After posting my recent open letter to Alan Chambers I was privately contacted by an Exodus staffer regarding my seemingly logical, but incorrect assumption Exodus is trying to minister to gay and lesbian people. I’m not alone in assuming Exodus is trying to reach gay and lesbian people, since blog Some Guys Are Normal said the exact same thing recently. The Exodus staffer who contacted me wished to remind me their mission statement says nothing of ministering to gay people. Sure enough if you go to Exodus’ web page their mission statement reads:
Proclaiming to, educating and impacting the world with the Biblical truth that freedom from homosexuality is possible when Jesus is Lord of one’s life.
Now the question becomes, if Exodus isn’t proclaiming this freedom to gay people then what’s the point of proclaiming it to the heteros? More so, how does working to actively roll-back civil rights fall within that mission statement?
And if they aren’t trying to reach out to gay people, why do they feel it is within their “mission” to actively work to deny and even roll back the rights of gay people? It seems it would be none of their concern.
Well, I think it might come down to semantics.
To you or me, a gay teenager is a gay teenager. To Exodus, a gay teenager is a heterosexual teenager who’s been “broken” and now “struggles with unwanted same-sex attraction.”
Therefore, if Exodus ministers to that teenager, they’re not ministering to a gay person.
Another way to think of it, I guess, is that, according to the vocabulary of Exodus, a “gay” person is somebody who’s accepted and embraced a gay identity, and, from what I gather, it’s not part of the Exodus strategy to minister to people who are self-identified as gay and who like being gay. They’re focused on people who are gay and don’t want to be, and, sadly, I think there are more than enough of those people to keep Exodus busy.
Excelent point Jim, I added that question to my post.
If you talk to them again you might ask why the Exodus Blog for Feb 20 links to an article that says this:
“The aggressiveness of the homosexual community over the past few years can be explained similarly. It looked around, sniffed the air, and realized that the environment was downright unfriendly. With the backing of various secularists, media types, liberals, atheists, and other moral stalwarts, homosexuals began irritating the environment, putting the stench of sodomy and lesbianism, bizarre sex practices, abnormal social routines, and perverse social arrangements on the surrounding culture, trying to make the environment more friendly.
Like a cancerous growth spreading wider and wider, gays continue to pervert as much of society as they can. Movies, television, music, and the theater: all have been infected by the gay agenda. The aim is to reduce everything to their level.”
It’s largely a part of reinforcing the “Homosexual Agenda.” This week AFA released an essay that describes their view of that Agenda, which uses so much war-like language (and twenty year old quotes) that it was more obvious they are not interested in reaching out to their gay neighbors and fellow worshippers. They’re more interested in the war … for reasons unknown.
Perhaps it’s capitalizing on a question to improve their own self-worth? In other words – culturally the whole gay-life-as-acceptible notion is relatively new, bolster their position in the minds of society,and not everyone is instantly sure of it or accepting of it (or they don’t “understand” it). So the fundamentalist extremists, seeking to move in and incessantly harp on it, capitalizing on a potential sore spot of our society like salt in the wound.
It’s not about their “opponent,” it’s about them. Listen to us, we are right, listen to us, they’re attacking us, give to our ministry, save the nation, we have the answer…
Meanwhile they’ve failed to understand the group they are apparently not targeting, and failed to realize we aren’t all mad and crazed maniacs seeking to destroy the church. Coincidentally to this post, I took this whole AFA thing to task this morning.
The reasoning isn’t that hard to figure out- scaring people is a good fundraising tactic. I suppose now they figure they’ve got people so scared they can say things that are completely illogical and their followers will swallow it.
Daniel- I’ve got to agree. What’s the point of telling the whole world (meaning mostly straight people) that “freedom from homosexuality is possible” if not to try to turn gay people straight?
So their whole goal is simply to tell the world that gays don’t have to be gay? I’d much rather hear that their mission is to minister to gay people about freedom from homosexuality. Their mission statement makes it sounds like they are simply telling the world that its not ok to be gay, and it sound a bit on the sinister side now that I think about it.
Daniel-
I’d like to add that I found this on Exodus’ website about their member ministries:
“Our member ministries provide support for individuals who want to recover from homosexuality, as well as provide support for their family (parents, spouses, children, relatives) and friends.”
From: https://exodus.to/about_exodus.shtml
So, while it may not be Exodus Corporate’s job to minister to gay people, it is pretty clear that their member ministries do focus on that. And, since Exodus is a referral organization for these ministries, their claims to you seem pretty nit-picky at best.
