I just finished listening to an interview between Wayne Besen of Truth Wins Out and Mike Ensley of Exodus International. They were on the Alan Colmes radio show, and Michael Bussee also called in briefly during the open phones. I almost felt sorry for Mike, he really seemed unprepared for a serious interview. Wayne, on the other hand, should probably seek more radio and TV work, he excels in that type of exchange.
I only heard the last two-thirds, but that was enough. I don’t think I realized how acclimated I have become to the twisted byproducts of indoctrination that often come out of the ex-gay movement, not until I listened to the tortured answers Mike gave to the simplest questions. When Colmes would strain to get a simple reply, Mike would prattle on undeterred or complain that it was a complicated issue. Obfuscation is always more complicated than an open, direct approach. The problem for Mike is that, so far, he seems only to have sipped the Exodus Koolaid. Perhaps even he doesn’t believe some of what is coming from his mouth.
As Wayne noted, Mike (and most Exodus/ex-gay representatives) are vague in their message to the public. They have learned the general absurdity of asking people to accept the ever elusive “change,” (the definition of which has been beaten into the ground), so they have come up with creative slogans suggesting, for instance, “freedom” from homosexuality. Those of us who deal with ex-gay issues frequently know what this means (change by any other name…), yet when asked to explain (as Mike was tonight), the response is “freedom from the influence of same-sex desires.” Again, if not orientation change, what on earth does that mean? Celibacy? Asexuality?
An honest approach might be to tell people that, if they believe homosexual sex is wrong, they can be celibate. Or if you are bisexual, you might also be able to emphasize your heterosexual attractions. But as long as they continue to hawk change, as long as they do not accept a gay-affirming outlook as an equally acceptable outcome for the people they deal with, and as long as they continue to work against the rights of other GLBTs to live equally, Exodus will be a bad thing. That they are not open and honest about what they are doing just shows that they know we know.
In the mean time, I suspect Mike will be absent from live interviews for a while.
Addendum: In this audio clip, Mike responds to a simple question (Are you gay?) with various canned phrases and concepts which make up part of the Exodus newspeak lexicon. You can hear Colmes struggle as he plows through the muddled bits to get a “straight” answer. It’s no wonder Mike and his brethren feel so misunderstood – they don’t make any sense.
Once again, Ensley perfectly illustrates the big problems with Exodus. He can’t answer a question directly, and constantly plays word games to avoid the obvious implications of what he’s saying.
This kind of dishonesty and double-speak is so far from being Christian it ain’t funny. I’d have a lot more respect for Exodus if they’d just say what they mean and mean what they say, and let their yes be yes and no no and quit playing games.
[Transcript of audio clip:]
Alan Colmes: Rather than making this, you know, getting bogged down in some of the minutia of the group itself, of Exodus International, Mike, I’m kind of interested in the whole idea of changing from being gay.
Mike Ensley: Mhm.
Alan Colmes: Now you’re gay right?
Mike Ensley: Well I struggle with same-sex attractions yes, I don’t, I don’t embrace a gay identity now. And and…
Alan Colmes: Well are you gay or not?
Mike Ensley: I am not gay, no.
Alan Colmes: Were you gay?
Mike Ensley: This is not…it’s no…I was a same-sex attracted person, I thought of myself as gay at one point. It’s not a light-switch issue. It’s a process…
Alan Colmes: So are you straight now?
Mike Ensley: …it’s not all or nothing.
I do have heterosexual feelings I never had before, and that doesn’t happen in the absence of, it’s not — I’m never going to have amnesia, you know, about how I used to live my life, and the things that…
Alan Colmes: So your goal is then to take gay people like yourself and to make them into what, heterosexual people?
Mike Ensley: Our goal is to take–is to help people who have a biblical world view, and want alternatives to living homosexually–to live in accordance with their beliefs, and to find a peaceful understa…
Alan Colmes: Well you’re giving me a lot of words here, I’m simply–I want to keep it as simple as possible, for our audience, and for me, so I can understand it. You want to take people who are gay, and make them no longer gay, right?
Mike Ensley: No, that’s not what we do. We help people live in accordance with their beliefs.
Alan Colmes: Well people who come to you, who are gay, are coming to you because they don’t want to be gay anymore, right?
Mike Ensley: People come to us because they are in conflict with their same sex attractions, or with a homosexual identity, and…
Alan Colmes: Alright, well you’re saying the same thing–using a lot of words, people are gay…
Mike Ensley: No I’m not saying the same thing.
