I suppose we can be grateful at least that Alan Chambers is nailing his colours firmly to the mast. In a column for Charisma today, the Exodus President revealed that his problem with homosexuality goes beyond the physical act of sex. His problem is with same-sex love and commitment.
According to Chambers, “sexless committed relationships between members of the same gender” are “sinful.” Asked what is wrong with two women living a committed life together in the same house, but in separate bedrooms, he replies, “Everything.”
He has the audacity to claim this is a “fairly cut and dry biblical position.” There will always be debate over the nature of Ruth and Naomi’s relationship, or whether David and Jonathan physically consummated their unusually intimate (and covenant-sealed) friendship. But what can never be doubted is that these are two scriptural examples of committed, loving, same-gender relationships. Chambers calls this “living outside God’s best.” He must either deny the love that existed between Ruth and Naomi, and David and Jonathan, or make such relationships the exclusive domain of heterosexuals.
Once again demonstrating that the idolization of heterosexual marriage is the great shibboleth of the ex-gay movement, Chambers robs his fellow ex-gays of their one hope for fulfilment and happiness by denouncing committed, celibate same-sex relationships as “selling God short” and doubting God’s ability to “supply all your needs.” Is he determined to make life as miserable as possible for the ex-gays under his wing? Effectively the message he gives them is that heterosexual marriage is God’s way to be fulfilled, and anything less is sinful. Doubtless he still wonders why anyone would get the impression that Exodus is all about turning gays straight.
Chambers makes little attempt to justify this denunciation of celibate, same-sex commitment. He resurrects two classic evangelical canards – “abstain from all appearance of evil” (it could look bad, even if you’re not actually sinning, so, um, best not) and “flee from temptation” (you could end up having sex, so don’t live together at all) – but avoids any serious engagement with the Scriptures.
In the course of the article, Chambers makes no bones about being “being active and outspoken on political and social issues that encompass homosexuality,” despite his by-now-infamous promise that Exodus would be steering clear of political involvement. Towards the end of the article he hints that he will continue to fight against same-sex marriage on the grounds that “God’s plan for marriage transcends our human interpretation of fairness and affection.”
Chambers is right to recognize that there is more to homosexuality than just sex. And at least he is being up-front, instead of dodging the issues. He has now made it explicitly clear that he is the enemy not only of gay sex, but of gay love and commitment.
Chambers’s editorial made me want to puke. I remember when I was still within evangelicalism commenting to a pastor that I didn’t see anything wrong with celibate gays getting into heaven. He had a fit. He said one had to be totally cured, 100% straight, with absolutely no homosexual attractions, in order to enter the pearly gates.
I’m so sorry all my LGBT friends have to put up with this crap. Its ridiculous, not to mention hypocritical.
John
The timing of this article is almost funny. Just know that he does not represent all Christ followers. Ironically, a retired female dean of Wheaton College (the very institution where Exodus once held their annual conference) was in such a relationship. The two woman comingled finances and shared a home. They even had a summerhome together in Northern Wisconsin. Of course they did not self identify as lesbian or have sexual relationship, but they were together for decades.
Interesting point you bring up P. I always thought someone should do a study on underground GLBT culture at conservative college. The college I went to, Grove City College, had at least fifteen or twenty gay students, who everyone knew was gay, but who were officially in the closet, and would have been kicked out if they had actually publically proclaimed their sexuality to school officials. Frankly, I think we probably need a constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination against GLBT individuals in jobs and religious institutions, but obviously that won’t happen for a long time.
Still, I do have some hope. The growth of the Emergent church and the progressive wing of evangelicalism shows that a lot of evangelical kids are not buying into their parents’ homophobia. And polling data has shown for a long time that each successive generation of evangelicals is more tolerant of the GLBT community. Ultimately, I think the only issue they will remain consistently hardline on is abortion, but unfortunately the GLBT community is probably going to have to wait two or three generations before evangelicals have fully caught up with the rest of the culture.
I was going to write something on this but I’m glad you did, Dave. Alan Chambers seeks to deny the lonely even a sexless companionship – you just have to pray and wait for G-d to deliver that opposite sex spouse for ya, and if you’re lonely during that time, tough crap.
