We recently discovered that Alan Chambers had joined the board of PFOX late last year. In an email reply, Alan said he did so as he thought he could assist them in making positive changes. One of the conditions of this arrangement was that PFOX remove all ties with Richard Cohen, the unlicensed, self described “psychotherapist and educator,” and director of the International Healing Foundation. Cohen has received notoriety for frequently appearing on TV, sometimes in venues one might find questionable (Howard Stern?) for someone claiming to be able to “heal homosexuality.”
To date PFOX remains deeply entrenched in Cohen’s questionable ideology, and Cohen’s own site lists him as “an advisory board member of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX).” Citing this, and a heavy work schedule of his own, Alan Chambers has informed us that he has resigned from the board of PFOX and is no longer associated with their operation. At the same time, the following has just appeared on the Exodus web site:
Exodus International does not endorse the work of Richard Cohen or the methods utilized in his practice. Some of the techniques Mr. Cohen employs could be detrimental to an individual’s understanding of healthy relational boundaries and disruptive to the psychological and emotional development of men and women seeking clinical counsel and aid.
We are mindful of the difficulties involved in such decisions, and congratulate Alan and Exodus on their decision, at least in this instance, to separate themselves from those would put their own agenda ahead of those they claim to help.
PFOX remains an Exodus member ministry.
Assuming PFOX remains an Exodus member ministry, does that mean that PFOX will continue to have a booth at Love Won Out conferences?
I think that would be up to Focus as I understand it. Perhaps Alan will clarify for you.
PFOX also has continued to reffer media to Cohen. I know this because I have given interviews to several media outlets that have contacted Cohen this way.
A.B.T!!!
I bet that was an interesting phone call from Colorado Springs… the day before.
While he’s in the mood, perhaps he can remove Exodus from P.A.T.H..
Alan Chambers took Exodus into this “non-profit coalition of organizations that help people” set up by Richard Cohen AFTER he claimed to have cut all Exodus contact with Richard Cohen.
And while he’s in the mood, unrelated, perhaps he can disaffiliate –again — from Exodus Global Alliance.
Exodus recently rejoined, despite the fact Exodus GA not long before sent Pat Lawrence and DL Foster on a tour of the Caribbean for the expressed purpose of retaining criminal laws against homosexuality.
Alan should make more more of these disasterous media appearances. These appear to be the only thing that motivate him into action.
It is amazing how the right loved Cohen until they saw him on TV. His methods were vividly displayed in his book for years. In my book, Anything But Straight, I point out that Cohen belonged to a cult that practiced nude therapy on Vashon Island.
Still, the right embraced him – until he allowed the public to see what he did in private. As far as i am concerned, Alan and others are like rats leaving the sinking ship. They should have condemned Cohen years ago, but remained silent. The way they are dumping Cohen now is disloyal and immoral .
I want to point out that Chambers lives in a glass house. His organization is nearly as wacky as Cohen’s. If Chambers allowed filming of Love in Action talking peoples’ Calvin Klein underwear, he would be the next Cohen. Exodus has sold Satinover’s book that suggests Prozac may be able to cure homosexuality. Exodus sells Consiglios book which suggests people snap a rubber band when they see someone attractive. Exodus sells all of the bizarre Paulk propaganda which is flat out laughable. Exodus is affiliated with Comisky, who trumpets “spiritual warfare,” and is downright odd.
Alan can distance himself from Cohen, but he needs to look in the mirror. It seems the primary difference between Cohen and Chambers is that Alan is PR savvy enough not to highlight what his group does in private on TV.
Exodus should disband and start over from scratch if they want to be taken seriously.
I’m guessing Cohen’s methods are also detrimental and disruptive to Exodus’ public relations department. Watching Chambers on the Montel show, trying desperately to contain the fallout from Cohen’s unhinged CNN and Howard Stern interviews, was… instructive, to say the least.
Grantdale, all the information we have points to this being an entirely independent decision by Exodus (and more specifically, Alan), and nothing to do with Focus on the Family. Perhaps Alan can respond to your other claims here, but in the interest of truth I have to say that I honestly don’t think a “call from Colorado Springs” was involved.
We are quick to admonish ex-gay organizations for deceit and hate. We should be equally ready with our praise when they do something right. I think this is a positive move for Exodus so why not give credit where credit is due?
