After XGW discovered information indicating that Exodus International is a member of the prominent religious conservative political organization, The Arlington Group (AG), we asked President Alan Chambers to respond on the record. He replied that Exodus was indeed a member, and they planned on maintaining that membership.
Co-founded by Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, AG is an attempt to unify the efforts of religious conservative political groups. It is politics and policy in overdrive, and when you hear powerful religious conservatives speak in unison, it probably started in a huddle at AG.
Now the obvious question; how does this fit in with Chamber’s recent announcement that Exodus has “decided to back out of policy issues,” concerned that they “might be alienating people that simply wouldn’t call [them] for help because of the perception that [they] were becoming a partisan and political organization rather than a ministry for all”? If anything, this will guarantee just that – and it will be true.
XGW has tried to be reasonable about the difficulties surrounding such a major change. We understand, for instance, that one can’t always disassociate from a board member immediately, depending on the issues. There may be contracts to be fulfilled, etc. However, membership in a group like AG is not a gray area, and not only are they still members, but Chambers has says they will remain so.
This really is an intolerable situation if Chambers is to ever be believed in the future. We call on him as president of Exodus International to stand by his pledge and cancel Exodus’ membership in this purely partisan, political group.
Addendum: The Arlington Group website was taken off-line in early 2007. See comments below for more info.
Hat Tip: Emily for finding the membership info.
And that means this recent XGW headline:
Exodus Leaving ‘Politics’ Says President Alan Chambers
is … exactly worth the paper it’s writ on. Oh. It’s not writ on paper.
David, we know you’re a (too) nice guy and all… but jscheez!!!
Alan Chambers and the value of his word … all too predictable. The man has no ethics — all he has is a black-and-white religion. And a desperate desire to suck upwards.
This type of activity is EXACTLY what we mean when we do not trust Alan Chambers. He’s been a fake since he’s been 12 years old — he knows exactly how to work over “nice guys” that dare hope he’s changed his ways.
(and Wendy Gritter… we have a phone call for you to make…)
Why can’t Alan’s “yes” be “yes” and his “no” be “no”?
as long as you remain in a political caucus, you remain in politics. can’t they see the association??
but really, by Exodus’ standards, they HAVE “changed.”
How can you possibly remain in a blatantly partisan political coalition and say you’re no longer involved in politics?
Bang on.
I’m sure David anticipated this when when he decided “Says President Alan Chambers” was worth noting!
Well, sure you can.
If, say, a Board Member was caught in a prostitution ring sting, that Board Member would be off the Board by the end of the day. If he stated that he no longer believed in the divinity of Christ, if he entered drug rehabilitation, if he was caught embezzling funds, or if he simply no longer were in agreement with the direction of the Board. All these things allow for very quick removal.
It’s all a matter of priorities.
If you are telling the truth when you say you no longer are political, then you remove Phil Burress.
Oh, and if you are wondering why they are remaining in Arlington Group, it’s probably because Burress is a member of AG’s Executive Committee.
I was hoping that Alan was sincere when he said that Exodus is changing focus. But sadly, this seems to be nothing more than just another example of a political group seeking to change its image without changing it’s substance.
It isn’t just the Arlington Group. Randy Thomas and Mike Ensley have madeit quite clear on their blogs that they are not making any changes in their political involvement.
On Alan Chambers’ blog, in response to an ex-gay who comented that seemed particularly pleased that Exodus would be getting out of politics, Alan made it clear to her that nothing is going to change.
Alan Chambers is dishonest and will say one thing while doing another. This is very much part of Alan’s standard operating proceedure. I hope he gets flak from all sides over this one.
I am also looking forward to an IRS audit of Exodus activities.
Arlington Group’s website is just a blank page that says it’s under construction for me. Does anyone else get that?
Also, interesting note from the wikipedia entry:
“but the group is much more narrowly focused, choosing to emphasize such issues as same-sex marriage, abortion, and confirmation of like-minded federal judges.”
As I said, “depending on the issues.” The only way to follow your analogy would be if Exodus had, as a matter of course, involved itself in prostitution, or questioning the divinity of Christ, or embezzling funds, and then decided to move away from that and focus on other things. Then if a board member was still active in one of those things, he could be admonished internally and given a chance to follow suit with the plan. If he or she didn’t then there is a remedy.
Would I like them to immediately and totally cease all the political activities of those connected in any way with Exodus, absolutely. And I tend to agree that they are, sadly, not being serious about it. But I chose to be somewhat pragmatic about the issue. If they genuinely move toward eliminating policy and political involvement, I’m inclined not to beat them over the head with every single infraction I may find. Like Peterson, I find this is sometimes necessary and more effective in the end.