Sorry Alan, not all “ex-gays” can have a robust heterosexual sex life like you. [rolls eyes]
This attitude all stems, in my opinion, from Alan’s unhealthy views on sex. Exodus is rife with testimonies from “sex addicts” and people who couldn’t control themselves. Alan says in the article,
Well Mr. Chambers, not everyone is as weak-willed as you. Some people actually can live in companionship without having sex with one another, if that is what their principals dictate. Just because YOU need sex in your life no matter what and cannot control yourself does not mean that others are not more mature.
Besides, the Bible clearly states that Alan’s narrow plan is not the only way a person can live a fulfilling G-dly life. Isaiah 56:3-6 says that the eunuch shall not call himself “a withered tree.” For if he should walk in G-d’s ways,
Alan’s weak will has made itself evident several times before. He once said that gay marriage wasn’t legal in California while he “was” still gay, because he would have gotten trapped in a same sex marriage. He gets up every morning and has to pray to G-d that he won’t give in to his “temptations” (read: natural same-sex attractions).
I wonder, would he be as unforgiving toward an opposite sex companionship of the exact same nature.
Jesus did not hesitate to take on the appearance of evil. And when people called him on it, he blasted them as hypocrites who care more about appearances than the heart. Sound familiar? Likewise, St Paul wrote, “If I still please people, then I am not a servant of Jesus.”
If Chambers knew anything about biblical context, he’d know homosexuality as an orientation (rather than a behavior) did not exist in the minds of the biblical writers. That’s why Bible only criticizes (some) same-sex sexual relationships (those that are outside marriage) but does not criticize same sex romance, marriage, or life-commitments (the last of which is certainly what Ruth and Naomi did regardless of how you interpret the story).
Actually, a friend of mine is working on the subject of closeted gay and transgender people from our Christian alma mater. Don’t know what the status is.
Emily, I remember Alan arguing in a similar vein against same-sex marriage because it would make it harder for ex-gays to resist temptation.
Ephilei, you’re right about Jesus, who didn’t appear to give a fig about hanging out with “sinners” and being mistaken for one. I expect Alan would just say Jesus was an exception because he was sinless.
Chambers commits a number of sins here:
1. He redefines sin to describe any situation other than perfection, regardless of whether it’s actually moral.
2. He denigrates one of the Bible’s highest honors, chastity, which was practiced by Jesus and several apostles.
3. He denigrates love.
4. He judges others — implicitly damning them to hell as unrepentant sinners — while he and his ministries encourage ex-gays to join in celibate “heterosexual” marriages.
5. He continues to sidestep his support (in Love In Action and in Uganda) of forcible re-education and, when ex-gay re-education inevitably fails, life imprisonment. If Exodus were opposed to either forcible re-education or life imprisonment, it would have absolutely no difficulty saying so.
Well, I guess a certain Holy Father and that handsome German cardinal he has at his side are pretty well doomed, as far as Chambers is concerned.
More seriously, those of us capable of reading between the lines can make the observation that Chambers’ new and more rigid criteria for salvation more than likely points up an increasing desperation in his own personal life.
As that old song goes, something’s got to give, something’s got to give.
I would have to say that, if I were to read between the lines, my personal interpretation would be this as well. I’m no one to judge, of course, I mean I’m not a mind reader and usually a situation is more complex than my interpretation has deduced. But I have a feeling that there’s only so much a certain person can take – that the seams might be breaking so he could be subjecting himself (and his followers) to much higher standards.
Although, didn’t he once before saying a celibate gay is as bad as a bathhouse trolling gay?
Well isn’t THIS interesting. Chambers’ own Exodus Youth recognizes the difference between actually committing a sin and being tempted to commit one.
You know in Judaism, it isn’t the thought that counts, it’s the act. You can think about murdering someone but if you come to your senses and do not murder them, it isn’t a sin. But likewise, you can think about helping someone but unless you follow through, you didn’t commit a mitzvah.
Alan Chambers has no moral authority to speak on any subject. He tacitly condones the hatred and violence being fomented in Uganda in the name of Exodus and then has the audacity to criticize to cellibate folks living in the same house who aren’t torturing anyone or engaging in mob violence.
Funny that he took the time to address this non-issue while ignoring serious issues.
Emily, it’s tragic that Exodus and other extreme conservatives have turned that Jewish belief upside-down:
They now believe it’s OK to torture people around the world — provided that one thinks nice thoughts with a photogenic smile while doing so.
As an atheist I can be a bit more pragmatic about this than a Christian. I think this pronouncement has nothing to do with his religious views or his own personal struggle with having a homosexual orientation. I think it has to do with money.