I agree David with that — and that throw away line isn’t obviously as it was intended. A “/sarc” would have helped. (And while I’m at it … not sure what happened to the links in that post. Didn’t save a copy either before posting… bugger.) All in all, could I have made it any more messy??? Jeepers. Bad day. Look it’s 98degF here today and even the desk fan has died. OK?
Enough about my faults… to return to the substance of the post:
Alan Chambers has had more than enough time, and his template “gee, yes, I didn’t know, I will change that” excuses are wearing all too thin; particularly as he needs to be constantly chased down on those promises.
I don’t think this has any thing to do with Exodus — or Alan — doing “something right”. You’re assuming that. It’s the correct outcome, I agree, but I also do not think Exodus were motivated at the end of the day by concerns about Cohen’s “therapy”. Sorry, “coaching”.
(Their reasons are valid ones for an organisation, yes — eg avoiding bad PR. But that’s not driven by ethical concerns).
Why? From January…
I’m sorry David but I’m having a very hard time accepting that Exodus (and Alan personaly) rejected Richard Cohen back in 2000/2001. It simply isn’t true. Alan’s joining Exodus to Cohen’s P.A.T.H being but one example.
Alan is not being truthful about their relationship with Cohen — a relationship that continued right up until the first episode of silliness with the tennis racquet hit the news.
Therefore, based on the smell of a rat, this raises questions about their motivations for publically denoucing him today.
(Saving post to text file now. Don’t trust myself not to mangle it again!)
Grantdale expresses it prefectly: “Alan Chambers has had more than enough time, and his template “gee, yes, I didn’t know, I will change that” excuses are wearing all too thin; particularly as he needs to be constantly chased down on those promises.”
EXODUS can do some fancy scrambling when the PR poop hits the fan, but they seem slow on the moral uptake.
Chambers…too late. Talk about a day late and a dollar short.
Chambers has done SO much damage already…now he’s jumping this situation?
How many others are interconnected with these people?
They’re pointing fingers at each other now?
What a friggin’ farce!
Michael Bussee, you sexy beast….I’m thinking they are slow on the moral uptake bacause they never had the moral ethics required for what they did in the first place.
It’s gotten down to something like ethical nuances.
One has obligations to it in public life and influence. There was way too much reliance on innuendo, generalizations and stereotype.
Substance and empirical evidence matters.
Quicksand will only hold you so long.
You are FAR more experienced about that, so you may please correct me if I’m wrong.
Reading the comments here: WOW! What a joke! Cry or laugh? The vagrantly slanderously immoral are going to lecture the world on how to be moral. What an absolute absurdity!
Stephen,
Who are the “vagrantly slanderously immoral”?
Stephen,
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels… [1 Cor 13:1]
Ha! Knew we’d eventually hunt this down (it’s been playing on our minds since January).
Okay, r-i-g-h-t… forgive me, but isn’t this exactly the same behaviour and the same reasoning offered by Cohen — for a type of intervention that Exodus rejected just 24 hours ago?
Or is it only a problem if a therapist — sorry, “certified sexual reorientation coach” — offers it?
What if the only person able, at that point, able to fulfil a lonely client’s demands for this man-on-man cuddling is the therapist/coach? With nobody else available… would this leave the client unable to have their void filled?
Man, life get’s tougher each day for wanna-be straights.
“The affection, which caused Alan to weep for five hours straight on one occasion…”
Now that is stamina! I would probably be exhausted after the first half-hour.
I should know better than to comment here because the majority of you don’t really care what I have to say and don’t believe what I have to say. But, I have to clear up a few inaccuracies in the comments portion of this post:
1. PATH wasn’t formed by Richard Cohen, but he is a member of that group. When we decided to join that round table it was to reach across the religious lines. PATH is not even functioning today. Randy participated in one or two phone calls and I had breakfast once with the other PATH members. Linking us to Richard Cohen through this means is a real stretch.
2. My mistatement on Montel about the word liberation needing to come off of our site. Sadly, under pressure and without truly recognizing what Montel was saying about the word, I stated that it needed to be removed from the site. If it said or implied in any way that we had any power to “liberate” or “change” someone I would remove it from the site. But, it doesn’t say that. In my opinion, though the word choice isn’t my favorite, liberation from homosexuality is possible. That may not be your desire, but it was mine. I felt trapped and now I am not.