We will report anything we discover, but in perspective. This AG thing is big to me, and worth sounding an alarm. I don’t believe the board member issue was. But I saw some rather hefty commentary about Burress barely a day after Alan made the statement. I think doing that reduces our credibility, and gives them and their associates good reason to think we are shrill and unreasonable in what we expect of them. It’s an editorial decision, and maybe I’m wrong, but for now that is how we are doing it.
Unfortunately, I think this is going to be a short debate, because moves like the one this post is about almost guarantee that they are not doing as they said. If I had to guess, I would say the trappings that go with being “plugged in” to the inside info and being known by the kind of people that goes with it is just too tempting to Alan. I’m sure he rationalizes that he can do some good by adding his “message” but he is almost certainly being used even in that.
As for Burress, his position at AG might be how Exodus got in, I don’t know, but the information we have almost guarantees he is not the reason they remain there. Alan wants to be there.
@John
We have noticed that as well, and have a post in progress, but there is some background work to do first. But yes, it appears both Randy and Mike are basically thumbing their nose at this personally (claiming “as a private citizen” – as if in ministry you can really separate the two), and worse Alan seems to be approving of it.
@Brady
I meant to mention that in the post. They never had a website (very hush hush) until 2006, then someone started doing a story on them and they shut it down in 2007. It contained the membership listing among other things, and as far as I know there is no current list out there. The Wikipedia list is old and was from the old site.
Exactly. I don’t really care so much about Exodus’s or Alan’s sincerity so much as the end result. We should continue to pressure them and continue to call them to account, and whether they eventually change for political reasons, or because they’ve been backed into a corner, or whatever isn’t the issue. The issue is whether things will change in the end.
Also, even though the reality isn’t yet matching up to Alan’s words, by making this announcement, he effectively gave his critics permission to hold Exodus to account. He’s given us a certain power over Exodus, by giving us his words – his promise – to use against them. If that was deliberate, maybe Alan’s more of a subversive than we give him credit for, and he made this announcement in order to bring about change! 😀
Alan Chambers asserted
Publicly Alan stated that he was willing to take a leap of faith. He suggested that the Lord was behind this decision to back out of policy issues.
The author of James asks the critical question,
For years Exodus member ministry leaders petitioned Exodus to get out of the business of politics. Ex-gay survivors also have raised the question, “If the vast majority of us do not end up living an ex-gay life and instead embrace another way that we feel is more healthy for us, why does Exodus seek to punish us by denying us rights and privileges afforded to heterosexuals?”
Perhaps Alan spoke too soon and did not count the cost of stepping out of the political arena. Perhaps certain politically active funders and supporters will disdain a non-political Exodus and throw their money and support to groups that care less about people and more about politics.
Wendy Gritter modeled leadership for the Exodus leaders when she gave her keynote address and again in the article she posted here at XGW. She stressed,
Of her own ministry she promises,
Alan has heard from friends and critics, but according to him—mostly the Lord—that Exodus should move out of policy work. Quoting from James again,
In 2006 Exodus became a 501(h) which allows them a certain amount of direct and grassroots lobbying.
See here for their 990 (page 15)
https://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/521/413/2006-521413470-034c7ca3-9.pdf
The following is a description of what a 501(h) is allowed under IRS regulations:
Notice $5K went to Arlington Group. And if I read it correctly, $180K went to lobbying efforts.
We could keep on till kingdom come discussing (1) whether Alan Chambers means what he says and (2) what he means by saying it.
It all boils down to one simple question: does Exodus intend to continue using the ex-gay philosophy as a pretext for trying to persuade legislators to deny gay people the same rights as everyone else? Yes or no?
If the answer is “yes”, then whether Alan Chambers admits or denies that this constitutes political activity is neither here nor there; Exodus and those who run it will be our enemies, and, no matter how courteous we may be to them, their pernicious agenda must be fought tooth and nail.
I think the point being made is that there is more than one way to do this. But I think you are essentially correct, it boils down to what they actually do or do not do.
David – $180K is the maximum amount of direct lobbying expenditures they are allowed. They claimed no direct or grassroots lobbying during 2006.
Also, to the question”During the year, has the organization attempted to influence national, state or local legislation including any attempt to influence public opinion on a legislative matter or referendum” they answered no.
So, it’s an odd return – on one hand they moved towards the IRS framework which would allow them to lobby, yet at the same time they denied doing any lobbying.