Some time back Chambers was interviewed before the Exodus conference by the Los Angeles Times and spoke in terms of no one really changing their orientation. A lot of people in Exodus and his backers didn’t like that and Chambers ended saying the Times took him out of context.
Now Chambers has in this article espoused not only the “godly family ethic” but tied celibate gay or lesbian relationships to sin which created Ishmael, the Muslim Arabs, and Isaac, the Israelis. And then he ends with a nod to Prop H8. Proposition 8 has tied up funds from many organizations, like the AFA and FotF, and then there has been the economic downturn. I therefore think there can be no doubt that articles such as this (and even not doing anything about Schmierer in Uganda) is all about the money – and, of course, ultimately about Chambers own livelyhood.
Likely, much of the prior support from FotF and lack of revenue from the Love Wins Out conferences is projected to dry up. There might be one place Exodus could get some monies in the US – Ahmanson’s Fieldstead & Company. And Schmierer works there for Ahmanson (look up Schmierer on LinkedIn if you have an account).
As I see it this article is not likely about Christian love or sin, it’s about money. Which is about as unChristlike as you can get.
…
P, I think I remember reading about that couple in an article in Leadership magazine (or was it Ministry? One of those Christianity Today spin-offs, anyway) about 10 years ago. The article was a bunch of evangelical leaders discussing same-sex relationships and civil unions.
Oh come on Alan… I always want to assume the best and I even defend you and Exodus at times when I think you’re being unfairly attacked. But what are those of us who are moderats supposed to do with something like this? Your words are hurting the very people you’re supposed to be reaching out to. And the only ones who are going to agree with you are the fundamentalist christians who granted supply alot of your funding but are not supposed to be your mission.
I’m disappointed with this one 🙁
Buried in the back of the Exodus book “God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door,” Chambers goes further than calling celibate relationships sinful (EGW article):
I think that’s the most accurate and honest way of describing the anti-gay position as far as the “sinfulness” of homosexuality is concerned.
He puts forth the case that it’s the “thought” that really counts, in that thinking same-sex attraction is not sinful, is to think that sin is not sinful. And if sin is evil, then the acceptance of sin, is the acceptance of evil. Thus the brainless leap to the conclusion that gay relationships of any kind are the sinful equivalent of raping, robbing, murdering, etc.
And the reason why a victimless sin is a sin at all? Short story short, because the Bible says so.
Quite simple. Absurd, but simple. And strangely, infinitely more respectable.
So my question is, why is this explanation not being articulated? Are they (Exodus, et al) not intelligent enough, or is it just part of their standard operating PR deceit? Or do they not want to discredit the message of their anti-gay allies who claim that it’s “just the behavior” that’s sinful?
Announcer: These questions and many more, never to be addressed by Exodus International or any of their anti-gay affiliates.
But I was not under the impression that these women thought same-sex attraction wasn’t sinful. They’re living together because they love one another deeply (a modern Ruth and Naomi) and want to care for one another. It seems that by all accounts they would agree with the Biblical stance of Exodus.
So in essence, and I think we may be missing this, Chambers HAS responded to the questions about what went on in Uganda and Exodus’s support.
In fact, he explicitly endorses the efforts of Ugandan or Nigerian terrorists to terrorize two LGBT individuals who merely reside at the same residence !
After all, are they not just as sinful as any open sexually active LGBT couple? That is how these African laws treat theses people.
I have always said the true aim of these kapos is to exterminate GLBT identity.
I do not withdraw this characterization.
Fortunately, Chambers and his ilk are headed towards the ash heap of history. I wish I could give them a swift kick-in-the-pants to help them on their way.
What this is, folks, is an attack on Side B gay Christians – those who believe that orientation is a matter of fact but that sex is a matter of behavior and choice.
This is Exodus’ market: those who think same-sex behavior is sinful. If these folks start to agree that they only need to live chaste lives, then they have no use for Exodus. They don’t have to agonize about attractions. They don’t need to force themselves into marriages of difficulty and dissatisfaction. They don’t have to reject their friends or deny themselves those things that make gay life unique and delightful.
All they have to do is live in accordance with their personal sexual ethic, something that many single straight Christians do every day.
In other words, Side B gays are like ex-gays, only without the misery.
And nothing is so offensive to a “true believer” than someone who agrees with them 99% of the time but doesn’t make the same sacrifice.