3. Exodus has not been linked in any way to Cohen since his workshop in 2000 when he showed what type of therapy he does. Our statement had nothing to do with spin or jumping from a sinking ship.
4. My “nonsexual hugs” weren’t from a therapist or a coach and had nothing to do with anything related to a programatic element of ministry or therapy. Kirk Bane was a man at my church who happened to be nice to me at a time when I didn’t trust many within the church. Having been sexually abused as a kid and dealing with a lot of hurts concerning “straight” men, Kirk’s desire to be my friend was very meaningful. The first time we sat down and talked I shared some pretty deep stuff and I cried and he hugged me and I cried harder. Our conversation was over 5 hours long and I cried through pretty much all of it. You turning it into some kind of weird link to “holding therapy” is also a stretch.
Alan, what does liberation mean? My dictionary says, “to free” as from slavery or occupation by enemy forces. You need to clarify what liberate means to Exodus, Alan. “In your opinion” does not cut it. Nobody can read your mind, therefore a clarification needs to be met so others that come to your website know exactly what they need to endure to be “liberated” from their SSA.
Perhaps a footnote at the bottom of the Exodus page noting what “liberate” means to Exodus is in order here.
Alan,
The main reason you “should know better” is because everytime you open your mouth you appear to make it worse for yourself and Exodus. Your entire “promise” relies on people believeing your story, but you seem to go out of your way to invent yourself in ways that are all too easy to disprove.
(And I am really trying hard NOT to break the exgaywatch rule about calling someone “a liar”.)
1) Richard Cohen — as he says, and as said the press release “>[eg:1] — did indeed start PATH. You joined him.
You. Joined. Him.
I honestly don’t know why you go about making up such silly fabrications as you did above. They occur with such frequency and with such transparency I’m actually getting the point of thinking you aren’t actually lying. It’s not a conscious act, you can’t help yourself — rather, you’re somewhat delusional.
2) That again. “Liberation” means what it says. This is why Montel ripped into you. Once again, here, you try to deny the common meaning of the word and what it will say to people. Now, worse than above, you’re assume your listeners are delusional. That’s not just wrong, it’s rude.
This, and your ignorance about Exodus policy displayed on Montel, is wholly unprofessional of you Alan.
3) See above. You did. Given the response to 1) and 2), why shouldn’t people think you still are.
4) There is nobody here who will EVER deny the horror of an abused child.
But you did not present this 5 hours in your testimony as you just did then. There is nothing wrong, or gay, about weeping on a mate’s shoulder. Nearly all straight (and gay) men do this, at some point in their lives.
That not the problem. The problem is that you “used” this in a false testimony to advocate the nonsense that is reparative therapy. Alas, Richard Cohen uses exactly the same “logic” behind his hugging of clients. He says this helps repair them into heterosexuality.
There is no 5) but I’ll add one
5) Why are you cautioning against an exgay therapy? You complain like all hell when the APA — professionals, unlike you — made that caution, but you apparently feel perfectly free to make this judgement yourself when you wish to.
I thought you were all about “client choice”? What if they want to be groped by Richard Cohen on a cheap lounge suite?
Alan I’m sorry for your childhood, but has nobody ever bothered to say it to you in plain and simple language: honesty is the best policy.
Be honest. You are setting a very bad example for your children.
Ken,
That is a helpful suggestion. For the record, it is our belief that only God can change/liberate someone.
“In my opinion, though the word choice isn’t my favorite, liberation from homosexuality is possible.”
I don’t understand, if the word choice is “not your favorite,” why don’t you change it? Do you think that the ambiguity of the phrase works to the benefit of your organization?
Alan, there seems to be this common problem among voices in the ex-gay community, and I’m not sure why it is so prevalent. Probably 99% of your communication problems stem from it, and it’s actually quite easy to fix. The key word is TRANSPARENCY. That means using plain, everyday language to describe things. The word “liberation” is such a problem for you because you have a specialized meaning of the word that doesn’t match common usage. The Exodus website is open to all who wish to visit it, so TRANSPARENCY would dictate that you use the common meaning of the word, or not use it at all. That’s why Montel was giving you such a hard time; using a specialized meaning of a word in a publicly-viewed medium looks dishonest.
