a great PR tool- ahem, person– we’d have!”
Michael, it took 30 years but you finally did meet one – and on a pro LGBTQ site, at that! However, you are on the money when you say “if only I could talk to a man who had this complete change” because it seems that women are the ones who have an easier time flexing their identities sexually. Both David Roberts and I mentioned women whom we’ve known to be “open/flexible/go-with-the-flow” (bisexual, for lack of a better term) and seemingly made a 180° turn in identity. That makes three women and no men who fit into the “change” category. IMO, this is because women are more flexible sexually in general. We’re wired differently psycho-sexually, and ofcourse, cultural influences take their toll – but it seems in the exgay circuit, it’s men who are the most desperate to change, and men who have the most difficult time changing. I think men are more likely to try to enter into ex gay programs, and all of the pop psychology and propaganda used to “heal” gays is based on stereotypes from the male homosexual realm (bath-houses, pedophilia towards boys, over-bearing mothers…) Most of us here probably know of Anne Paulk’s “instant” change and John’s continual “walk with Christ.” Former-ex-gays please come out and correct me where I’m wrong!
I think its all about message. I mean, look at the culture in the United States right now. Increasingly the focus is on speed and instant gratification. Everything is just faster now, from the microwave to the washing machine (which obviously has been around all of my and most commenters here lifetime but certainly was a revelation when introduced) to the internet. Americans simply don’t like waiting for anything whether its weight loss or apparently “successful” orientation change. Now all that is needed is a handy dandy toaster to be added to the package…
Micheal,
Keep in mind – I did not say complete change. I don’t mean to belabor the point. But in my change there have been periods of struggle and there might be in the future. I don’t think we will have a complete grasp or understanding of sexuality for a very long time. I know that probably fuzzies up the answer again – but it really is the best I can do right now.
Emily,
You say alot that rings true with me. Women and sexuality is sort of a different subject sometimes than men and sexuality.
Mary said:
Wait, where did that come from??? You have been emphatic in saying that you have no romantic feelings for woman, and that before you were “completely lesbian.” In fact just a couple of hours ago you said this:
This is an example of the inconsistencies which make it hard to believe you, Mary. Could you please explain this sudden modification of your story?
Yup, Mary, I’m afraid it does “fuzzy up the answer again”, but, oh well. I can live with it. At least, it’s a gradual, semi-complete change for now. For now, no lesbian attractions or fantasies — just attractions to males. Would that be just one particular guy or guys in general? (Sorry, I know said I wouldn’t annoy you by asking for such specifics. Can’t seem to help myself…)
For you, there have clearly been big changes in attraction, behavior and identity. You are happier, better adjusted emotionally — and you are following your faith. That’s all cool. And, after all, no one can predict the future, right? Maybe it’s true (after all) that women can “flex” more. Who knows? So… I am still looking for the male who fits the bill. Actually, come to think of it, I have met a lot of men who were straight “for now”… 😉
Yup – no one can predict the future. Fuzzy is something we all have to live with. I’d be hard pressed to describe the perfect afternoon.
I’m attracted to guys in general. Not in the guy crazy way that some do. I am sort of interested in one guy right now but that does not eliminate the potential for other options. I’m picky.
This flies in the face of everything you have said here about your life Mary. A question has been posed, please do not ignore it.
This is a discussion, not a monologue, please address this.
Michael,
Also, I’velived long enough to know not to use words like always, never and only. And have replaced those with phrases like ” today I can say”, “I don’t know what the future holds”, “at this time” etc… I guess, I assume, I have about 80 or so years left to live on this planet and when I’m coming into that final turn I’ll have a better grasp on words like completely and for as long as I can remember.
One last opportunity Mary.
Mary,
You have made comments about when you went to high school that indicate that you are older than I am. If I were to live “80 or so years” more on this planet I would be between the age of 120 and 130 years old.
Not to worry David, You have threatened me and I will leave on my own. I have tried to simply avoid you and your tone has concerned me.
John,
That is a very long life and certainly possible with the advances in medical science and technology.
I imagine it must be difficult for self-described “ex gays” to participate a site called “ex-gay watch.” Naturally, they’re the ones that will end up being the most- well, watched.
Threatened? On the contrary, you have been given months to comment as you wished, but what you said leaves many with questions about your sincerity. Questions are not threats, but there is a limit as to how long you can ignore them without losing all credibility.