Alan Colmes: Well you’re saying they’re in conflict with their homosexual att…
Mike Ensley: I’m saying that people have feelings, people have struggles, and they don’t want to take–what the option that our culture says is their only option. And and…
[End transcript]
Thanks, Emproph!
Paraphrased:
Alan Colmes: So are you straight now?
Mike Ensley: I’m never going to have amnesia, you know, about how I used to live my life..
Compare with:
Anderson Cooper: Do you still have attraction to men?
Alan Chambers: I will never be as though I never was.
…for me to say that I could never be attracted to men again, or that I couldn’t be tempted would mean that I’m not human, and that’s just not the case.
__
Ergo, they’ll never even be able to forget the dream of homosexuality — and thus — should never be held to account for promoting otherwise.
One has to wonder if any one is running the show at Exodus. Colmes has a national audience and Wayne has a well known reputation as a verbal brawler. I can understand why a puppy like Mike would think he could handle himself on air, but one would think that Alan Chambers or Randy Thomas would step up to prevent a train wreck like this.
I think that perhaps we can make some limited sense of what Mike Ensley said if we look at George Weinberg’s book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual (1972). Weinberg proposed a distinction between the terms “homosexual” and “gay”. He wrote: “To be homosexual is to have an erotic preference for members of one’s own sex.” Weinberg’s definition of “homosexual” seems to correspond with Ensley’s term “same-sex attracted”. Weinberg then went on to say:
In Weinberg’s terminology being a “healthy homosexual” means being “gay” as described above.
What I understand Ensley to be trying to say is that “ex-gay” doesn’t mean what most ordinary people would assume it to mean. He is in effect admitting – although he doesn’t make the admission in so many words – that the term “ex-gay” is highly misleading. It doesn’t mean that you’re no longer “homosexual” or “same-sex attracted”; it simply means that you’re not “gay” or a “healthy homosexual” as defined by Weinberg. You are a homosexual in what Weinberg describes as a state of “chronic self-denial”:
So rather than trying to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals – which is seldom if ever possible – the aim of ex-gay ministries is to stop them from being gay, i.e. healthy homosexuals, to keep them in that state of chronic self-denial.
Ex-gay, as big a lie as it is, is the only thing that ex-gays have to say that even approaches the truth. William’s comments on Weinberg are the perfect summaiton of the problem.
One has to wonder about the ex-gays. god is on their side, nature is on their side, homosex is disgusting and perverted and leads to disease and death, being gay is an unhappy and destructive ‘lifestyle’, as anyone can see, and yet…
the only thing these so-called blessed people can ocme up with are lies, distortions, half-truths, and obfuscations.
by the way, Weinberg iss a great book and can be read in an hour or two. I read it back in the early ’70’s, not long after it came out.
If I were interviewing Mr. Ensley I would ask him about his erotic dreams. We all have them. If he would be honest with us he would acknowledge his homosexuality and admit all he trying to do is self-induced behavior modification…which many would categorize as being in a state of denial.
Then the direction of the next discussion would be: Should a gay man tell his future wife of his sexuality or live a charade that quite possibly will ruin his and her lives.
Then I would ask how someone can live a life of celibacy and be happy…including what to do about loneliness.
Then, I would ask why the government should be involved in deciding whom I should love.
Okay, if he gets stumped by Alan Colmes, he’s taken on much too much of a big-boy job for him! Mike probably never had so much as a high school debate class. I’m tempted to recommend one for him, except I kinda like the situation as is.
And yet the ex-gay movement only offers one option. Why do they preach “freedom” when they in reality only offer DICTATORSHIP!?!
The more things “change,” the more they stay the same.
Hmmm. Ensley just removed from his blog, all reference to the radio show with Besen and all comments, and also his article on How to Raise a Gay Child. Seems the comments hit a little to close to home and he got scared during his “Processing”, Proccessing being another artice that was also removed referring to his state of mind after doing the show.
INteresting tactic. Is it really fair to the public to be a public figure and remove and edit data on a whim? Not very credible, but then ……
What did it say on his blog? What were the commenters saying?
At least one comment I saw was well reasoned and thoughtful, but none were hateful. Perhaps he is taking advice from “if I delete it I never said it” Randy.
Read Gunner’s post:
Google cache: MIke Ensley: Processing…
May 23, 2008
Yeah, I had tried the cache before but the page comes up so garbled and unreadable. So I just copied/pasted it all into a text doc and read the comments there. Interesting comments. Disturbing how on Ensley’s/Randy’s blog (et al) the supporters are all saying these people are “called by God.”