TRANSPARENCY also means that the comments you make today should match the comments you made yesterday. If they don’t, TRANSPARENCY dictates that the reasons they don’t match are completely clear in plain language. And the comments made tomorrow match the comments made today, or an explanation in plain language is forthcoming. An example of this is the standard blogs use in which they list updates in the same entry as when an unaccurate statement is made (“UPDATE: Yesterday we reported that Ken bought a yellow Ford Mustang. We were notified by Ken that it is actually an orange Dodge Pacer.”) When you fail to operate under such a standard you look dishonest.
When you say things like, “I should know better than to comment here because the majority of you don’t really care what I have to say and don’t believe what I have to say” you place upon us the blame for your inability to be transaprent. It is not our job to figure out which statement you make is the true one and what it means. That’s your job. If you wish to engage in a dialogue with the public at large (and that is what you and Exodus are trying to do with your website and with your public statements), then you need to take responsibility for your own comments and the way they are interpreted by your audience. Otherwise, you are the only one to blame when no one buys your claim that your disassociation with Cohen is sincere.
Grant,
I hate to go tit for tat, but…
1) To be clear, the release you pointed to says Cohen was a member of the organizing committee. We joined at Arthur Goldberg’s request—-I’ll give you this one. It looks as if we are more linked with Richard Cohen than we actually were. We knew he was a part of PATH, though. I didn’t “fabricate” what I said above—I honestly did not know Richard Cohen helped to “organize” PATH. I’m not entirely sure that would have made a difference though at the time because he wasn’t “leading” PATH, just a member.
2). As I said to Ken, God is the only one who can “liberate” or “change” anyone. I am not denying the meaning of the word. Montel was saying that we promised that we can “change” or “liberate” people. I stated the truth–we cannot do that. I know what liberation means and liberation is possible. Exodus, however, is not the liberator.
3). Enough said. We aren’t linked to Cohen, but the PATH issue was valid.
4). I gave no false testimony in the 1997 article Dirty Little Secrets that someone else wrote about me. I experienced an amazing amount of freedom and healing through my friendship with Kirk. The article had nothing to do with Reparative Therapy—it was about abuse.
5). Richard Cohen doesn’t offer sound therapy or coaching. There are plenty of therapists who do help those in conflict with their sexuality, but not through shock therapy, aversion therapy or holding therapy. (Not that Cohen does shock or aversion).
As for the APA, as I have stated every time I have been asked in the last year by a reporter, I think that having task forces in place to review therapies of all kind, including ones that claim to help people in conflict with their sexuality, is a good thing. I am, however, opposed to these task forces not having adequate representation of both biased and unbiased parties. And, I am opposed to the APA making a determination that any and all therapies to help someone in conflict with their sexuality find resolution are bad just because it is the politically correct and expedient thing to do.
You added a 5 and I will add a 6….
6). Leave my children out of this.
One more thing, Grant. You are correct, it was very unprofessional of me not to know “exactly” what statement Montel was talking about. There are a lot of things on the Exodus site that I am not completely familiar with, plenty that I would rewrite, some I am sure I would remove. At times my staff and I do find things that we change or remove.
Not knowing this important statement specifically upon mention was unfortunate to say the least. Regardless of our differing opinions, I bet Montel and I could have had a much better discussion had I been completely familiar with what he was talking about it immediately.
Alan, why is your staff ever changing or removing anything on the website without your knowledge and consent?
This goes right back to what I was talking about with transparency. If you don’t even have control over the content on the site, how can you speak authoritatively about Exodus at all? not knowing specifically what statements are on the website is not unfortunate, it’s downright negligent.
Yeah Alan, I know you hate to go tit-for-tat.
And I also know why. Which is why more people should find ways to compel you into it.
I’ll deal with 6) first.
Don’t pull that one on me. It’s rather pathetic to use your children to attempt the sympathy vote when you know you’re in the wrong.
I’m not their father, and I’m not the one who will need to explain his behaviour to them in the future. Right here, right now is not about them — it’s about you. You are fibbing on a very public stage, and that shows their father in a poor light. That’s what you need to understand, not me; we asked you to model honesty for them — starting now. Do you have a problem with doing that?
