Claiming a new focus on ministry, Exodus president Alan Chambers confirms that they have left the political arena. Seeking to verify a rumor, XGW asked Chambers to respond for the record today. His answers may be particularly significant considering the recent discussions (both here and on Warren Throckmorton’s blog) with Wendy Gritter, leader of Exodus member ministry New Direction.
XGW: We’ve heard that changes have been made regarding Exodus’ direct involvement in politics. Can you confirm and explain what these are? What changes have been made, i.e. what were you doing and what are you doing now in this realm?
Chambers: It may sound nuanced but we weren’t really involved in “politics.” We never worked for the direct election or defeat of a candidate.
We did get involved in “policy issues” on a federal level with regard to hate crimes legislation and marriage. We considered getting more involved than that. In fact, as you know, we hired a Director of Government Affairs in March, 2007.
Since the first day we entered into policy discussions and activism it was a struggle for us. I felt strongly about the issues we were defending, but conflicted about the fact that we might be alienating people that simply wouldn’t call us for help because of the perception that we were becoming a partisan and political organization rather than a ministry for all.
In August, 2007 after a lot of prayer, deliberation and listening to friends and critics alike — but mostly the Lord — we decided to back out of policy issues and our Director of Government Affairs took a position with another organization.
I believe strongly in all of the initiatives that we were involved in, but believe we must focus on our two greatest contributions: 1) helping the Church balance grace and truth where homosexuality is concerned and 2) connecting people who seek our help with a community of believers that can love them as they journey towards Christ.
XGW: What prompted these changes?
Chambers: Conviction. The Lord’s leading. People.
XGW: Are these changes permanent or do you have plans for the future in this area?
Chambers: One area that we found to be incredibly beneficial was simply sharing our stories with lawmakers. If and when there are opportunities to do that we will.
As for lobbying, promoting policies, etc., I don’t see us being involved in the near or distant future. Will we ever feel the need to get involved? Maybe—as a ministry we care about religious freedom and we are always watching to see how changes in policy might negatively impact our freedom.
There isn’t anyone on staff that has policy in their job description and we don’t plan to spend money there. We believe using our resources on the Exodus Church Network and ministry outreach is more central to our mission.
XGW: For the record, when did you formally end Exodus’ political
activities?Chambers: August, 2007. 2008, however, marked a complete refocus on ministry.
For at least the past couple of years, XGW has led the charge to persuade Exodus of the importance of just such a move. As with the comments from Gritter, many will be skeptical and perhaps with good reason. Only time will tell if this really does represent a major shift for Exodus, but for now it doesn’t seem like a bad thing.
There is also this post today on Chamber’s personal blog. About the thread mentioned above he writes:
There are a lot of challenging things written in the XGW thread (post and comments) on Wendy that I am thinking and praying about. What is said by gay activists is not lost on me. I do care how people are impacted by my words, actions and ministry. Ironically, I know the Lord uses every voice, suggestion, encouragement and criticism to shape me.
What do we make of all this? We will continue to have major ideological differences with ex-gay ministries, and they will most likely continue to exist, at least for the foreseeable future. Still, do we see this as good news, or an effort to put a new face on old wrongs? And if the latter, what would real change look like?
If this is genuine, it’s good news to everyone with a relationship to Exodus.
But pragmatically, won’t Focus on the Family give $X fewer dollars to Exodus now and transfer those funds to Americans for Truth about Homosexuality or the FRC?
I hear Chambers as saying, [We’ll stop using political means to change hate crime and marriage legislation, but our ministry won’t change.] This sounds like just being PC. I might rather Exodus at least articulate the philosophy that will still trickle into every remaining facet of its organization.
I think it has a lot to do with the polls from conservative Christian organizations that young people are turned off of evangelical Christianity because of the bigotry of conservative Christian organizations. They recognize that their political activities are ruining the “harvest” of the next generation. Even Focus on the Family had a month or so of tempered comments, although ultimately it appears you can’t change the stripes on that zebra. But it is nice to see Alan Chambers having second thoughts.
