Jackie asked:
Suppose Exodus changed their beliefs to be in line with what you described. But suppose that they continue to assert that "SOME people can and do change their orientation to certain degrees, and we would like to help those who want to change change."
Would you still frown upon Exodus?
I used to be an active participant at Bridges Across the Divide. From 1997 to 2001, in the Bridges online discussion forums, I occasionally boasted that if Exodus would stop bullying and smearing gay people (and shouting down science and non-fundamentalist faith) as a means of advancing itself, then I’d happily be a cheerleader for the network.
I stand by the underlying sentiment today: I will offer moral support to exgay organizations that actually support exgay wellbeing.
In order to support exgay wellbeing, such a group would have to:
- emphasize celibacy
- provide truth-in-advertising regarding the poor prospects for significant change in sexual attraction
-
respect the unique life of each client, and refuse to cram clients’ lives
into political interest groups’ cookie-cutter molds of overbearing mom,
absent father, football-playing men and cookie-baking women; - repent of personal grudges, prejudices, and sinful passions, rather than projecting them onto innocent gay people
- refuse to "advance" itself by attacking and harming the rights and integrity of others
- reflect the self-sacrificial love of Christ and the honest doubts of Job, not the political exploitation of Judas or the false piety of the Pharisees. (A few words of explanation: Exodus neither sacrifices of itself nor acknowledges gaping holes in its theology. As has been explained many times on this web site, Exodus sacrifices the rights and integrity of its target population in order to enrich itself. Instead of acknowledging that its humanity and vulnerability limits its grasp of God’s will, Exodus arrogantly mandates societal conformity to a joyous secularism that Exodus wrongly associates with the Bible and falsely describes as "inerrancy.")
Might any existing exgay groups meet these qualifications for exgay wellbeing?
I thought that the exgay project Justice and Respect showed great potential, when it was launched c. 1999. Unfortunately, the project was largely abandoned; its founder became an Exodus member minister; and the site retracted Randy Thomas’ courageous statements criticizing the antigay, pro-theocracy Center for Reclaiming America.
I have yet to encounter an exgay organization that might succeed J&R. Inqueery sometimes looks promising; on the other hand, founder Chad Thompson’s past and present ties to PFOX, Warren Throckmorton and the Iowa fundamentalist antifamily lobby are troubling. The exgay blogs Homo Sum, and Out of the Closet seem to me like harmless daily reflections about the exgay struggle… but I’d feel better knowing the extent to which their authors support or oppose antigay discrimination.
P.S. Apologies to "My True Self" for misstating the focus of that blog.
In your list I didn’t see that these groups must emphasize the importance of personal responsibility for ones actions rather than blaming it on a “lifestyle.”
‘exgay wellbeing’? It sounds like an oxymoron there Mike. Even the label ‘exgay’ itself show a taint of prejudice.
The best bet to find a group to the one you describe is more likely to be religious groups that does not emphasize exgay theology or retricts itself to exgays and change, but rather helps out religious gays and celibate homosexuals to their spiritual wellbeing. The closest example of such group that I can think of would be the gaychristian.net website.
BTW what’s with the multiple scattered brains’ trackback?
You would be an Exodus “cheerleader”? [insert mental image of pompoms and short skirt here] 🙂
I understand your point about ex-gay groups should be more honest and up-front. However, I assume ex-gay groups would argue that they already *technically* meet most of your conditions. Ex-gay groups usually argue that turning gays into straights is only a *possible* side-effect of becoming a fundamentalist Christian. What messeges are actually emphasized by ex-gay promoters and what messages participants choose to emphasize is subjective.
I honestly can’t say that I would ever refer someone to an ex-gay group without first sharing my negative experience and making sure s/he understood that it is primarily a fundamentalist Christian program.
Hi Norm,
I am not sure I agree that ex-gay groups are up front and honest about change possibility (especially that from most angles, it looks like the huge majority of participants don’t change). Look at the Exodus ads of “I questioned homosexuality” and the Stephen Bennett Ministry’s slogan of “Complete change is completely possible.” Then look at the testimonies given at Love Won Out and other conferences- even the ones given publically to other church leaders.