Their next 990 won’t be up on guidestar until late in 2008 or early 2009. It will be interesting to see how they answer these questions for 2007.
One hand washing the other? Is this anything like creative accounting? This looks like, on paper, the printed definition of hypocrisy. And what exactly would they achieve by denying us homos rights? self-satisfaction? more business because gays would need to ‘change’ to straight in order to be full members of society? Power? Why is denying us so enriching to them?
David is right that it “boils down to what they actually do or do not do.”
It’s a matter of honor, honesty and public trust. This news make me wonder if Alan Chambers was ever a Boy Scout. In Scouting, we learned that:
“A SCOUT’S HONOR IS TO BE TRUSTED. If a scout says “On my honor it is so,” that means it is so, just as if he had taken a most solemn oath. If a scout were to break his honor by telling a lie, or by not carrying out an order exactly when trusted on his honor to do so, he would cease to be a scout, and must hand over his scout badge and never be allowed to wear it again.”
Is it time for Alan to hand over his badge?
I think it is important here that we do not sink to the level of impunging anyone’s character. To say that Mr. Chambers has no ethics is not only unfair, but causes us on the “other side” to lose credibility. Criticize Exodus’ policies? Fine. Call Mr. Chambers out on continuing political affiliations? Fine. But don’t assault the man on a personal level. The dialogue that XGW has started with Chambers is a positive thing, lets not do anything to ruin it.
In any debate, its important to stay above the fray. Especially in one with so much at stake as this…
Pete
gee, that’s kind of a cute picture of Alan.
Alan Chambers and Randy Thomas frequently cry poor (or at least modest) when their finances and finances of Exodus are called into question (the whole “ex-gay for pay” criticism).
While I am not going to take a swipe at their personal finances, I find it shocking that an organization like Exodus has $180,000 that is so unnecessary to their ministry mission that they feel comfortable throwing it down the political rathole. $180,000 per year isn’t chump change no matter how you look at it.
I think it is important here that we do not sink to the level of impunging anyone’s character. To say that Mr. Chambers has no ethics is not only unfair, but causes us on the “other side” to lose credibility. Criticize Exodus’ policies? Fine. Call Mr. Chambers out on continuing political affiliations? Fine. But don’t assault the man on a personal level. The dialogue that XGW has started with Chambers is a positive thing, lets not do anything to ruin it.
Saying one thing while doing another is a personal flaw.
Geez. $180k per year could help one third world country. Then Exodus would really be a ministry. Should we still call them a ‘ministry’ by the way. With all the lobbying they are still maintaining, who exactly are they ministering to? Their own ex-gayness? Their banks?
Well, as the hefty commentary came from me, I obviously completely disagree with your analysis. But, as I don’t write for this site, we are free to disagree about what diminishes credibility or what is a reasonable expectation for a non-political organization.
Some here have misunderstood my response to David’s post.
Based on Exodus’ level of programatic expenditures, the IRS would allow them to spend $180K for direct lobbying and around half that for grass roots lobbying.
HOWEVER, they did not report spending anything on lobbying.
Gordo said:
Ah, I misread it. I hate IRS forms, Timothy would be better at this. When it says “Lobbying nontaxable amount, silly me I thought that meant lobbying (something like gay-identified I guess). It appears instead to be the result of some formula based on total exempt expenditures. The lines above it indicate (I guess) actual lobbying expense and it is, as Gordo said, $0.
So why did they change to an organization which could legally spend up to $180K for direct lobbying in 2006 and then not spend any? I guess that was Gordo’s question, and I agree, it’s curious.
Timothy said:
As I said, it’s an editorial decision and I could be wrong. My purpose is to avoid just becoming a lot of noise to Exodus, et al, while still informing readers who need to know. And just to clarify, I didn’t actually remember that being your piece – things are becoming a blur lately with all this stuff. It was not a personal attack, just an illustration.
I”ll reiterate what I said in response to the post about Chambers claiming Exodus would get out of politics. He says one thing and does the opposite.
This IS a matter of character.
Heh. Careful. This is how they draw people in!
David,
I can’t tell if your statement is tongue in cheek? Kind of a reverse on the ‘gay agenda.’ Or the pedophile who offers a child candy to lure him in, only to violate him?
Either way, thanks for responding to me. “Ex-gay watch” is part of my gay community where I am myself. It was a spontaneous, honest, vulnerable observation. Also an ironic one, eh?