Emproph– as always bang-on.
however, let’s carry it one small step further, shall we? You quoted “The sin is in identifying with anything that is contrary to Christ, which homosexuality clearly is. ”
So let’s see. Being a Jew is being sinful. Likewise, Muslim, animist, buddhist, atheist, and so on.
Getting divorced. judging others. being hypocritical. not taking care of the poor. all quite sinful.
I’m wondering where are all of the organizations to oppose all of these different kinds of sin, and who the sin of homosex rates its own vast international network.
Could it be that this is really about somneone’s personal issues rather than any concern with sin per se? Could it have anything to do with the common observation that as a Jew, or even as an atheist, I can reject the whole of conservative religious theology and not excite the interest of anyone but the most rabid fundamentalist? (God almighty does not here the prayer of a JEW). (If you don’t know that one, try googling F. Baily Smith). Yet, if I reject this one small little bit of conservative theology, the sky shall fall or the heavens shall open or Missy will have a hissy.
makes you kinda wonder, don’t it?
So true, that.
Timothy,
Good point, seems Alan is tightening up the reigns. I wonder how a Side B Christian who is “struggling”, would react to such noose tightening.
PS . . .
Could be that Alan’s same sex desire is getting the better of him. In so needing to project more pressue on himself adding more drama to the lie, taking others down with him to try and quell his own guilt.
Oh well, such is polarized thinking. Iza bitch to unstick ones self from the wall.
Exodus, like the current RCC and Fundamentalists, have turned sex into only the mechanics and have divorced it from the emotional aspect. It’s almost to the point that, even in heterosexual encounters where the couple is married, if they have sex just for enjoyment, it is a sin. Expressions of love in an intimate sense are sinful, and the only way they can justify themselves is to pretend they are trying to procreate.
But the average RCC and Fundamentalist family (and America in general) has only 2 kids per married couple. Are we to believe that they only had intimate relations twice? Highly doubtful.
By taking the Augustinian and Aquanistic approach to sex, these churches and organizations see sex in general as sinful even when its “legitimate” by means of marriage. The only way to justify a sexual act between two people is if the woman becomes pregnant.
LGBT relationships question those Agustianian and Aquanistic theories which make organizations like Exodus and churches like Fundamentalists and the modern RCC church uneasy. So for Chambers to say what he said about celibate gay relationships makes perfect sense to these people.
They want to go back to the day when the woman was submissive to her husband, when she was not an equal. A man could “love” his wife more how he loved his children rather than truely love her as an equal, as a lifetime partner, someone to share his life with. They want a “Leave it to Beaver” world where the man works and the woman bakes pies and leaves them on the window sill to cool. They want a world where the woman says, “Yes, dear.”
LGBT relationships are about equality, love, sharing, caring for someone, wanting to be with someone in an intimate way not to get something out of it (aka a kid) but because it is a means of expressing one’s love to the other and vice versa. It’s about truely loving the one you want to be with, chosing them not because they are good breading material, but because they are the person you fall in love with.
Are there straight couples who do the same thing? Of course. Even in Fundamentalistic and RCC churches. But their beliefs and dogmas warp the meaning of their relationships.
Mike Airhart makes some very clear cut and fascinating statements that hit the proverbial nail on the head. I would also say that Alan Chambers (like much of the Evangelical movement and the Mormon Church’s Proclamation on the Family) are guilty of Idolatry. They worship heterosexual marriage and the family as their god Idol as opposed to the God of Heaven. If you read the clobber passages of the New Testament from Paul that are often used to clobber gay people over the head by pastors and many others, Paul was actually warning and speaking out against Idolatry. This is so Ironic considering the fact that these anti-gay (“ex-gay”) organizations are actually creating yet another Idol which is exactly what Paul was teaching against. No wonder Exodus and the organizations that support Exodus can be so dangerous and destructive to people’s lives.
Devlin Bach your statement is so sensible as well. There are a lot of very enlightening statements on this topic here. Isn’t it interesting that Exodus is now having to go to another country (Uganda) in order to peddle their anti-gay snake-oil because they are lacking funding these days. At least that’s what it appears is happening. I’ll wager that’s a lot of the underlying reason that Exodus is over there in a hot-bed of anti-gay bigotry.
Is this (absurd, vulgar) article what has been playing on Alan’s mind those past weeks?
That might explain why he’s avoided the Ugandagate questions. Any wonder he never responded to David R, Timothy et al.