I never really here, “this is my story, but I have worked with lots of people who haven’t been so successful, etc.” The message to me, stated and implied is, “I changed, so gays can change, so gays should not get any special rights because they can change.”
“And they attribute negative and dangerous behaviors like drug addiction or promiscuity to be CAUSED by homosexuality.”
Actually, I don’t think this is the case. Most of them would assert that such dangerous behaviours and low self esteem derive from many of the same root causes as same-sex attractions, not from the attractions themselves.
“They are working exclusively from the HETEROSEXUAL perspective.”
I don’t know how you can say this, knowing that many of the leaders of these groups have same-sex attractions themselves. It would be difficult for them to have an exclusively heterosexual perspective. For them, this is not a “heterosexual standard” or a “homosexual standard”, it’s just a standard that they believe applies to all human beings.
“The ex gay business is exacerbating a problem and not distinguishing what IS desirable and possible in equal range of human sexuality gay or not.”
But that’s not what most of them believe. If you’re going to convince them that some things are desirable and possible, you have to start from there. You can’t just puzzle over why they don’t celebrate those directions, which seem so obviously desirable and positive to you, nor expect them to promote them as good options.
It may be possible that some may start to see a monogamous, faithful, gay relationship as a stepping stone towards maturity, the intention being that it is not a sexual “end”, but a “means to an end” where the person can hopefully experience a loving and safe partnership, leading some to stronger self-esteem and the ability to form realistic relationships with the other sex, while at the same time avoiding these terrible dangers you see in forced celibacy. It’s my understanding that this has happened naturally in some cases, but it may not “work” for everyone.
Hi TA,
I wouldn’t argue that ex-gay ministries are up-front and honest either. Their “Question Homosexuality: Change Is Possible” campaign is purposely vague.
In the aftermath the John Paulk fiasco, Exodus’ director at the time (2000), Bob Davies, was forced to admit that Exodus’ needed to re-examine, “the public perception of our use of terms such as ‘healing’ and ‘change'”.
However, in the almost five years since, Exodus does not seem to have changed their “change” message in any way. Even its website’s FAQ regarding change re-defines the question: Q: “What’s your “success rate” in changing gays into straights?” A:“What you are really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to that is yes!”
Their more apprehensive remark about change is buried in the FAQ: “…Some former homosexuals marry and some don’t, but marriage is not the measuring stick; spiritual growth and obedience are.” ‘Spiritual growth and obedience’ sounds better than life-long celibacy, sexual repression, and solitude. Plus, spiritual growth and obedience are almost completely immeasurable. Maybe a more honest ad campaign would be something like “Question The Gay Agenda: Sexual Frustration and Hermit Living Are Possible.”.
Norm!
The group “Where Grace Abounds” in Denver, CO probably comes closer to this than most ministries out there.
I don’t remember them promising me my orientation would change, but I certainly don’t recall them telling me it might not, either (of course, I’m not sure I pressed the issue since I just assumed from all the NARTH/Exodus stuff that I would change). I have had conversations with one staff member in the last year who absolutely respects me and my journey, which is unusual coming from an ex-gay ministry (although they don’t use the term “ex-gay ministry” to define themselves). I also am aware that they do support those who wish to remain celibate but who do not experience “change.”
However, they are Exodus-affiliated, which I have a huge problem with. The problem that faces most of these ministries is that they get referrals from Exodus (in exchange for their yearly dues, I believe) – and they would lose out on (what they perceive to be) helping more people if they cut their ties to Exodus.
Before people assume that it is money driven (ie, more helping, more money), I don’t think that’s really the case. This ministry, like many, is on a shoestring budget. Almost everything is supported by donations and volunteers, and I know that the staff live on very small budgets. There is no fee to attend the ministry, just a donation basket.
Despite my last two posts, I really am ex-ex-gay and really do not support 99% of ex-gay ministries out there (just for those who might start wondering if I am a troll as well). 😉
This is a link to a previous XGW story re: the above ministry
Also, the link to Justice and Respect is https://www.justice-respect.org
Mike Airhart,
“Inqueery sometimes looks promising; on the other hand, founder Chad Thompson’s past and present ties to PFOX, Warren Throckmorton, and the Iowa fundamentalist antifamily lobby are troubling.”