1) right — why dont you just say it?: “Alan was wrong, grantdale were correct: Exodus, under Alan Chambers’ leadership, continued to associate with Richard Cohen until 2006. ALan Chambers apologises for claiming otherwise.”
At one level I’d like to think your ignorance about the group you were taking Exodus into was just another professional lapse, but I cannot. I honesty don’t think of you as being that stupid.
But let me guess — you went along to these PATH meetings etc and completely failed to notice the creepy man with the tennis racquet chairing the meeting.
Alan, perhaps you need stronger glasses.
2) Again, despite the rapid change in the last few days to your policy, you are well aware what Exodus promises. A few word changes in your policy does not alter the fact that a blinding visitation and liberation by Himself is rarely mentioned throughout your “resources”. Instead, you rely almost entire on the discredited reparative therapy framework.
If you want that to be clear to people, you’ve got a lot more corrections to make on that website than altering a single paragraph in a policy.
Ever read the Constitution of the Soviet Union? It promised freedom and liberation of every type, but nobody bothered to base their behaviour on it.
3) Again: Alan was wrong, grantdale were correct. Tiresome you are. Just say it.
4) people can read the article for themself. You mentioned the hugging session with Kirk in a paragraph that promoted an icky aspect of reparative therapy. It’s an aspect that Richard Cohen also promotes.
5) “Richard Cohen doesn’t offer sound therapy or coaching” — and who’s opinion is that? Yours?
Amazing — because that is precisely what the overwhelming majority of qualified professionals say about Exodus itself: that you do not promote sound therapy or coaching, because your very basis for it is flawed and damaging to the majority of gay men and women.
Alan – there is not a single interview (that we know of) where you have spoken as you suggest. Your only contribution has been to i) abuse the APA ii) demand that exgay therapy be available and iii) claim it is not available because of the APA and that’s why people aren’t changing. Feel free to point us to any interview where this has not occurred.
Followup post: I doubt it. But what you would have had is a patent statement already prepared as a response. Such as:
“God is the only one who can liberate or change anyone. I know what liberation means and liberation is possible. Exodus, however, is not the liberator.”
I wonder why God has only chosen to change a few who become professional members of the ex-gay ministry network. All the others, God chooses not to change them. He must have a reason for not wanting to change all these gay men and lesbians.
John, God’s NOT only changing a few professional members of the ex-gay ministry. I don’t work for any ex-gay ministry nor do I serve any. I am just a regular person with same sex attractions whom God is liberating from the brokeness from which these attractions derived, and as a result my attractions are lessoning.
wxyz,
You say that your attractions are lessoning. That does not sound like a miraculous conversion to heterosexuality. Again, perhaps God has other plans for you and all the others He created “in His image,” but who also happen to be gay or lesbian. Too many mysteries, too little time.
wxyz,
All we have for that is your anecdotal statement here, an anonymous post in the comments of a blog. How do we know you are actually who you say you are? how do we know you don’t work for an ex-gay ministry?
We have no reason to accept or believe that the original statement—that God is ‘only changing a few professional members of the ex-gay ministry”—is false because it’s all we have of verifiable information. That, again, comes down to the ministries themselves, who do not document the success of the people that enter their ministries, and often fabricate the numbers they do offer.
As much as it would be nice to accept your claim at face value, the past history of ex-gay ministries make that unreasonable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But in this case, we have no evidence at all.
Robis,
wxyz’s comments do not seem inconsistent from those often expressed by those participating in ex-gay ministries. I don’t doubt that wxyz is experiencing “change” and a “lessening of attractions”.
The problem, as I see it, is that the job is never done.
The process of participation in ex-gay ministries reminds me of digging a hole where there is a high water table. When water starts to fill the hole, you can grab a bucket and scoop it out. And as long as you scoop vigorously, the hole will appear as though it is becoming dryer.
But it never actually gets dry.
And as soon as you tire and rest for a moment, the ground water seeps back in and you have a mudpuddle again.
For those scooping with all their might, it seems like they are making progress. Their faith shows them that the hole is almost dry, really there’s much less water, surely soon it will all be gone.
And God can make the water go away. Surely he will soon. See, it’s much dryer now so I’ll just keep scooping.