Maybe someone at Exodus told Ensley it’d be a PR mistake to keep that post up.
The Google Text Only version is easier to read.
Emproph and Gunner both made some good points.
I see a few people have tried to blame this on the fact it was three against one. Someone says Mike was “ganged up on.” This is a massive distraction from the real problem, which is that Mike just wasn’t being truthful. It was his constant refusal to say what he really meant that made the interview such a fiasco.
I am very disappointed, though perhaps not surprised, that Mike took down those posts. It would have been to his credit at least to allow dissenting opinions on his blog to stand.
I’m sorry you guys aren’t seeing what I’m seeing, I still gett a virtual copy of the original page with the cached version.
—
I feel bad that he deleted it. Points-wise, and for the sake of the readability-of those points.
I feel it bears mentioning that Pete said some good things too, and I believe he’s a ‘struggler’ / ex-gay, too
But in addition, I think that thread really could have turned into something spectacularly productive had it been allowed to live.
Personally, and long story short, I felt lead to take the compassionate approach, simply because of Mike’s original approach – “Processing,” as in ‘self-reflection,’ or ‘introspection,’ etc. It’s something I can Identify with.
I can see being overwhelmed by the pointed truth(s) that were offered, or even a PR admonishment from higher ups, so it would seem that he’s not ready for that level of discourse yet. At least not openly. Which brings us back to what we’re discussing here. The incapability of Exodus leaders to articulate not only the true meaning of “ex-gay,” but by extension, the true purpose of Exodus.
—
By deleting these two threads threads in particular, Ensley confirms this point (whether or not intentional on his part).
I found out about the show at the last minute and thought I would try to call in. I was surprised I got through. It was really painful to listen to Ensley dodge and weave.
At one point, I pointed out that EXODUS teaches that homosexuality is “evil”. Ensley denied this (even though Alan Chambers has stated it very clearly). I also pointed out that EXODUS believes that those who keep “doing it” will go to Hell.
To my surprise, Ensley denied this as well — even though EXODUS has always insisted that First Corinthians spells this out quite clearly. I couldn’t understand why he kept backing away from what EXODUS has always taught about the Bible.
Devlin, do you have a google cache link to this one? I’m not sure which location you mean.
Re the “How to Raise a Gay Child” post: (the Mike Ensley “I’ve Got Charisma” post – May 15, 2008).
Here’s the cache, but there are several comments missing. I couldn’t find anything better.
Here is Ensley’s article about raising gay children, commissioned by Charisma Magazine.
Do you mean, “what to do when your child is gay?” David I believe you’re familiar with that article.
My link button does not seem to be working. Google Gay Child Charisma Magazine to bring up the article.
Yes Emily, that is the correct title of which I was refering. Here is the link to Charisma magazine.
https://www.charismamag.com/articles/index.php?id=17207
“Gunner” here.
I find Mike Ensley rather endearing, in that he has a child like energy. (no egg throwing please) Being I have never heard anything about him before these threads and radio show, I do believe he comes from the heart and truly believes his position. Hence I wrote my post with compassion at hand.
I think a major block he and Chambers have, is that they experiened their gay selves through sexual addiction filters. They do not know balance with their sexuality, whereas lots of gay people do. Many of us have not known that particular struggle, which had to weigh heavily on their decisions for their futures. I think they were both wanting love with a male, but were too blinded by the addiction to cut through and come from the heart.
I think my folly comes when I see these really intelligent gay guys running this old stuck irrational energy of biblical undoing all over yet another minority, when they could really make a stand with the position they are in, and move to clear up the entire debacle by saying they are naturally gay and it’s time to stand up and address the possible flaws or misinterpretations the Bible may entail regarding homosexuality. The guilt it would release from the world would be staggering. Though it would cause great fallout, it would start a definitive path to resolution, and they would then truly be world class heroes. But then I too, may be seeing this thing through rose colored glasses.
It’s very sad to have that ideology religating people to a life in a sexual deep freeze with little to no possible love with a partner. There is nothing quite as glorious as two hearts in love beating to the same drum.
I won’t give up hope.
Yikes, if you put that in the context of a heterosexual couple they would be considered asexuals. So they were saying the opposite of homosexuality is holiness? So what is the opposite of asexuals? They do not usually breed. So why is Exodus not converting them?
Yeah, well, Devlin, it would be nice, and it would be honest, and it would allow for a great deal of energy and time and money, currently devoted to this issue, to be spent on something that actually, oh, MATTERS.
