Last Wednesday, Exodus executive director Alan Chambers issued a responsible and compassionate response to news about ex-gay ministry leader Michael Johnston’s efforts, deliberate or incidental, to infect gay men with HIV.
Sadly, by 8:30 a.m. Thursday morning, Exodus spokesman Randy Thomas had largely unraveled and contradicted Chambers’ message.
In a “clarification” that was sent via e-mail to Exodus watchers and appended to the end of the online copy of Chambers’ original message, Thomas said:
Many have emailed wondering who Michael Johnston is. Please visit a compassionate and truthful article to learn more about Michael. Michael’s brief relationship in the early nineties with Exodus is best described in this article.
The article was by Peter LaBarbera, a political activist at Concerned Women for America. There was little compassion or truth in LaBarbera’s message, which throws stones at homosexuals while papering over Johnston’s dissemination of the AIDS virus.
While persistently putting numerous gay men at risk of AIDS, Johnston repeatedly chose to lie to the nation about his lifestyle, falsely accusing homosexuals (as a class) of promiscuity and dangerous behavior. But, in fact, it was Johnston and his tawdry selection of sex buddies who were living that lifestyle.
And then, perhaps eight months ago, Johnston had a choice: He could act responsibly and make amends toward who were put at risk, or he could go silent and evade his responsibilities. Johnston chose the latter course of action.
I have no doubt that Johnston’s troubled conscience is indeed giving him a sense of remorse for what he has done. But, months after these events transpired, there is still no indication that he plans to make amends to his sex buddies for the damage he has done.
And instead of compassionately holding Johnston accountable, as Chambers did, LaBarbera and Thomas have arguably aided and abetted Johnston’s irresponsibility in regard to AIDS, as well as Johnston’s tendency to blame others for his own unhealthy and unhappy lifestyle.
I continue to applaud Chambers’ gut reaction to the tragedy. Unfortunately, it appears that the display of accountability and compassion by the Exodus national office was only half-hearted.
I’ve been reading this site with great interest, and I appreciate it very much. Thanks for all the good work you do keeping everyone informed. I’ve actually started to work my way through the archives, and it is very interesting. I do have to express a real irritation about the Michael Johnston situation. This was not a “fall.” Exodus leaders who say that are being disingenuous at best, and lying at worst. This was a premeditated pattern of behavior that was lived out consistently for a lengthy period of time. It’s one thing to be caught in a gay bar in Washington, DC having a drink, it’s another thing to search out and consistently practice the *extreme* opposite of what you publicly claim is true. Both actions are hypocritical, but I have far less empathy for the latter situation–regardless of the unsafe sex aspect, which is also disturbing. Johnston’s actions are much more damning to the ex-gay position than the Exodus leaders are clearly willing to admit, and to call it simply a “fall” is an insult to anyone’s intelligence, and an attempt to whitewash the true definition of sin. (Notice that for as much time as Exodus uses the word “sin,” they didn’t directly use that term in regards to what Johnston did. Interesting, I’d say.)
Christopher • 8/9/03; 8:34:25 PM
I have not discussed John Paulk in detail on the blog, since the incident in Washington, D.C., happened a few years ago.
I would have had no problem with Mr. Paulk going to a gay bar for a drink. I have told ex-gays over the years that I would love to see them being themselves — celibate and conservative — in gay bars, provided they don’t proselytize.
Unfortunately Mr. Paulk lied to bar patrons about his identity and ex-gay orientation. Then he tried to skulk away. Then he lied to the media, changing his story several times — claiming:he entered what seemed like a non-gay bar to use the rest roomhe didn’t notice the drag showhe did know he was in a gay bar but was only observing peoplehe did buy some guys in this singles/drag bar some drinks….
At the time this happened, I had been living in Washington, D.C., for 12 years, and I felt insulted that Paulk thought we Washingtonians, or his own supporters for that matter, were so gullible.
Mike A. • 8/9/03; 9:42:49 PM
Hey, Mike… I understand your point about Paulk changing his story several times, but that’s a sign of someone who is ashamed at being caught red-handed, yet trying to save face. Hypocritical to be sure, but a very human reaction. Also, other than the lying to cover up why he was there, I don’t find anything necessarily sinful about his actions. In addition, as far as I know, Paulk wasn’t going to gay bars frequently over a period of several months or years. On the other hand, Johnston’s actions were spread over a longer span and involved activity that he publicly condemned as sinful. Add the sexually dangerous aspect to the mix, and again, his actions are damning to the ex-gay position. What makes me mad is that Exodus seems to be trying to say, “Oops, he fell. Well, we all fall sometimes.” Yes, those of us who are believing Christians *do* fall, and forgiveness is available to all of us, but let’s not whitewash what was a secret, systematic, ongoing rejection of one’s publicly stated beliefs by calling it a “fall.” Through his actions, Johnston clearly rejected what he claimed to believe. That’s not just a “fall.” That’s a deliberate, premeditated rejection of a belief system, stated or not. That’s serious, and I think Exodus knows this, and is trying to paper over the significance of what happened and what it means to the movement as a whole.
Christopher • 8/9/03; 10:16:14 PM
Christopher,
I agree that Paulk’s reaction was human and that the gravity, or “sinfulness,” of his actions at the bar was never very clear.
And I agree about the huge differences between what Paulk did and what Johnston did.
Furthermore, the Exodus national office has become much more politically expedient, and far weaker in integrity, since the incident involving Mr. Paulk. The former management of the national office would have handled the current crisis differently.
Mike A. • 8/9/03; 10:25:12 PM
Problem is, what the national office often thinks is “politically expedient” (or politically correct) is, in fact, a bit sloppy.
Mike A. • 8/9/03; 10:26:32 PM
It appears John Paulk may be close to agreeing with you, Michael.
I nearly plotzed when I read this comment on the blog Silt:
“John Paulk called into Mike Signorile’s radio talk show last week. It was truly amazing radio. Paulk said he was a fan of the show. He went on to make some startling admissions about still fighting gay lust and disagreeing with many on the Christian Right. He even said that the Christian Conservatives need to ‘admit they don’t love gays and start from there.’ He made other comments about when he went to the gay bar in DC and said he felt more comfortable around gay people because they are more understanding, compassionate, intelligent, etc.. The way Paulk was going on and on it was like a gay recruitment ad.”
All I could think was, “Whoa.” And, “Poor Anne.”
Did anyone else hear about this?
Natalie Davis • 8/11/03; 10:23:09 PM
Wow, Natalie, that sounds amazing. Poor Anne, poor John, poor kids. I think someone’s evaluating his options!
Jayelle • 8/12/03; 9:22:59 AM
Wow, Natalie, that sounds amazing. Poor Anne, poor John, poor kids. I think someone’s evaluating his options!
Jayelle • 8/12/03; 9:23:05 AM
I understand John and Anne just had a third son. He has obligations, whatever his struggles.
I have an email in to Signorile about this. I hope to hear from him soon.
Natalie Davis • 8/12/03; 2:04:23 PM
At some point in one’s life, he or she should be expected to act like an adult. Neither Paulk nor Johnston, nor, I suspect, many of these other “ex-gays” that Exodus et al drag out, act like adults.
If they want to avoid having homo-sex, that’s fine. If they want people around them to commiserate with them, that’s fine, too. But that is not what more than a few of them do. Instead, they go the Paulk/Johnston/Stephen Bennnett route and go try to make money off it by preaching to straight people to try to screw gay people.