The Bay Area Reporter reviews Abomination, Alicia Salzer’s recent documentary examining the claims of the ex-gay movement.
Dr Salzer, a New York psychiatrist, was the subject of controversy last year over remarks she made on The Montel Williams Show.
(emphasis mine)
And in regard to that “Science says 96% of people cannot change” controversial Alicia Salzer quote, Alan Chambers of Exodus filed an ethics complaint with the American Psychiatric Association.
In the youtube video she breaks down the information:
All of which concurs with what Ariel Shidlo said in the movie.
—
Chambers also says in the complaint,
This coming from a man who regularly implies with impunity that “
100%Change is100%Possible”Yet Chambers and Throckmorton consider the Jones and Yarhouse “study,” with arguably similar results, which WAS a sample of people “representative of those who seek counseling or ministry help relating to their same-sex attractions,” to be something that qualifies the universal and dogmatic, yet ambiguous statement that “change is possible.” A euphemism for:
Change is
not impossibleSo “controversy” my derriere, the evidence of hypocrisy is blinding.
Well. Alan Chambers. what to say about him?
Mark Twain called them ‘corn pone ‘pinions.’ “Tell me where a man gets his corn pone, and I’ll tell you what his ‘pinions is.”
Alan’s got a job, probably health insurance, the respectability of a wife and family (no outlaw status for the likes of him!), and the good opinion of many in the anti-gay industrial complex– or at least their tolerance as long as he doesn’t Paulk himself, or look particularly Haggard.
“tell me where a man gets his cornpone…”
Ben, emails to you are bouncing. Could you please check the email you are using for us, and if it is correct email me at david@exgaywatch.com to check. Thanks.
Back to the regularly scheduled program…
Nice. 8)
After seeing numerous interviews and the like of Alan Chambers, I get the sense that he is not defending a religious belief as much as he is defending his livelihood. I mean, after all, the ex-gay ministry is an industry; it’s a business. It is selling a product. If people don’t want the product then the industry dissapears and Mr. Chambers is out of a job.
If this was just a religious issue we could all sit in a big circle and throw Bible versus and Church documents at each other all day and night. But the ex-gay movement is big business and is making some people very comfortable financially.
The psycho-spiritual terrorists known as the Ex-gay movement are slowly but surely being exposed for what they are. They’re fighting back ferociously claiming “religious persecution”, the “Homosexual Agenda” and whatever else they think will work. Fortunately facts will ultimately win out over hate and propaganda, albeit slowly.
Buffy
Thanks, Emily. I like it when I can be witty. It makes me feel so…GAY!
On another note. Mr. chambers is not to be believed, and i do not understand how the man can either fail to see the discrepancies in what he’s saying, or fail to see his utter hypocrisy if he does see those discrepancies.
He says tens of thousands of people have been helped by RT, yet J&Y can only come up with 100 people for their study, of whom only 15 “changed”, in a vague, general sort of a way. As BTB or Daniel diRito have pointed out, by no stretch of the imagination– or probability– do these numbers add up. 3/4 of the population would have to support Exodus, and yet they have how many churches in their network?
He claims he’s “cured”, that change is possible, then he says he always struggling, and change did not seem to be possible after all. He says you can’t be right with Christ (or something like that I read in another posting) if you have a single gay thought in your head, then tells us of the thousands of people that are now no longer gay. Apparently, none of them have their phones turned on, because they aren’t showing up. He ignores Ted Haggard, Lonnie Latham, and and host of others who clearly demonstrate that believing in Jesus and doing a few pushups is just NOT WORKING, whether you call it RT, voodoo, or G’s redeeming love.
The anti-gay industry is indeed an industrial complex– unfortunately one that creates a good deal of toxic waste with a half-life of 2000 years. Alan Chambers, to my eye, is very similar to John Wayne Bobbitt, who managed to turn his greatest misfortune into a money maker.
Where does doing G’s work end and earning a good living off the pain you cause others begin?
Pat Robertson always has his hand out (and his mouth open) and is worth 200 million. Who said that it is easier for a camel to go…
How much does Mr. Chambers make?
“Where does doing G’s work end and earning a good living off the pain you cause others begin?”
—
I suspect it would be the point at which you decide that God’s work consists of harming others. Not hard to do when you’ve decided that the opposite of holiness is homosexuality itself.
How much does Mr. Chambers make?
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2006/521/413/2006-521413470-034c7ca3-9.pdf
According to Exodus’ 2006 IRS filing, Mr. Chambers made $71,485. That’s not a bad salary, but not the “very comfortable financially” that Alan S claims.
Um, gordo, I don’t know where you live, but 71k is more than just “not bad a salary”.
I live in Chicago, make about half that, and even though I’m paying off my student loans and putting money away for retirement — I’m far from starving.
71k is most definitely “very comfortable financially”
Gordo,
Exodus’ 2006 IRS filing may only reflect his salary from Exodus. Mr. Chambers flies all over the country for political events and appearances. He also published a book in the last year or so. Travel and rooming expenses are probably paid by Focus on the Family or other political groups. There are likely speaking fees that are also paid for his appearance.