It also appears that statements in late 2006, early 2007 by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president, Al Mohler, that conservative Christians have to prepare themselves for the possibility that homosexuality is inborn has also been manifested in the activities of ex-gay ministries. You’ll notice how they have become more careful as to what “change” entails.
We’ve never been able to document any significant funds given to Exodus from FOTF, and Chambers has specifically said that they receive very little. There are obvious benefits to their relationship, such as the boost in exposure Exodus receives from the FOTF funded Love Won Out conferences, and I believe Exodus participants are paid $500 per conference for their work.
That said, I don’t think you will find FOTF giving much attention to anything Peter LaBarbera does – the FRC is more likely. But as I suggested in the post, we’ve been hounding Exodus to drop the politics and policy work for years. If they are doing just that, isn’t that a good thing?
David:
Only time will tell, but, if they are sincere about it, then yes it is a good thing they are doing.
I have my own theory as to why they are doing it, and I don’t think it is purely the Lord talking to them to make them do this. I don’t think God says one day, “Get involved in politics” and then later says, “Oh, wait! Changed my mind. Just be a ministry.”
A lot might have to do with the fact that if the democrats win the White House it won’t be so easy just to say “I’m no longer gay and I can make others that way too” without proof. In other words, ex-gay ministries will be a harder thing to sell in the future.
It is nice to know there is one less monster in the closet or under the bed. I just pray to God and every saint in heaven who’s not on a call that there isn’t something else to take its place.
Exodus leaders have conducted many of their political activities through Focus and other religious-right groups, not through Exodus itself.
They have used the star status achieved through Exodus to gain invitations to appear in religious-right political media and legislative hearings — often speaking ostensibly as private citizens who just happen to have hundreds of thousands of ex-gay friends counting on them to defend ex-gay rights by undermining everyone else’s rights.
Is Chambers saying that he, Randy Thomas, and Mike Ensley will no longer take public positions on hate crimes, civil unions, discrimination, or school bullying? It seems not — Thomas’ blog and Exodus’ own Live Out Loud blog continue to parrot far-right politics, and just today I received an e-mail from Exodus Youth that contained three political items attacking public schools for taking strong stands against antigay violence.
This is a step in the right direction, and I welcome it. And I look forward to seeing it in action, because that is the real test.
And as Mike suggested, I hope this means we’ll see Thomas and Ensley stop promoting right-wing causes. If the reason for the change is that political involvement alienates those they’re trying to help, allowing these two to vent their own opinions through their blogs is any less a stumbling block.
I would choose to believe Alan’s words for the time being. One thing I must admit in regards to Alan is that sometimes he would suddenly be real honest to himself and people around him. I do feel for him sometimes.
I am glad that Alan is taking Exodus on this new path. However, I believe that Thomas and Ensley may not agree with this. Exodus’ affiliated may not follow suit.
I still remember that in June last year, Alan attempted to distance himself from the word ‘ex-gay’ and implied that there is not such thing as a sudden or complete change and it drew a lot of flack from certain quarters.
I do think it’s a wonderful step or at least an attempt at a step in the right direction for Exodus.
However…..realistically, I think that the current Exodus organization changing from a political machine to a ministry might prove to be as difficult as the “change” from gay to straight. They are going to need to remove themselves from all sorts of “tempting” situations that seem to feed some sort of ego-need that validates their very existence at all (this is all my opinion). I can see where that will be much easier said than done. They will need to change their metaphorical voice intonations and patterns of speech as well so that they will sound more like a ministry and less like a political machine. They’ll need to stop certain activities entirely and begin engaging in others more often.
Good luck with that.
But yes, overall, this announcement is a good thing. At least it’s a recognition that there is a problem.
Did I mention they have to stop using their hands when they talk???
no…wait…..
i’m confusing myself…(easy to do)
off to school now!
tah tah!