Mike, this seems like a case of guilt by association. I’ve heard Chad in an interview with a conservative radio talk show host, and it was quite evident that he differs greatly from the usual backwaters Christian conservative. Just because he has ties to these organizations doesn’t mean that he agrees with everything they say.
For example, he strongly advocates giving special protection to persecuted GLBT students in school, which is something that the usual conservative seems to be against. To me, this is a significant difference.
Benny,
Thanks for pointing this out.
I agree that Thompson stands apart from his peers, and I hope (for exgays’ benefit, as well as mine) that he continues to do so.
I remain troubled by my knowledge that other exgays before Thompson — Randy Thomas and Exodus board member Tom Cole, for example — have charted a smart, independent, compassionate-conservative course. Later, they (with the rest of the Exodus board) became eager pawns of the James Dobson organizations — Focus on the Family and FRC.
Thomas, in particular, then claimed to me via e-mail that he’d been hiding his true beliefs all along. (In other words, his compassionate conservativism had been a lie.) He said that I was the intolerant one for criticizing his reversal of position on dialogue, antiviolence initiatives, and sodomy laws.
One can always hope Chad Thompson will avoid the self-contradictions, strawman arguments and duplicity that consumed Mr. Thomas.
Annika,
Thanks for pointing out my bad link to J&R. I’ve fixed the original link.
Like I’ve stated many times before, re-orientation therapists need to be honest about what can and can’t be done. To assert that everyone is capable of changing from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality is simply untrue. Rather, the more conservative position, that some people can achieve some degree of change (with or without therapy), is much more reflective of reality as well as the scientific studies that have been done.
Mike,
I agree with almost everything in your list except “provide truth-in-advertising regarding the poor prospects for significant change in sexual attraction.” I believe it’s important to be honest with people and let them know that change works differently for different people, and that not everyone experiences the same thing in regard to change. However I would not say there are “poor prospects” behind significant change. I also wanted to mention that Inqueery is not affiliated with PFOX.
Thanks for your great site and honest dialogue. Even though I am ex-gay, I find myself agreeing with you on things almost as often as I disagree!
Chad Thompson
Mike,
Thanks for the apoloigies. No problem 🙂
The word “change” gets bandied about with very little discussion of what “change” means. You may notice that I have a practice of placing “change” in quotes because the term has become downright useless.
Are we talking orientation, identity, behavior — what is “change”? The word “change” has become the elephant surrounded by blind men, each using the same word but thinking about something completely different.
And to define “change” in simple terms is not that hard to do. Say “change in behavior”, “change in identity”, say whatever you want to say, but just say it. It is not that hard. But it appears that this very ambiguity is exactly the sandbox that Exodus and others want to play in. This ambiguity is deceptive and they know it.
Used by itself, “change” has become a political euphemism, like the way “life” and “choice” are euphemisms to describe two views of abortion. The only difference is that “life” and “choice” have been euphemisms for so long that we know instantly what they mean. “Change” remains ambiguous. And until it is made clear, it will continue to gain strength as a euphemism, meaning “to cure gay people of their depravity.” Except of course, it sounds much more palatable, the way “Life” and “Choice” sound better than “against a woman’s right to privacy in making medical decisions with her physician” or “for the right to kill a fetus.” See how it works?
Until these “change” agents show some responsibility and talk honestly about what they mean by “change” I don’t think we will ever get anywhere in this debate. I have a good deal of respect for the tenor of Chad Thompson’s approach to gay issues from the evangelical perspective, while disagreeing with many of his positions. I haven’t read enough of his work to know how he uses the term “change”, but I hope that he takes it seriously enough to be explicit about what it means and doesn’t mean. (He wasn’t in the above post, but then it was very brief and maybe written with a little less care than usual.) But the failure to be clear is partly what got Robert Spitzer in so much hot water. And it is why I have so little trust in even the best-intentioned proponents of “change”.