Unfortunately, with your solution, there is no power, money, influence, drama, validation, career, superiority, or the general rewards of brown-nosing, blandishment, or mendacity.
I’ve commented on Mike’s blog a few times and found he had removed his “Charisma” and “Processing” threads just as I was about to post a new comment. It’s a shame, too. Many people wrote some interesting things, and I had hoped Mike would engage in a fair discussion rather than delete them. When I brought this to his attention, he blocked me 🙁
I think you’re right.
Yep, I’m aware of the vast cash cow this thing lassoes in. Confusion/Control = dollars. And religion is the most elaborate well thought out spin doctors I’ve ever seen. Never having any confusion about being gay and loving it, I found recovery from religious indoctrination on this sex abuse/persecution issue nearly impossible being born Catholic, alter boy etc. But I did prevail.
I never had guilt as much as extreme anger with teen suicide and abuse due to religious persecution. That really sent me over the edge. It felt like a personal attack. I had to really get in touch with why I was over the top with unproductive rage, which only kicked up dust and didn’t help. I found it was my own injustices played out on myself believing at a deep level I was flawed, not for being gay, but for being persecuted for being gay and not being understood. It was a soul wound. I bought that bait. It was “hell” and hard to get over. Now, being able to stand in solid strength with this attack constantly going on around me without reacting, is fab. I’m finding I can now be more a helpful compassionate observer. But this whole 2+2=3 thing, man what pooheads some people are.
I know the younger generations are going to shoot the final silver bullet (no, that’s for werewolves) are going to deliver the final stake-to-the-heart all over this sex religious issue and kill it, and on more than just gay issues. All will be better as time goes on, AND having a deluge of gay Americans coming to California to get married, give me front row seats baby, and lots of Kleenex. To get a stay on the Supreme Court decision to wait for the people to vote is highly unlikely. The court has 30 days to ponder it and another 60 if they want, to consider it and decide. Love that legal meandering.
Two times on that above post was unintended. Edits sometimes confuse my computer. I’m rambling, thanks for listening.
I wonder if “someone” was the same kind of Christian as Mike? If so, that person would ‘know’ that Mike wasn’t alone. “God” is on Mike’s side. Isn’t that the premiss on which the ex-gay movement is built (i.e., God don’t like gay)? And, as the “word of God” says, “… if God be for you, who can be against you?” So apparently, that
Dave, I don’t think “that Mike just wasn’t being truthful.” I think Mike really believes that being gay is just like alcoholism, that ‘sin is sin.’ But the answer really is complicated as Mike asserted.
Mike understands, that he inherited his disposition to want to be with a guy from four generations back (not sure where the first generation got that disposition from, probably goes all the way back to Adam and Steve, doesn’t matter, it’s all part of the “sin nature”). Add to that, Mike was probably molested as a kid, had a passive father and a dominant mother. Put it all together and you un-naturally get “ssa.” There is no such orientation as “gay,” just “ssa.” Those who profess to be gay are just heterosexuals who pervert the “natural” use of the body. I think this is the basic answer that he would have given, but he just wasn’t given the opportunity to give it. I know this, and imagine most here know this, because this is what they tell you when you join the ex-gay movement.
It’s not mike ensley, which is the subject of this thread, but Alan chambers does throw some light on this dilemma.
On the one hand, he says that you cannot lead even a celibate gay ‘lifestyle’ and be OK with G. He also says that he ‘streuggles’ every day with is very queer self despite his “happy” “marriage” to his “wife” and his “family life”, and his “devotion” to “G’s” “word” on the subject– not to mention his “devotion” to where his paycheck originates. (And yes, all of those quotre marks are intentional.
With that level of cognitive dissonance going on as a constant in HIS life, why should mike ensley be able to make any sense at all?
Like me, Mike has a Vox blog. I made sure to post the interview on my Vox Christian group he popped up in.
He put that post back up, comments and everything. Guess he came to his senses. It’s much worse to pretend something didn’t happen than to have something less-than-flattering be public. Besides, ex-gay people are so good at spinning things, I’m sure he’ll find a way to call it a victory (or martyrdom) in no time.
That was Alan on Mike’s blog. I think Alan is a little too close to his staff, else why tell Mike he did great when he did so poorly? What does it help him to lie about it? Either Alan thinks that blind praise is somehow a good management technique, or he wants to be Mike’s buddy more than his boss.
Karen gave Mike some genuine, thoughtful advice a few comments down, something Alan should have done first. If Mike doesn’t get out of their soon, he’s going to end up just like Randy — mean, frustrated and knowing how to do nothing more than “be” ex-gay.