I don’t think there’s much chance of my being “drawn in,” or really, being drawn back in to the closet. I think it’s easier to survive the flying rocks thrown outside the closet than it is to survive the delusion of the closet. That was a place of lonliness, self loathing and pain. I’m sorry that Alan hates himself so much that he is stuck there. I’m sorry that he hates gay so much that he has to keep finding sneaky and not so sneaky ways to undermine gay people. What a waste.
My tongue was firmly in cheek!
Although there is an element of truth to it… Lure the gays in with that handsome feller… Then you find out that photo was taken years ago, and his hair’s gone grey, he’s wearing glasses… Maybe he even has a pot-belly… But by then it’s too late, your parts are already hooked up to the electrodes, and the therapy’s ready to begin…
Btw, that was all strictly tongue-in-cheek, too! 😀
Dave,
I suspected as much. There’s way to much wit on this site. Sharp wit, must be a gay thing lol.
That is something that it’s an old picture, no? Some interesting implications. Why would a happily married man want to still be attractive to the gay population? Hmmm. 😉
Lucky for me I decided not to hold my breath. Maybe they’re moving in baby steps? Withdrawal from a political pro-Family® advocacy group here, a lobbying group there.
So Chambers lied. Is someone surprised?
I guess Alan is justifying continuing membership in the Arlington Group because he does not see it as political at all, but simply a place where conservatives can get together and talk about issues in a more compassionate way. He apparently thinks he has already clearly explained this to all of us, but that “no one wants to understand”. Did I miss something?
No offense to Alan, but I can’t stand that picture. Whoever had him pose that way should not be hired again. I was just too busy to find another image at the time.
Michael B., are you speculating on your last comment or is some of that from exchanges with Alan?
But that is the crux of the matter is it not? Alan Chambers still wishes to be associated with politics but seems to still wants to find favour in the eyes of the homosexuals. I still believe there is good in Alan, that he is not a two headed snake. But why be associated with both?
Daivd: I am not speculating. This is how Alan explained it to me. He says that people just don’t want to understand. I suggested that he might want to come on over and explain, just in case someone does.
For the record, I want to understand. So, I have been doing some reading, and contrary to what Alan says, the Arlington Group sure sounds “political” to me: Here’s a refererence:
https://www.renewamerica.us/columns/weyrich/041203
Does anyway else get the same impression?
If the description is accurate, the Arlington Group is blatantly political. It is clearly a political force whose aim is to influence policy. The writer states that putting marriage on the ballot in 11 states was the product of the group’s decision to work together on the issue.
In other words, their intention is to either change politicians’ minds or, in case that fails, get the politicians who support their causes voted in.
Sleeping with another guy, touching each other in intimate places with our vairous body parts is not “sex” since it’s not intercourse.
‘Sleeping’ with the Arlington Group and having ‘intimate’ relationship with them is not “politics” since it’s not direct, paid lobbying to effect legislation.
Which one of these people is living in denial?
Michael, I understand from your comments that this is how Alan Chambers described the Arlington Group to you. Did he explain how the group’s effort to enact laws restricting gays from marriage is “more compassionate”?
He didn’t explain at all. He just said emphatically that the Arlington Group was not political and that “no one wanted to understand” this. I don’t know how he expects us to understand when he seems stubbornly unwillling to explain.
I guess that “out of politics” must be something like “former homosexual”. The terms mean whatever EXODUS wants them to mean — kinda like Humpty Dumpty’s response to Alice: https://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm
Correction to above. I was in error. Alan did not insist that the Alrington Group was “not poltical”. In fact, he openly acknowledged to me that it is. What he meant was that the Arlington Group was “not a place where we are being political.” He apparentyly sees EXODUS’s ongoing membership in this admittedly “political” organization as a way for EXODUS to influence the Arlington Group to be “more compassionate” about these issues.
Fat chance.
Here’s the latest, from Alan Chamber’s blog:
“I don’t believe it (political lobbying) caused significant problems at all, Michael. It caused controversy. People disagreed with our involvement. It was important at the time and we knew we were supposed to be focusing some time and energy there.
In 2008 we are not focusing on policy issues. We will continue to share our stories wherever and whenever we can and support those who have policy as a focus, but we are focusing on ministry and the church.”
This pretty much confirms it, doesn’t it? EXODUS has no absolutely no intention of “making a clean break with politics” as Wendy Gritter of EXODUS strongly urged EXODUS to do. Instead, they are “not focusing on policy issues” in 2008. Just a shift in priorities for the next 9 months. Leaves the door wide open, doesn’t it? In the meantime, they will remain in alliance with and actively “support those who have policy as a focus”.