All of the Oscar best picture contenders…not just BBM, illustrate a point of view about many horrendous historical events that carry significant relevance today.
If they want to call BBM propaganda, then they don’t understand artistic expression as it interprets REAL events and people.
All of us has the freedom to express.
It’s knowing enough about our world to see it as A story, not THE story of what’s going on.
In that regard, one could say that the Bible isn’t the END of challenge, curiosity or discovery….but the BEGINNING.
And it hasn’t stopped yet, and hopefully never will.
After all, Jesus himself represented challenge and discovery and he died for the sin of a determination to stay in the dark.
Daniel,The reply was the same slipperly playing with sematics that characterises Exodus. In other words, misrepresentation.Exodus do not minister to people. That much has been known since they were established, at least it has been by those familiar with the set-up. They are the post box for those who do: the “member ministries”.But use of the term “member ministries” is itself telling. Exodus controls who is a member. They sell the message. They field the media calls. They take mebership fees. That is, Exodus are running a francise. (Or perhaps it’s a MLM / pyramid scheme?)And as with all such set-ups… the boss doesn’t get to pretend “It wasn’t us, It was them.” when everything goes pear shaped.
With togue in cheek,
This only proves that Exodus is about hate not love. If there ministry was about “love” they would minister to those who they think would need the message. Instead the claim to spread the word to people who don’t need the message.
Since they have now confirmed it is about hate, since they are not ministering to those they claim need it, the least they can do it be honest and say…we are about hate, not love.
Now the question becomes, if Exodus isn’t proclaiming this freedom to gay people then what’s the point of proclaiming it to the heteros?
Joe Brummer has it right. They’re not about telling gay people they can change, they’re about telling heterosexuals we can change. Or to be more blunt about it, they’re purpose is to give heterosexuals an excuse to discriminate. No…the message isn’t directed at us, or at any rate primarily at us. They’re not talking to us. Hence the hate rhetoric that keeps slipping out the door. You don’t talk to people you want to reach by spitting in their faces. But we’re not the audience. Hence the anti-gay political activity that goes hand in glove with the message. The message isn’t directed to us. It was never directed to us. It’s directed at the heterosexual majority. It’s telling them that it’s okay to discriminate, because we could simply stop being homosexuals any time we wanted to. That’s what this thing was always about from day one.
I’ll agree with Bruce, and add this to cut any possible confusion “off at the pass” (haha, getting all Brokeback on you there).The comments here have been about Exodus International. They apply to member ministries, in so much as they are member ministries.There are some rare examples of exgay people, ever more rarely exgay groups, that delib. keep themself out of this FOTF funded war. It should come as no surprise that they are almost never connected to Exodus, and almost never contacted by the media.
Exodus message to heterosexuals:
“You should say to any gay person that you have heard or read that change is possible.”
This message puts a new pressure on gays and make heteros feel right. Obnoxious but efficient.
The comments here have been about Exodus International. They apply to member ministries, in so much as they are member ministries.
Yes. That’s an important distinction to keep in mind.
I’m a 60 year old man who has a 13 year relationship with another man. We couldn’t be happier.
These assholes make me sick.
Why don’t they mind their own business.
Jesus protect me from your followers.
Yes, I do think it’s interesting how they try to distance themselves from each other – Exodus the umbrella organization doesn’t “help gays” but the member ministries do…and (some of the) member ministries don’t support Exodus politics. How long can this keep going on?
They are actively pursuing a Jim Crow-like world between straights and Gays. They are basically trying to prevent the Gay community from mingling with and otherwise associating with the straight community. So, of course, the aren’t ministering to gays. They’d like nothing to do with us and would rather us all be driven from the country by creating a hostile environment. I think that’s pretty clear from their mission statement and their war-like language. The reality is, it might be working, there is certainly a brain drain with skilled binational same-sex couples increasingly moving to Europe and Canada. And professor-level faculty doing the same to escape collegiate school systems that won’t provide benefits to their partners. Even here in DC, many couples would rather work for the State Department overseas (who will gladly help your partner find employment and a visa) than try to stay in a hostile environment here. It will backfire, of course, I saw the same things when the intellectual class fled apartheid-era South Africa. Eventually those ex-pats work from without.
Joe said, “Since they have now confirmed it is about hate…”
Question…who confirmed that Exodus was about hate? You or them? Cause last I heard they have NEVER confirmed that!