The problem is not how you live your life Mary – you are free to do that as you please. The problem is that you expect others to take at face value, what is beyond the claims of most ex-gay advocates (certainly Exodus, Dr. Throckmorton, etc) and what little science there is on the subject. Your statements about your life journey have been inconsistent and when pressed, you have refused to respond, citing personal and family security.
We have had countless ex-gays comment here, and none that I can remember made claims such as yours. Only you and those around you really know if these claims are genuine, and I might be content not to challenge the notion that you are the one in 6 billion who just did the impossible if this there were a different forum of discussion. But here it is important that debate be based on fact and candor as much as possible. Otherwise, the quality of what we do will suffer and degrade into deception.
That said, I have to admit that I am quite leery of your claims, and therefore question your intentions. Given your statements and my experience with others, I would have to say that you are not being completely honest with us. You have been given ample opportunity to respond to basic queries about your history, and now you not only refuse to respond but you ignore the questions. There is a limit to how long you can continue to do that if you wish to be taken seriously.
If that makes you feel threatened, then you are probably right to comment elsewhere where the truth is not quite so important.
You have got to be kidding.
I refuse to respond to you David Roberts. I said so in another blog and your tone has been less than civil. You are just about at the stage of cyber stalking. That you don’t take a hint is yet another indication of your social skills to read ques and take hints. So be it – now I have stated it quite clearly.
That you fail to understand as well as Emily, Micheal or others is your own fault. To give you reading comprehension lessons is not my job.
And as far as age and longevity go – please look at historical records and recalculate.
I have answered Michael every time he has had a question because you can truly see he wants to know.
That I did not answer all those others questions was put very simply to me not to do so in the way I suggested. I told you in another blog that I wanted to take my time as this is a sensitive issue and wanted to use language that was easily understood and not harmful or hurtful to others.
I was going to provide an e-mail address here in the forum with a password and an attached word doc answering all questions in full. I was asked not to – or so I interpreted it that way.
I still have those answers and am reviewing them. Also, you forget to mention that I told you in that other blog that my story might be posted somewhere and you would be made aware of where and when and you could read it – as it would probably answer all your questions.
Somehow it is soooo easy for you to accuse me and forget conviently how I tried to answer you without putting you off.
Well, I’m not good enough for you. Big deal.
To refuse to answer is your right, though your credibility here is gone. As to cyber stalking, I’m stumped. Are you that paranoid? Questioning statements that don’t add up, and which you posted yourself on this site is cyber stalking? I suggest you take a hard, long look at what that really means before you accuse someone of it, because unlike most things thrown back and forth here, that truly is a libelous statement in every sense of the word.
Though you stated a few comments back that you were no longer commenting here (but continued to comment), in light of that accusation I think it best that you actually don’t.
I suspect there is some of that, but honestly we have had many people from that point of view participate in a candid, open manner. Pam (Willful Grace) was an amazing commenter even during a time when she and her husband seemed to be the epitome of an ex-gay success story. Jay and James are quite inspired and have given me much to think about. Disputed Mutability is an awesome writer and comments here at times.
There are others but suffice to say they all had honest, open debates and were consistent in their stories. If you look back a couple of months, you will see that Mary started out quite harshly – many thought she was a member of PFOX which is about as harsh as they come. Much of what she said came across like their rhetoric. Then at some point she began changing her tone, making comments from a very different point of view. At the same time or just before, her story line wasn’t adding up at all.
Timothy became confused first and requested clarification. I also became confused about statements which made her sound about 20 on one side, but more my age (early 40’s) on the other. When I questioned this, she clammed up and said she couldn’t answer questions like that over fear for her family. That’s about the time she offered to send her story out to people if they would email her. My response was that she be open with those here or refuse to answer, but not offer private bits – it’s not fair and one should consider those things before commenting about ones life on an open forum.
I’ve not gotten a meaningful reply since. She started posting on Doc Throck’s blog somewhere in there and less here, so I let it go. But after noticing some really outrageous statements there, I mentioned the inconsistencies from her experience here. She never answered then either.
This thread couldn’t be farther off topic, and I realize I helped with that. Once it becomes likely that someone is simply playing a role here, we can’t let it go. But I suspect nothing more good can come out of this one, so I’m shutting it down. If you have any pertinent comments, use the open forum thread.