I guess that I will believe that Exodus is getting out of politics when I see it.
Hogwash.
That’s what Jim at Box Turtle witnessed at the Exodus Freedom Conference in June 2007. [link]
Now, re-read Chambers’ third answer and ask yourself what, if anything, has actually changed about Exodus’ intentions or processes. They’d do it all again tomorrow.
Is there a growing awareness that Exodus et al have all but destroyed their credibility during Chambers’ period of inspired leadership? (particularly among younger people).
Perhaps, but, still, excuse us for being underwhelmed. What they still don’t get is the underlying reason why their credibility is damaged.
(a clue: the sheer personal dishonesty inherent in claiming the fault of some mysterious “nuance” that pretends to turn their blatant political involvement over the entire past decade into “we weren’t really involved”. Yeah, sure … and that must be the same nuance we all missed with the blatant claims about “change”. Has he no scruples???)
File under: “Not holding my breath waiting for this to come to pass”.
(ps: do appreciate you getting it down in writing David — for the record, if nothing else!)
The nest time a President holds an event where pushing marriage inequality is a major issue, and Exodus declines their invitation to be present as visible support for said issue, then that will be something. Until then I might not want to hold my breath.
I welcome this news with cautious optimism, but I think EXODUS needs to post it openly and permanently on their homepage. Is Alan expressing his personal opinion or announcing offical EXODUS policy? I have urged Alan numerous times to work with EXODUS leadership to offically adopt something like the “10th Tradtion of AA”:
“No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.”
AA Founders knew this would keep the mission of AA clean. This does not ban individual AA members from being politically active as private citizens in accordance with their individual conscience, but they are never to draw AA into their personal politics. This (political neutrality) was very much the intent of the Founders of EXODUS in 1976 — and something we worked very hard to maintain. I pray that current and future EXODUS leaders will do the same.
“Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s”.
Now there is a concept for you, right along the lines of “Look not for the speck in your brother’s eye lest you miss the beam in your own”.
But since Jesus said it, I guess that gives good Christians the right to ignore it. After all, what did he know?
We can only wait and see if Exodus puts its money where it mouth is. Trust me, there’ll be no let-up of pressure from XGW if Exodus shows evidence of its old pattern. I welcome the words, but we’re keeping an eye out for the action.
Here, here grantdale!
I was trying to figure out the overall difference between “simply sharing our stories with lawmakers” and “lobbying, promoting policies.”
It seems to me that lobbying by any other name still has the same scent.
I wish Alan (and all those who invoke the name of “the Lord” as the instigator for their particular course of action) would ask “the Lord” to speak up so that we can all hear what he is telling them. It seems to me that both Christians and heathen would benefit.
This wait-and-see attitude makes no sense. Chambers says the policy took effect last August. Clearly Exodus leadership has been very active in politics since then.
So now he’s made it public, it’s down to us to hold him to account. Fair enough.
Mike said:
What would be the alternative? We reported what Alan said, and we continue to watch their activities. Should we ask to inspect their Daytimers at the end of each week?
The claim is that 2008 marked a refocus away from politics and policy matters, and more toward ministry. So we shall… wait and see 😉
The reason I said I was cautiously optimistic about EXODUS leaving politics is that, last summer, Alan told me we wanted to “officially retire” the term “ex-gay” and “see that it is never used again.” So far, I have seen nothing official from EXODUS about that — or any real action on Alan’s part to “see to it that it is never used again”.
There has been nothing offfical from EXODUS about cleaning up the misleading language of “change” and “former homosexuals”. As with this issue, what we need is a loss less talk and a little more action. I hope he means what he is saying about this one.
First, “politics” is not limited to candidates. Legislative efforts, referendums, judicial testimony, policy issues all ABSOLUTELY fall under the definition of politics. Exodus may arguably not have been purely partisan but they were neck deep in politics. There’s nothing subtle about that – and ducking behind IRS definitions does not bring nuaces.