Mr. Chambers does appear to be an important political prop for anti-gay groups, and he is used for political purposes regularly. I am sure that he doesn’t do it for free. So, while I agree that the $71K isn’t bad, I also think that it most likely only represents a portion of his total income.
If you are trying to argue that Alan Chambers is making a big salary off of his ex-gay work then you need to provide us some documetation to support that claim.
Arguments that start with “he may”, and “it’s likely” are lame.
I’m not a supporter of Exodus or Alan Chambers, but I did grow up in a family in Christian work and neither my family nor anyone we knew was living high on the hog using Jesus.
Alan is doing what he’s doing because he believes it’s what his god wants him to do, not to get rich doing it.
Like most anything else, these are only “lame” if used improperly. If I say that something is likely, I’m not stating it as fact, but only that, because of other information perhaps of similar situations, I think something likely in this instance. The next stage would indeed be to find evidence of the statement if one wanted to say it is true.
So you would say it is unlikely? In my experience, the number of honest people working in ministries far exceeds the dishonest, and the poor or financially modest far exceed the rich. That said, there are plenty of the latter and many of them are a matter of record. I’m sure you have run into those as well.
From what I have seen, I would tend to agree with you, but neither of us can know for sure. And I hasten to say that many people doing what I would consider harm in the ex-gay ministries are also doing what they believe God wants them to do. That can’t be an excuse.
I generally think these discussions about this or that person’s income, or what house they own, etc, are petty unless the target of the discussion has used these same issues to make very specific claims. Chambers has a wife and two small children, so $70K would allow a modest life.
We have studied the finances of Exodus where possible, and so far it doesn’t appear anyone is getting rich over there, so it’s not a claim I am comfortable with. There are plenty of valid reasons to debate what they do and why it is not good, but greed doesn’t seem to be one of them.
Gordo,
I would agree that the majority of folks involved in religious work don’t make much money. There are some very high profile exceptions to that rule who have gotten very rich from their religious operations.
But I don’t really think of Mr. Chambers as primarily involved in religious work or ministry. I think that he and Exodus are primarily political consultants for right wing causes and anti-gay politics, and there is no shortage of money being spent on these issues.
Problem with the money argument is that it could really apply to anyone. You could find a gay activist with a nice salary and accuse them of only being in it for the money. Or an ex-ex-gay activist. How much does Wayne Besen earn, for example?
It’s a bit of a lazy argument without more evidence than the fact someone is on a salary.
I have no problem believing that Alan does what he does out of the best of intentions (as he sees them) and sincerely believes in what he represents.
Also, to my British ears, $70K (about £35,000) sounds comfortable, but not extravagant.
Dave,
The truth is that I am not personally all that concerned with how much Mr. Chambers makes, even if I am convinced that the number is more than $71K. I am however concerned with how he makes it.
He heads a tax exempt organization that seems to spend an inordinate amount (if not all) of it’s time on political causes. These political causes are all directed at denying me the same rights that my fellow heterosexual citizens enjoy. Because of the tax exempt status of his organization, gay Americans are in a way subsidizing Exodus’ anti-gay efforts.
Exodus is primarily a political organization. The IRS should investigate Exodus’ tax-exempt status, but that won’t happen under this Administration.
Well, we can certainly agree on that. The increasing involvement in politics is one of the major reasons so many ex-gay ministries in Europe gave up their Exodus membership.
I never said Alan Chambers is getting rich off of this, I said that the ex-gay ministries are “making some people very comfortable financially.” COMFORTABLE, not RICH. In other words, he’s not living in the projects, getting government assistance nor, by the same token, is he at this moment making a decision which color of Mercedes to drive this week.
What I said was that this is his job, and if the realization that reparative therapy is useless, even damaging to its target audience, and even more…if the message got out that God loves us for who we are, that we don’t have to go through a program like the ones Exodus endorses in order for God to love us, then Mr. Chambers would be out of a job.
But aside from the money, it is also the fame that I think motivates him. Most likely he has convinced himself that he is doing God’s work, but “by the fruits of their labor you shall know them” and there’s a lot of rotten fruit coming from Exodus.
Worse than that, he’d be out of an identity.
Well put, Emproph.
What I see in Mr. Chambers and other ‘professional’ ex-gays is that they are making a career out of belonging. And as much as I might be disturbed by that, I look at my own decades-long obsession with belonging to a religion that doesn’t accept me and understand all too well the motivations and desperation that drive these people. Emproph is right on the mark, it is all about identity.
Back in 1956 a professor of psychology named Leon Festinger, together with his colleagues Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter, produced a book entitled When Prophecy Fails. It is a study of “cognitive dissonance” as exemplified by a cult called the Seekers, whose leader had received messages from higher beings living in outer space. The messages predicted a gigantic flood (somewhat like Noah’s flood) on 21st December, from which the cult members would be rescued during the preceding days by flying saucers. Festinger et al. observed the behaviour and attitudes of the leader and members of the cult, both during the days leading up to the date of the expected flood, and during the subsequent months after it became clear that neither the flying saucers nor the flood were ever going to materialise. (The book, which I read very cursorily some years ago, is now difficult to get, but a whole chapter of it is reproduced in Expecting Armageddon, ed. Jon R. Stone, 2000.)