Illustrating Timothy’s comments:
http://www.cuhkacs.org/~benng/Bo-Blog/up/bailing-animated.gif
Hello, John.
No, it may not seem miraculous that I am not instantly cured. You see, unlike our salvation which occurs instantly upon profession of Christ, sanctification is a process. Giving the brokeness and pain of my life that I feel attributed to my same-sex attractions to God was part of that process. In doing so, I am finding my same-sex attractions lessoning. It’s an abstract concept, and I wish I could explain better, but I am not ready to put out too much of my private stuff just yet.
I don’t know what God’s plans are for those who wish to accept their attractions as a God ordained sexual orientation. My thought is that when living in relationship with God, He will tell us what He wants for us. This is the directions where He has sent me. You have a right to feel God has something different planned for you.
I have heard that people not affiliated professionaly with ex-gay ministries or reparative therapy who feel God is changing their orientation don’t speak out enough, both by the ex-gay side and by the gay side. (I wish, as you probably do that there weren’t any ‘sides’.) I didn’t mean to offend you personally, Johh, I just wanted to speak up and say that God IS changing everyday ‘regular’ folk.
Hello, Robis,
I cannot give you any more personal stuff. I can only be anonymous because I am just not ready to be public with too much personal info. I apologize, I realize that does make it difficult to believe me.
I don’t know the kind of history of the ex-gay ministries you are talking about. I only know my story- I don’t even know yours. However, I have read stories here of how ex-gay didn’t work for people here, and I respect them. I don’t need all the documentation or their real names.
Timothy and Yuri,
I appreciate that that may be your experience. However, that is not mine. I appreciate the folks here at Ex-Gay Watch who allow comments from us ex-gays.
I simply wanted to give input on John’s comment about God only seeming to work in professionals.
wxyz,
Thanks for your response. I think the following is a very wise comment and wish that everyone (from all “sides”) shared this view:
I don’t know what God’s plans are for those who wish to accept their attractions as a God ordained sexual orientation. My thought is that when living in relationship with God, He will tell us what He wants for us. This is the directions where He has sent me. You have a right to feel God has something different planned for you.
wxyz,
You did not say anything to offend me personally. I think that you have actually been quite polite.
wxyz,
Please don’t feel ike you have to give me any information at all. It is not your place to do so, and not my place to ask for it. I would never fault a person for valuing their privacy. The point I was making was that the actions of ex-gay ministries make it unreasonable to accept your words at face value. The exchange between Alan and grantdale are a perfect example of what I mean. Look at how much Alan tries to weasel out of the implcations of the words he’s said and the actions he’s taken. Had he been honest and transparent from the very beginning, there wouldn’t be suspicions of deception.
It would be great if we could just hear your story and be able to accept it for what it is. I don’t see how that can happen when Alan and others can’t seem to just speak plainly.
Dont you just feel sorry for Allen and the other ex-gays? I mean what sorta terrible things did they have to go through that would make them still try to be straight. All of us who have gone through “reparative therapy” know how damaging it is. I sometimes just sit back and wonder what sort of suffering these guys and gals go through at night… with their hetero spouses in bed with them. And then their families!!! Why is it that whenever you see an ad for an ex-gay leader he’s always behind his family grinning like his life depends on it.
And yes Cohen’s a complete joke, and why anyone would buy that greaseball is a mystery to me. Furthermore can you see how the conservative right holds these ex-gay leaders up as posterchildren and then wont give them a second thought if they screw up? Their almost disposable goods! Its not the same exact situation but look how Dobson responded when Haggard had his fall. Dobson wouldnt touch the guy with a mile long stick.
But for myself i want to be in prayer for these brothers and sisters who have boughten the lie that God just wants them to be “normal”
This it just a very disheartening situation on the whole.
Much love
Mike
Perhaps these ex gays are truly suffering from another type of psychological disease. Some how they are confusing thier same sex attraction for an illness that in fact has nothing to do with sexuality.
I am feeling sorry for all of them. Life is not a dress rehersal. So many positive gat role models are out there now. Why would anyone not love themselves in this day and age?
Sexuality is merely a sideline to intimacy with another person. Ultimatly a mature love will consist of alot more than sex. Perhaps these unfortunate souls cannot find the time or desire to be real with another person , being within a wonderful relationship with a lover/ life mate.