This has been, in my best estimation, the most important part of Exodus’ political activism. This is pretty much the sole reason they were in the room – to tell legislators that gay people don’t have to remain attracted to the same sex. This provided justification for discrimination.
Should any of us doubt that, look at the arguments made by a number of legislators and judges when denying equality to gay persons. If orientation is mutible then gay people can be punished – or denied equal access – for not choosing to change their orientation.
It frustrates me to no end to hear Alan say, “we won’t lobby, we’ll just tell our story to legislators”. There is no difference. I’ve lobbied. I know.
If Alan is genuine in his desire to step out of politics, he’ll stop going to “tell his story” to legislators. Otherwise his motivation appears to be little more than a poorly contrived effort to avoid some alienation of some potential ex-gays while still continuing his political efforts. It’s pretending to move away from political efforts, while still continuing them.
Getting out of politics means just that. Getting out. Not limiting the message or laying off the lobbiest or reducing the effort or only “telling your story to legislators” sometimes.
It wouldn’t be honest for someone to say “I quit smoking” if they are now only smoke when socializing or stressed or bored and are now down to a pack or two per week. Yeah, it’s admirable to reduce smoking, but it is not the same thing as quitting.
But having said all of that,
I welcome the new de-emphasis that Exodus is putting on political activism. We’ve been calling for it for a long time and any move in that direction is worth recognition and praise.
I sincerely hope that this move is sincere. I hope that Exodus will come to recognize that civil liberties need not be subject to religious interpretations. I hope that not only will Exodus remove its name from political efforts but that the leadership will not compromise Exodus’ integrity by “speaking out as an individual that only happens to also be an Exodus leader”.
I have seen positive movement by Exodus in the past year or so. I hope this continues.
There’s an effort underway on the part of Christian-right wing organizations to remake their image into that of victims – possibly recognizing that the emerging liberal-progressive political environment is more easily manipulated with victim ‘credentials.’ Exodus would have a harder time of re-casting itself as such with a formal lobbying infrastructure in place in D.C. (FYI; now there is something called “The Christian Anti-defamation Commission” which has recently done press releases at pro-gay events.) What has FOF had to say about Exodus’ leaving politics? I would think they would be begging them to stay in the fight.
I cannot help but wonder what is in this for Exodus and I think it’s worth a moment of caution before embracing what appears to be an act of apolitical purity.
I have a hard time imagining FOTF begging anyone for anything. As has been said, however, no one is embracing anything – we continue to observe and if they go back on this, we will call them on it. Nothing is lost, but there is the prospect for gain all around.
this is fantastic news. Thanks Alan for the honesty and thanks XGW for getting the story. I know things are different in the US from Australia but here in OZ all Exodus type ministries are winding down or have plateaued. Only occasionally have then been involve politically. it has been the right wing extremist Christian groups like Salt Shakers and The Australian Christian Lobby that have fulfilled the role of meddling in politics.
Having been a preacher, Christian leader and ex-gay myself like Alan I still believe that his heart is a good one and not evil. Telling our stories, engaging them in dialogue will break down the barriers. We are moving towards a time when all this insanity about SSO being evil and that it can be changed will cease.
What is it that Exodus (at least the central operation run by Alan Chambers with Randy Thomas, Mike Ensley, etc.) does other than politics? If they do give up politics, what are they going to do all day?
I would have to agree with Timothy that Alan’s explanation that they weren’t really involved in politics because they were focused on issues and not candidates isn’t nuanced, it is just lying.
And given how completely Exodus has thrown itself into politics, the IRS under the next administration should look into their activities and consider pulling their tax exempt status.
I get the same Exodus Youth e-info that Michael Airhart receives and I see no direct change in policy influence either.
Of course a single member of the top officers can take their own direction, but what motivates that change other than who it alienates isn’t quite strong enough a reason why for me.
It might be a welcome change, but sometimes change can come too late and a great deal of damage already done.
