In responding to comments on the thread below about whether the use of the term “the homosexual” was intentionally offensive, Alan Chambers said the following:
I imagine that I have and will continue to offend you and others with my beliefs, but I do care about being untruthful.
Alan is to be commended for his care about being untruthful. My greatest concern about the ex-gay movement is how it seems at times to have little care about its untruthfulness, so any declaration of care about this matter is received with joy.
Alan has shown that he has some ignorance about the gay community and gay-identified people. In particular, he is unaware that talking about “the homosexual” is offensive.
Perhaps we should assume that much of what he and Exodus have said since he took its helm in 2001 has also been based on ignorance and that any untruthfulness has been unintentional. I’m sure Alan will appreciate any efforts we make to provide to him – in one easily accessed location – a quick reference of untruthful statements he can avoid in the future.
Alan, I dedicate this thread to just this use. Please consider this your personal reference.
This means, fellow readers, that we should limit the comments to specific instances of examples. Let’s not pontificate or opine about what we find objectionable of offensive about Alan, Exodus, or ex-gay ministries. This thread is solely short examples of misstatements, inaccuracies, and deceptions. Let’s keep it brief and easy so Alan can use it. I will be removing violations.
Here is an example of one such deceptive statement. It is from Alan’s new book.
…many gay activists who are encouraging Christians to accept homosexuality as normal have a better working knowledge of biblical arguments against homosexuality than most Christians. And these activists have their own answers against those arguments.
Some of these gay promoters may themselves have flirted with Christianity in the past and may even have made professions of faith, only to return to their fleshly desires when the going got tough. Or perhaps when they found no firm support in a local church of from Christian friends when they struggled, they gave up on Christianity.
Alan makes no mention here of the huge number of gay people who did not “give up on Christianity” or “return to fleshly desires when the going got tough” but have reconciled their orientation with their stong Christian faith. Many of Alan’s readers will not know about MCC or the thousands of gay Christians who worship in the reconciling congregations of Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, UCC, and other Christian churches.
To deliberately limit “gay activists” to those who are not Christian does nothing to help his readers who may wish to witness to “the homosexual next door”. In fact, the unprepared reader may be surprised when the gay couple next door invites them to church. However, Alan’s description does stigmatize gay people and sets up an “us v. them” dynamic which, while useless for witnessing Christians, does support anti-gay political activism.
This statement is deceptive and untruthful.