On a completely different note, Exodus is not funded by FOTF.
I think they confirmed it pretty well when they blogged an article calling gay people a cancerous tumor on society. If they didn’t believe it they would have either not blogged it or put in a note condemning it.
Daniel,
From Randy Thomas’ most recent blog post about his trip to the Love Won Out conference:
“And while all of that can be distracting, the truth is we will have a great day ministering to those that want help and promoting a point of view that needs to be heard.”
Just thought it was interesting considering the topic. I think it is pretty easy to assume he is talking about ministering to same sex attracted people and their families. I’d be interested to hear exactly what the Exodus rep. said to you given the apparent semantics debate here.
“Proclaiming to, educating and impacting the world with the Biblical truth that freedom from homosexuality is possible when Jesus is Lord of one’s life”
Aren’t there Muslims who are heterosexual and don’t believe in Jesus. If heterosexuality is evidence of Jesus being the Lord of One’s life, that makes no sense.
Kathy,Perhaps you know more about Exodus and it’s funding than I do. I am willing for you to correct me. However, I do expect you to please detail what you know.We already know that the highly expensive adverts that Exodus use are paid for by others — mostly FOTF or others affliated.The $600K to $$1000K budget that Exodus declares does NOT cover these campaigns. From all my investigating, it’s FOTF et al. But I am willing to stand corrected.So, go ahead. Correct me.
I am taking the structure of Boo’s previous letter and presenting it from another point of view, one just as real and valid.
Posted by: Mike February 24 2006
It’s largely a part of reinforcing the Homosexual Agenda. as dxescribed in the book “After The Ball.” by Kirk and Madsen. This week AFA released an essay that describes that they believe Kirk and Madsen were not kidding… notice the war-like language in “After The Ball.” Also they are concerned about the piece called “Gay Revolutionary”( I think that it was more obvious they this particular author was not interested in reaching out to straight neighbors. Gay millitants are more interested in the war … for reasons unknown.
Perhaps Ex-Gay Watch and other activist groups are capitalizing on a question to improve their own self-worth? In other words – culturally the whole gay-life-as-acceptible notion is relatively new, bolster their position in the minds of society,and not everyone is instantly sure of it or accepting of it (or they don’t “understand” it, or all of them are “haters.”) So the gay extremists, seeking to move in and incessantly harp on “the religious right” and the “haters” and the “ex-gays”, are capitalizing on a potential sore spot of our society like salt in the wound, the fear of being seen as “intoleralnt.”
It’s not about their “opponent,” it’s about them. Listen to us, we are right, listen to us, they’re attacking us, you MUST uncritically approve of homosexuality , your beliefs don’t matter, you’re picking on us…”
Meanwhile they’ve failed to understand the group they are apparently belittling, and failed to realize we aren’t mad and crazed maniacs seeking to destroy love and life. Coincidentally to this post, I took this whole “there are no real ex-gays” thing to task this morning.
Hmmm….a ‘message that needs to be heard’, eh?
Well, real life is full of not only messages…but full on evidence and facts THEY need to hear.
No quid pro quo for Exodus, whose ENTIRE mission is about reaching for gay people’s throats and knowing that heteros are a majority, convincing heteros that gay people are the rabid, fanged demons that Exodus SAYS they are.
That way, the control group who has the vote, the church support and common fear and ignorance at it’s foundation to spring from, will have their mission’s success in the bag.
That remark calling gay people a ‘cancerous tumor’ is the hate speech giveaway.
It denotes not only unwanted and undesirable, but dangerous too.
Alan Chambers stated that he could convince anyone that a yellow wall was really blue.
Meaning that, regardless of the reality before them, he’d rather convince someone that a fantasy or lie is the truth.
Banking on lies, fear…and ignorance in the zeal to control gay people, one thing was never right.
The dominion of one human over another is the dream of the evil and always has been.
Mike- you’ve given a fascinating example of straw-man argumentation. First of all, no one at exgaywatch claims “there are no real exgays.” Exgaywatch seeks to hold exgay proponents accountable for the documented untruths they regularly spread. I’ve pointed out on Warren Throckmorton’s blog that there is no evidence anyone has ever changed sexual orientation, but that’s not a claim to know that it’s never been done.
“Meanwhile they’ve failed to understand the group they are apparently belittling, and failed to realize we aren’t mad and crazed maniacs seeking to destroy love and life.”
No, I think we understand Exodus and their ilk quite well. Calling people a cancerous tumor in society may be many things, but loving it isn’t.