And I say that because direct and indirect social outreach is still resting on the fear and insecurity of youth in particular and teachers, clergy and parents being the agents of that influence,
Doesn’t Exodus or any other outreach they support have the ability to persuade WITHOUT making their influence public policy?
That is to say, if they left policies alone that were supportive of gay youth, I’d like to see Exodus take an even higher road and allow for what path a gay kid would really take if a bayonet weren’t at their back.
Especially if they hate being confronted with skepticism in that regard.
I think this news sounds very promising. I do have to admit I feel reluctant to jump on the wagon of happy thoughts. I would need clarity of what this really means when we say no more policy stuff.
Does this mean the Allies Too! Campaign will be stopped? As this campaign is about swaying policies in the schools and the messages kids hear about homosexuality. If Exodus is dropping the policy stuff is this campaign over?
Does this mean there will be no more full page ads in newspapers regarding “thought crimes”?
What does this exactly mean in clear terms?
Forgive me skeptic view but….
If Exodus does intend to get out of politics, they are also going to have to address the issue of blogs by their national leaders. Alan Chambers, Randy Thomas and Mike Ensley all have blogs. If not for their public prominence through Exodus, nobody other than a few friends and family members would likely be reading their blogs. In fact, their blogs are often used to point out some of their latest Exodus activities (many of which are blatantly political).
On Alan Chambers blog in particular, you have a generic encouragement to vote on Feb 5, 2008. The immediate post after that is a Feb 12, 2008 post about the Clinton’s Legacy, pointing to an article in the Wall Street Journal about the Clintons entitled The Clintons’ Terror Pardons.
Hmmm. It is well past August 2007. We are well into 2008 (the year Exodus is really going to stay out of politics). This is immediately after Super Tuesday, where Mrs. Clinton won most of the bigger states. Alan Chambers deliberately decides to highlight an article criticizing the Clintons for being not just soft on terror, but actually pardonning terrorists. I am sure that the timing of Alan’s reading suggestion had nothing to do with politics.
Oh, and did Alan Chambers highlight this article about a pardon of Puerto Rican separtists due to ex-gay policy concerns, or was this more directly related to his lack of support for a particular political candidate.
I agree with the hesitant hopefuls. In schools, providing a safe space for GLBT and Questioning students is not political, it is on par with a charitable organization opening a shelter for battered women or a soup kitchen. GSA’s can choose to get political, but I think for many students clubs like that are really the only place where they feel comfortable being themselves without dire consequences. I think the most political thing our GSA did when I was in high school was sign petitions for equal rights for same-sex couples that were then mailed to D.C. They did the AIDS Walk, but that’s hardly political, in my opinion. Mostly they served as a support structure for kids that might not have a place to go otherwise.
With Exodus working to prevent such organizations from forming, how are they helping GLBT youth? And, you know something? With so many kids in “Questioning” mode, the GSA at my school never ever tried to tell people they were gay if they felt SSA. They just provided a place where you could talk about it and be with other kids going through the same thing. Why would Exodus work to upset that fragile balance?
Once again, Alan Chambers, why can’t you just leave us alone? ALL alone? FOR REAL?
John said:
I have to agree. Even at XGW we try not to mess with politics, mainly because it tends to bring out strong emotions and anger concerning issues which are not our focus. If we can do it, as much as we have at stake, why can’t they?
The response I have often received is that they “have a right to express their views in the public forum like anyone else.” Well of course they do! The point is, are they willing to forego that right for the good of those they claim they want to help?
I disagree that people who claim to represent a constituency have a right or entitlement to misrepresent the collective political views and interests of that constituency.
Why do Exodus member organizations allow their leaders to use the membership as a collective soapbox upon which to espouse political views (and lobby for laws) which are contrary to the interest of sexual strugglers?
I would suppose they would disagree with your claim that their position is contrary to the interests of those they represent, but that’s not relevant to my statement. I’m not talking about their taking any particular position, just that they have a Constitutional right to do so.