I believe that Festinger’s theory of “cognitive dissonance”, although it may not be universally applicable, does commonly apply to ex-gay leaders like Alan Chambers.
Festinger says that when an individual who has a firm commitment to a belief, and who has taken irrevocable actions because of it, is confronted with unequivocal and undeniable evidence that his belief is wrong, not only will he frequently cling even more staunchly to that belief, but “he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.”
Here are the five conditions under which Festinger and his team believed that this was likely to be the outcome, with my annotations in square brackets:
1. A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does and how he behaves. [He believes, for example, that God wishes all homosexual people to change their orientation to heterosexual and to live a heterosexual “lifestyle”; that God will help them to do this; and that God has already done it for him.]
2. The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual’s commitment to the belief. [He may have gone public in the media as ex-gay; he may have “sealed” his deliverance from homosexuality by entering a heterosexual marriage; he may have committed himself to a high-visibility job that depends on his being ex-gay.]
3. The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
4. Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. [He may have been constrained to face the fact that his heterosexuality isn’t quite the real thing after all, that his sexual desires remain homosexual, and that he has to pray every day: “Dear Lord, I can’t make it today without You. I choose to deny what comes naturally to me.” He has to deal with the fact that many high-profile ex-gay leaders have come out and admitted that their change of sexual orientation was simply self-deception, while others have been discovered to be still regularly engaging in gay sex “on the quiet”. He also has to recognize the phenomenal drop-out rate from ex-gay ministries.]
5. The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another [such as Exodus International], we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselytize or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
Very well said, William. A great reference. This could apply to Randy Thomas, Exodus VP, as well – and basically anybody who makes the outrageous claim that they’re “worth less” as “former homosexuals” than as gays under hate crimes laws.
Another example of this kind of coping with cognitive dissonance is the case of Frank Shears, who wrote a pamphlet describing how he had “overcome” his homosexuality and was leading an ex-gay ministry in Vancouver. He had, of course, “authenticated” his “cure” by marrying a woman.
Frank Shears eventually died of AIDS. Shortly before he died, he said that his one regret was having told so many young gay people that they could change, although he knew that there was no possibility of their ever changing.
So why did Frank tell them this, when he knew perfectly well that it wasn’t true? Was it just calculated, malicious lying? I doubt it. He presumably told it them because he wanted it to be true and because he still thought that it ought to be true. And, after all, if you can manage to convince a lot of other people of something, then it must be true after all, mustn’t it?
William could not be more on target: “He presumably told it them because he wanted it to be true and because he still thought that it ought to be true.”
Could not have said it better myself. That’s why I did what I did and preached what I preached. You speak it and believe it into being — you are healed on the spiritual realm and can run marathons — even though you may remain in a wheel chair all your life.
I now believe that this sort of “name-it-and-claim-it” theology has harmed many, many people.
William, you’ve told my story down to the commas and periods. I became ex-gay not in the context of Exodus or NARTH, although I later sought help from both, but in a charismatic community that veered toward cult status. I saw the “cognitive dissonance” phenomenon at work not only for me in regard to homosexuality, but throughout our group as various beliefs conflicted with reality.
But once in a while, the light of reality does break through. One of my favorite examples:
For many years, our community taught members to store food and water in preparation for “days of darkness” that we believed were about to descend upon the world. That emphasis peaked in the late 80s, but one relative of mine was still storing water right through the next decade. He constantly looked to one event or another to turn into the crisis our leaders had prophesied. When all the worries about the Y2K computer problems emerged in the late 90s, he became convinced that January 1, 2000 would finally be the big event.
On that New Year’s morning, he woke up to find the electricity still working, clocks still running, phones ringing, television broadcasting–all of life carrying on as normal.
Without saying a word to anyone else in his family, he began carrying the 10-gallon drums of water, which he had stored for years, up out of the basement. He dumped every one into the gutter of the street in front of his house. He was done.
And that was how I felt when I finally decided that I “cannot not be gay anymore.” At a certain point, you just decide you’ve got to live in the real world, not a fantasy.
“cannot not be gay anymore”
I assume you meant to say ex-gay.
It’s a double negative. I could NOT NOT be gay.
Those were the exact words I used to tell my wife my decision. I felt that my whole life had become focused on NOT being the person I really was. I couldn’t do that any longer.
Got it. Good for you. The truth does set you free.
I’ve actually commented on this Shidlo and Schroeder study multiple times on this site – Dr. Salzer’s interpretation matches mine. Warren frequently and dishonestly implies that the Shidlo & Schroeder article only surveyed persons reporting harm from ex-gay ministries and conversion therapies. This is not only not the case (they subsequently opened recruitment to include those that reported gain), but as this has frequently been pointed out to Warren, it is difficult to understand why he chooses to perpetuate this myth.
In many ways, despite the many limitations of it, the Shidlo & Schroeder study is still one of the few empirical studies that we might use to draw reasonable conjectures about the effectiveness of these interventions. I look forward to a wider distribution of this film so that Jones & Yarhouse-style vanity publications can be placed in their proper context.