If you haven’t noticed, the only people who seem to have ever read “After The Ball” are anti-gay extremists. The AFA purports to reveal the truth about all gay people by citing ACT-UP, this book no one’s read, and a magazine piece that was quite clearly intended as satirical (one thing they forgot to mention- the person who read it into the Congressional Record conveniently left off the opening sentence which identifies the forthcoming piece as satire). “Michael Swift” is a take-off on Jonathan Swift, and the piece itself was obviously inspired by Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” It was an exercise in saying, hey, what if gay people were actually like what the anti-gay movement says we are, wouldn’t that be screwy? Unfortunately, the author underestimated just how shameless anti-gay people are, and the piece now regularly turns up quoted in anti-gay screeds as if it were serious.
Claiming that one is not hateful in the midst of spewing hatred is… a little disingenuous, to say the least.
Get this through your mind: there is no moral equivalency between a group that wants equal rights and a group that wants to deny equal rights. No one cares whether you “approve” of homosexuality or not, any more than you need me to “approve” of your relationship.
Evangelicals distinguish between those to whom they minister and the mission field.
For example, you may have a local Baptist church with a predominantly ethnic Chinese congregation. That is who they minister to, the local Chinese community. But they also support missions in foreign countries. While they might have a mission outreach in China, they would not consider themselves to “minister” to the Chinese in China – just to the local Chinese community.
So too, Exodus does not minister to gays. They only minister to those who wish to leave a homosexual lifestyle. They don’t consider this the same at all. To minister to “those in the homosexual lifestyle” would make them a missionary.
Occasionally someone will set up a table on Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood as a mission outreach to gay people. Generally they get discouraged fairly soon – once the locals come to recognize their tactics of deceit. For example a rabid anti-gay woman was trying to entice gay people by displaying a sign “we’re sorry for how the church has treated you”. She wasn’t at all sorry but was instead writing lies about her wonderful work. She was talking about tables selling leather fetish items (some guy was selling jewelry which included a couple leather wristbands) and the groups of young teenagers selling their bodies (She’s seen this on the strip?? She’s got better eyes than I do).
What is confusing is that generally churches don’t try to negatively impact their mission field. Additionally, missionaries usually try to positively impact the personal lives of the individuals, whether or not they convert. A missionary to some distant Chinese province would try to offer modern medical practices, innoculate children, care for the sick, help with education, provide for widows, etc. It isn’t often that the local Chinese Baptist church lobbies our government to bomb China. Nor would the national church lobby to take away their health care or stop them from visiting other Chinese in the hospital.
Daniel , Exodus’ response to you has been useful. It has helped me understand how they view themselves.
The local ministries do view themselves as a ministry to the ex-gays, those who wish to “leave the homosexual lifestyle”.
However Exodus national does not view themselves as a ministry to individuals at all. They view their purpose as declarative, as a propaganda group (for want of a better term). Their purpose is not to address concerns of gays, ex-gays, or those with same-sex attraction, but rather to declare “that freedom from homosexuality is possible when Jesus is Lord of one’s life”.
Now that Exodus has clarified this misunderstanding, I think we should hold them to it. Whenever they tell the media that they are “offering hope”, we need to counter that they don’t have that as part of their mission. We need to inform the media that they are a public relations group, a lobby group, but not a ministry. If they want to distinguish between the national group and the local ministries, we’ll be glad to be consistent with that.
Naturally, though, this distinction is just for argument sake and to “correct” you. They will say whatever sounds good to them at the moment. Exodus has the least regard for honesty of any group I’ve ever encountered.
Great post, Boo. I’ve been meaning to blog about that AFA/Agape article bringing up the Michael Swift piece.
It’s also worth nothing that after that piece came out, several Christian groups printed fliers to give to their congregations about this alleged “gay manifesto,” but they again left off the first sentence about it being satire.
Mike- Are you re-wording the anti-gay quote Boo found on the Exodus Blog to make it anti-Ex-Gay Watch? I’m really lost here.
If ex-gays are ministering to those who wish to leave the gay “lifestyle” (I hate that term) then they are acknowledging those people exist. Why do they feel the need to paint gays in a bad light as to “create” those who want to leave?
Why do they feel the need to make gays want to leave or abandon being gay? If these people already exist? Possibly the reason people want to stop being gay is because groups like Exodus make them hate themselves for being gay. SO they paint gays with a broad brush and say we are all evil. Then charge a small fee to get their videos, conferences, books…..and change them to straight for god. It is a brillant money marketing scam.