My point is that their use of that fact as a defense against admonishments over their political activities is not valid; they chose to be a ministry and that means there are more important issues than lobbying – even if they have a right to do so.
Bottom line, just because one has the right to do something does not mean it is right to do it.
Emily:
What a novel idea. That is my wish too. I also hope that if he and the others really do decide to step out of the political realm, that it frees them up to take a look at the Gospel message and do some evaluations to see if what Exodus does and believes is in accordance with what Christ expects all of us to do.
Maybe instead of creating a false image of what the “gay lifestyle” is, so much so that parents throw their children out on the street, that they minister to those who are homeless providing them shelter, food, and clothing – and MINISTERING WITH ACTIONS AND NOT WORDS. Maybe they could visit the prisoners of the churches who sponsor Exodus … the prisoners who are gay but have to hide it because of fear of being excommunicated. And the prisoners whose lives have been devistated by Exodus and programs like theirs. Maybe they will do works of God instead of works of politics and self-interest.
The key word his is MAYBE.
A friend told me this so I thought I’d pass it on:
Being ex-gay is like a brunnet dying his or hair blonde. Maybe you feel like you have more fun being a blonde, you know, “blondes have more fun.” And maybe he or she can pass as being blonde for awhile, but the truth is, he or she is a brunnet, and eventually it will show … THE BLACK ROOTS!
Know what? I changed my mind. I DON’T believe he’s leaving politics. If that were the case, this page would be altered:
And don’t forget their opposition to same-sex parenting and adoption:
Nice try, Alan. My Jewish faith teaches that the action must be taken to follow up on the word. Mr. Chambers, you should know that actions speak louder than words. ACT. The only reason I could think that Exodus feels so insecure that they need to take up legal action is that they know their “ministry” is losing the culture war. They need the law on their side to make them feel comfortable. No matter who’s lives are ruined – or lost – in the process.
Exodus board member Phil Burress remains neck-deep in politics:
Roundup: Exodus Board Member, Speaker Play Politics in Non-Exodus Capacities
https://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/roundup-exodus-board-member-speaker-play-politics-in-non-exodus-capacities/
I think we’re going to end up debating what Exodus means by “involved in politics/policy” every bit as much as we debate what they mean by “change.”
Next time Randy Thomas appears at a press conference to oppose protecting gays from employment discrimination, as he did last October, he’ll just be sharing his story—not engaging in nasty old politics.
Alan Chambers claims that the Exodus board decided to back out of policy issues in August—two months before that press conference. So did Randy just not get the memo? Or do we have yet another example that Exodus’ definition of “change” amounts to no change at all?
If I could borrow an old phrase, I think there needs to be a “revolution” regarding political/policy involvement …. that is “radical, sudden, complete change” ….. this means editing websites, reviewing project involvement, a recognition that for key leadership they are always messaging their ministry (ie. in blogs, when sharing their story etc.) – this is the cost of leadership ….. such a public statement needs to be followed by consistent action.
I pray for courage for Alan and his team to carry out their stated intentions. It seems to me the disentanglement process will not be an easy one – and so I pray for courage and encouragement for them in the process.
Thanks for saying that, Wendy. It is good to hear someone from Exodus’s side acknowledge that, as a lot of concerns are surfacing on this thread that what we’re seeing is not consistent with what we’re hearing.
One or two of Exodus’s most prominent leaders in particular are very vocal about political issues, and this is an area that really needs addressing if the new stance is to be meaningful.
Wendy; I completely agree with you that “there needs to be a “revolution” regarding political/policy involvement …. that is “radical, sudden, complete change” ….. this means editing websites, reviewing project involvement, a recognition that for key leadership they are always messaging their ministry (ie. in blogs, when sharing their story etc.) – this is the cost of leadership ….. such a public statement needs to be followed by consistent action.”
That’s the tricky part. EXODUS must now “walk their talk” — clearly define the policy, post it on the EXODUS homepage and communicate that expectation to all member agencies. We will be watching closely to see what comes next. EXODUS must not wimp out and do “nuanced” involvement in “policy issues” while claiming that they have ceased political efforts. It has to be total.