Jim,
“Are we talking orientation, identity, behavior –what is ‘change’?”
When I use the word “change,” I almost always mean change in internal feelings/desires, in other words, orientation. This may or may not lead to a concurrent change in behavior or self labeling. I read an article on Instinct online, a gay magazine, about how some homosexuals, after randomly experiencing heterosexual feelings for the first time, will freak out and seek therapy. They will also keep their attractions a secret, for fear of being branded a traitor. So, to illustrate my point, the individuals in question may have experienced a subtle change in orientation, but because of social circumstances, will not demonstrate this internal change through external behaviors/self labeling. Incindentally, based on what I’ve read and heard, it appears that Chad might very well define “change” in much the same way.
“But it appears that this very ambiguity is exactly the sandbox that Exodus and others want to play in. This ambiguity is deceptive and they know it.”
I think Exodus tends to oversimply things. In a sense, they are not being scientifically honest when they say that EVERYONE can experience COMPLETE change. Robert Spitzer actually echoes this in a postscript to his study, but apparently it fell on deaf ears, and he was labeled a homophobe. Simply put, some people will never experience any degree of change, and the only possible (sane) option seems to be to affirm their homosexuality.
“And until it is made clear, it will continue to gain strength as a euphemism, meaning ‘to cure gay people of their depravity.'”
I feel that mainstream America has a very oversimplified view of these matters. To look at homosexuality as a matter of “cure” versus “disease” is not only archaic, but not empirically reflective of reality. First of all, homosexuality is not a disease, thus it is logically and linguistically incorrect to think of “curing” it. And, a lot of modern reparative therapists would actually agree with me on this. However, what they might disagree with me on is what I’m about to say next, which is this: objectively, homosexuality is merely a variant of human sexuality. It is neither “good” nor “bad.” It just is. To talk of whether it is morally “good” or “bad,” “healthy” or “unhealthy” is more of a societal value judgment, and sadly, society tends to view homosexuality as “evil” and “unhealthy.” I’m a huge proponent of fluid sexuality. I see sexuality as a spectrum, with people falling every where along it. And, I personally feel that it is possible for some people to move along this spectrum to differing degrees, in both the gay and straight directions, with or without therapy.
“I have a good deal of respect for the tenor of Chad Thompson’s approach to gay issues from the evangelical perspective, while disagreeing with many of his positions.”
As do I. He ought to set an example for the older ex-gays who seem to offend everyone under the sun. Just the fact that he shows incredible compassion for LGBT people, and is working towards meeting their needs, gets my utmost respect.
>Are exgay groups ever worthy of support?
I’ve been puzzled by this question, because it is so vague. Support in what way?
As I’ve mentioned here more than a few times, I’ve known people who have gone from straight to gay, from gay to straight, from straight to gay to straight to gay (again), and they haven’t needed any “group” to help them in the transition. And their “conversions” didn’t bother me–and “ex-gay” as I’ve described handles our insurance. And, more to the point that I am concerned with, they don’t oppose equal rights for gay people–quite to the contrary, they support them. In stark contrast to what is typical of “ex-gay” groups.
This is a subject I have mixed feelings on. There is the endless political involvement of Exodus. And its relentless hard right wing nut tone.
But, my observation is that there are a number of people involved with Exodus who are utterly oblivious to the politics of the situation. They seem to be the evangelical equivilent of ‘new age fluff bunnies’. People who simply do not understand what they have gotten themselves into. And who maintain that since they personally are not political, being part of Exodus is for them simply ministry. Not politics. And, so, it is simply out of their awareness.
Tricky subject here. Looking at sincere, dedicated folks who are part of a politicized organization and don’t realize it.
Dale, I quite agree with you. That is the situation I think for some (but certainly not all) ex-gay ministries, that see Exodus as not much more than a source of referrals and a conference once a year. They don’t understand/see the big picture and probably don’t have a very good sense of how Exodus is viewed by the rest of us (or if they do, they just chalk it up to being persecuted or assume that we – gays/ex-ex-gays – just don’t want people to change).