If they painted the picture of how gays really are in real, true light. They wouldn’t have any customers to buy the wares.
Boo, I also can’t understand why people have ever taken the Michael Swift satire as true. It was in a small gay publication. It was not by any gay concensus, yet it is held up by many as some kind of goal by gay people. That article also states that “After the Ball” was a national best seller. Ummm, other than places like AFA citing it, I have never heard of it or seen it. Some day I need to check it out so that I am correctly following the agenda set out for us gays. That last line was satire in case any anti-gay groups intend to use it against the gay community.
Aaron- the cynical answer is they know it isn’t true but they don’t care because they’ll use any stick to beat us with.
The noncynical answer is that they’re predisposed to believe the worst about us because they actually believe their own propoganda, they believe it because it says things they already want to believe about us anyway.
I’m not sure which answer is scarier.
Boo at February 24, 2006 09:08 PM
I think it may be a mix of both. Those who continue to write about and quote from the Swift “Gay Agenda” piece know better. They really do.
But the audience of this crap doesn’t. They read that we intent to molest their kids and they believe it. It isn’t contradictory to anything else they’re exposed to other than that “liberal biased hollywood media” which they are told constantly not to trust.
And, of course, the target market for this stuff generally isn’t educated enough to make the connection between Michael Swift, author of the Gay Agenda, and Jonathan Swift, one of the English language’s best know satirists.
Classic Swift: In A MODEST PROPOSAL (1729) the narrator with grotesque logic recommends, that Irish poverty can solved by the breeding up their infants as food for the rich.
The parallels are obvious. But not to the wingnuts.
Let me mention that when I teach Swift’s Modest Proposal, there is always a significant portion of students who believe it is literal. Even when I explain the situation and context, many students will not acknowledge that and still see the text as literal. While this has not happened in any of my classes, some students have complained to the administration that they were forced to read disgusting ways to kill and eat children. Irony is very hard for many people to acknowledge. Personally, I think the Michael Swift piece is not particularly good or well-written, but still people refuse to acknowledge irony.
A friend of mine who is a minister has said that it is very hard to get church members to look beyond the literalness of the Bible. The people want the letter not the spirit.
“A friend of mine who is a minister has said that it is very hard to get church members to look beyond the literalness of the Bible. The people want the letter not the spirit.”
It’s so much easier to just follow directions. You find that in lower paid jobs. There’s no need for initiative, no requirement of thought, just tell ’em what to do.
Thinking about your religion requires effort and discomfort. There’s uncertainty. And that is just not what people want.
Radical Muslims would rather strap bombs to their chest and go blow up women and children than to question whether they are worshiping a moral God. God said it, they believe it, and that settles it.
Similarly, Christians would rather campaign to take away health insurance than to question whether they are worshiping a moral God. God said it, they believe it, and that settles it.
Oh lord, protect me from your followers. Amen.
Audrey,
Few prayers are wiser than that one. Thank you for sharing.
–Mike
You know… I once thought like you all..
But God HAS changed my orientation.
It is possible.
Ex-gays do exist. I am one, married and happy.
D. McDonald, if you are happy then we all wish you well.
However, from what I saw of the website you attached, it appears that you define “changed my orientation” differently than does the rest of the world. When we say “orientation”, we generally mean the sex to whom we are attracted, not whether we are married.
Now that you are married, I sincerly hope that you will be able to maintain a joyous relationship with your spouse and that it is as fulfilling and satisfying as you wish it to be.
D. McDonald,
Sorry, I followed up a little further and see that you are claiming that you no longer have attractions to the same sex. If so, I’m very happy for you.
Dawn, but frankly I doubt you “once thought like you all”. You obviously haven’t taken the time to read much at this site. Your background, and it’s effect, is fortunately not that commonplace; here or in the wider community.
Reading through all the testimony at the site, I’d have to say that fairly much applies to all of you. Including the ones who are merely celibate, rather than claiming to have changed their sexual orientation. I’m a little concerned about how recent the conversions generally are too.
You are presenting yourselves as “typical”, but that is far from the case. You’d make a better case against bad heterosexual parenting, than claiming to represent homosexuality.
If you’re happy, now, good. Every one deserves that.
But in forgetting how unusual your history is — and how moderate and recent the claims about change of many of your members are — you will cause conflict, hurt and separation for the largest number of people when you make absolute claims such as the one you did here.