That’s why, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I would strongly urge EXODUS leaders to offically adopt something like the “10th Tradition” of AA and post it clearly on the front page of the website.
EXODUS was intended only to be a support and ministry to those who believed that they should not act on their gay feelings. While I no longer believe that all homosexusl behavior is sin, I can and do respect the right of those who believe otherwise to get support in living in accordance with their beliefs.
What I hear is Alan Chambers essentially saying that the Lord has told him to “back out” of policy issues. He is now on record announcing to the world that this is not a whim. It’s not just his “personal opinion.”
This, according to his story, is based on the fact that he has felt personally “convicted” about it all even when it was new. And now, as his unease is borne out, “the Lord” has finally gotten through to him, telling him that it’s wrong.
Like Wendy, Alan and the Board have had an epiphany.
Does that mean they’ll follow through? I think it will be like taking drugs from an addict, no disrespect intended. Politics is power and power is a drug.
And as a ministry, they aren’t supposed to be trusting in that kind of power anyway (can’t serve God and man, etc). This American Religion has crept in like an insidious cancer. The people they deal with shouldn’t even know for certain whether any of them is a Republican, Democrat, Independent or whatever.
Think about it, they are supposed to be offering the most unconditional love there can be (I know but let’s assume), and yet they bring into the picture one of the most polarizing, subversive, emotional subjects on earth.
There is more evidence that Exodus isn’t really changing from essentially a Religious Right political rganization to primarily a support ministry.
Mike Ensley wrote a piece on his blog 3/5/08 entitled “Alan and the Watchers,” where he basically states that Exodus wasn’t really involved in politics and he is going to continue on with his advocacy on homosexual issues that affect youth, which is his focus. Further, he played up the Freedom of Speech angle to go on advocating for Religious Right politicians (like Huckabee who is prominently displayed on Ensley’s blog).
Lest you think this is a case of Alan’s foot soldiers doing what Alan doesn’t want them to do, Alan put in a positive comment to this post. So it would seem very little is going to change.
Also, Randy Thomas’ blog has, if anything, gotten more political, particularly with the addition of some guest commentators.
I am more and more convinced that Alan’s recent announcement is just another in a long string of lies he has told over the years.
I can see the cartoon:
Panel 1: “God wants us to end our mixing of politics and religion…”
Panel 2: “…which we weren’t doing anyway.”
We noticed Ensley’s post and are waiting on a reply from him before posting. I agree that this is an example of the problem, not the solution. But I would also suggest terms like “foot soldiers” contribute to the “culture war” mentality. We can hold them to their word without perpetuating their negative stereotypes.
David,
Although I do think of Chambers, et. al as primarily engaged in “culture war” activities, my use of “foot soldier” wasn’t actually meant in that context. I meant it more in the context of a boss not being able to control his subordinates. I was thinking more along the lines of a supervisor complaining that getting his workers to comply with directives is “like herding cats.”
In any case, Chambers seems to have endorsed Ensley’s comments. So, my take is that Chambers and Ensley are on the same page with continued political activity.
As I said before, Exodus will define “non-political” to mean anything they want it to mean.
I agree with both of you, it was a troubling post, esp so soon after making such an announcement.
I wonder if the defintion of change they will apply to this political change is the same definition of change they apply to other things.
“When we say politcs, we mean…”
I’ll agree but go one further. I believe that the words should follow the action. You claim that you have moved out of politics after you do so, not as some eventual plan.
Exodus board member Phil Burress remains neck-deep in politics
The ONLY reason Burress is on the board is because of his political involvement. Unless I’m mistaken (which is possible) Burress has no history or experience in ex-gay ministries. His relationship with homosexuality is restricted solely to his activism first in Cincinnatti and then nationally against gay couples.
Burress is nothing but an anti-gay activist in the political sphere. He contributes nothing to same-sex strugglers. At best, he can talk about a porn addiction, hardly relevant to deciding board-level policy decisions and individuals struggling with same-sex attractions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/26/national/26gay.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&position=&oref=slogin
If Exodus is sincere about leaving politics, it will remove Burress immediately. As in today.
If not, I challenge Alan to tell us exactly what Burress contributes to Exodus.
Frankly, the more I read about this new “change”, the more disingenuous it seems. It seems to be structured more as a PR stunt than it is an any sincere desire to separate ministry from Ceasar’s realm.
Chambers only made the statement 3 days ago, and then only because we came to him about rumors concerning the departure of Amanda Banks. We know from experience that Exodus is not a well oiled machine. I’m honestly not surprised by the inconsistencies – I suspect it will take months to make substantial changes in policies and personnel.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t hold them accountable, but perhaps we should also be realistic about the process. And I’m not sure how they can ever enforce this with member ministries beyond trying to convince them of the need to stop.
It seems unlikely, at least they would have to have come up with it pretty quickly. I received responses to my questions and the statements for the record all in the same day. I can’t say if they are sincere, but I doubt it was planned as a stunt – there is no way they could have known we would ask.
I suspect it will take months to make substantial changes in policies and personnel.
doubt it was planned as a stunt – there is no way they could have known we would ask.
I thought this started back in August 2007?
I very much doubt that the Board — q.e.d. Burress et al — had this new direction (no pun intended) sprung on them just 3 days ago.
Just to remind people… recall the sudden flurry of “focus on ministry” that occurred when LIA/R suddenly had the spotlight put on their activities? Jeez, how long ago was that?
TK: I believe that the words should follow the action. You claim that you have moved out of politics after you do so, not as some eventual plan.
/snort… Oh yes, that old “name it and claim it” fakery raises its’ head again.
I’m glad to see that so many people see through this. So many of the Love Won Out and Exodus conference session speakers routinely advocate against same-sex marriage, hate crime legislation, and other policy issues. They have an ex-gay lobby day every year on the Hill. They’re trying to convince the APA that conversion therapy is legitimate and should be endorsed. PFOX is litigating against schools so they can distribute ex-gay literature. And worst of all – they continue to misinform the public about “the gay lifestyle” – creating the impression that we are diseased, privileged, you name it – if you think that doesn’t have personal and political consequences, you’re deceiving yourself. Worst of all, you are bearing false witness against me and so many others. I don’t believe anything that comes out of Alan Chambers’ mouth. This website has shown over and again how he says one thing, does the opposite.
Not all ministry leaders have been at all in favor of political involvements, or have hesitated to express concerns about it (e.g., negative impact to ministry). Like Wendy, I am hopeful in hearing the announcement, even as I look towards and encourage the outworking.
I think what can be counted on is, as Mike A. pointed out, that we will continue to see political commentary by John/Jane Doe, Exodus Functionary. This is in keeping both with Alan’s history in Orlando opposing, for instance, their local fair housing ordinance and the above quote from Alan’s comments. The religious freedom they are concerned about is the ability to say anything about homosexuals/ity and, by extension, the ability for anyone to do anything to a homosexual or to some segment of the homosexual population. To their credit, they will denounce violent acts. But they will never understand that violence does in fact logically follow from their core beliefs.
So, we’ll see discrimination in private schools that accept public funding, discrimination against gay students in public schools by trying to limit SGA clubs, discrimination in access in the public sphere…we’ll see that all these things are still fair game and defended because, if you’re a right-wing evangelical christian, the practice of discrimination and–by extension–violence, is always part of the religious freedom protected by the constitution.
Moderator Action: To the commenter “Concerned,” we require that everyone provide a working email address with their comment. It will not be shared or used for spam, but only in rare cases when private communication is necessary, or questions of identity arise. If you would like us to restore this comment, you can send a working email address to editor@exgaywatch.com. Otherwise, you are welcome to participate in the future as long as this is provided.
Thank you for your cooperation.