A focus on celibate gay Americans and utter silence on the Exodus approval of persecution of homosexuals in Uganda kind of tells you all you need to know about Alan Chambers.
He’s a pervert. Of the truest, worst kind.
ps Dave: avoid putting the words “Alan Chambers” and “nailing” in the same paragraph. Unproven, it still induces nausea in the more fragile. And we don’t want that.
Seriously, but just to check and verify our tired eyes…
Did Alan state that a woman conceived a child at age 90, and that’s a “fact” of world history? As in, it really happened?
Is that what he has actually said??? (or do we need bed, badly)
That occurred at the time when there were giants walking the earth, but who left no skeletons, and when people lived routinely to 300 years old. But those weren’t the old guys. The old guys were 959 (Adam) and 969 (Methuselah). But the, those were also the days when tossing your virgin daughters to a mob bent on rapine was considered such a virtuous act that you could be saved from destruction.
Ya don’t know much about history, do ya?
I wonder if Chambers thinks that looking stereotypically gay is sinful. Because what if a straight person happens to look (like the western, north american version of) gay? (I know a few).
Unless he only means the “appearance of sin” applies to looking like two people are sharing their lives together like a sexually involved couple would. Except, wouldn’t that mean ALL roommates of ANY sex are taking on “the appearance of sin?”
I seriously don’t understand what he means by “looking like” you’re sinning.
I think it important for us to separate what I would certainly call the absurd position Alan has taken and claims found in the Bible. We aren’t here to ridicule those who take a literal view of scripture, in fact we want them to be welcome here. Many of those who are coming to the realization that Exodus style change is unattainable (and therefore reading here for perhaps the first time) take a literal view of scripture. So let’s try to remember that we aren’t hear to judge that.
That Alan is using anything, including the contents of scripture, to claim that even celibacy and/or sexless, committed relationships with members of the same sex is sinful and represent a lack of faith IS a topic for our discussion. In fact, it confirms what we have been saying for years; heterosexual marriage is the ultimate goal of Exodus programs. Anything less is considered a failure, missing the mark. Until now it was not stated publicly but former participants often noted that it was strongly implied.
David Roberts said:
Good points David.
Reading scripture literally is not a problem, but what one interprets from the literal reading is. As an Orthodox Christian, I can literally read about Jesus and his brothers, but my interpretation of what “brothers” means would be different from those who claim Mary had other children. Likewise, there are those whose faiths are based almost entirely on Scripture who can read a clobber passage and yet interpret it to not mean condemnation of homosexuality. So it’s not so much the method of reading as to the interpretation that follows it.
The problem with Alan Chambers claim that even celibate relationships among the LGBT community are sinful has no merit in Scripture: literal or interprative. In fact, celibacy is an honored tradition in Christianity. But if he is saying that even those type of relationships are evil based on appearance, then Alan needs to go to some “butch” classes and learn to butch it up a bit.
When I called Exodus International over ten years ago because I was struggling with my sexuality and faith, I remember a guy answering the phone who sounded like he had worked for a gay 900 number. I wasn’t sure if I had called an ex-gay ministry or a gay dating service. And after a few phone calls I decided that it was not for me, mainly because, if I was going to go “straight” I sure as heck didn’t want to sound like the guy on the phone!
When I read the booklets and stuff about how being ex-gay meant being more masculine and reclaiming one’s masculinity, etc., all I could think of was that guy on the phone and how they could even let him be the voice for their organization if they are focusing on being “manly.”
I don’t want to sound mean about it. I love all my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community, and being feminine is no crime. Would it be that all of us could get in touch with our feminine side. But the point I want to make is that if Exodus is claiming the “Joys of Heterosexuality,” can’t they get spokepersons who represent what they claim is the ideal man?
After reading on the ex-gay movement for three years now, and being involved with one for almost a year, I do find that the main goal of ex-gay ministries is to get homosexuals into married heterosexual active relationships. It still rings true even in my region where Choices Ministry and Real Love Ministry proclaims a sexual relationship with the opposite sex spouse as the only beneficial sexual path, the only real love that can exist and that it can be chosen, attainable and possible for all homosexuals.
Behind it the lies, double speak and change of stances in ex-gay ministries may only stem from their promotional works. In marketing, you always determine the people and the culture of the place, then present a customizable brand of what you wish to sell according to the climate of a state or country.
I find that is why in different sections of the world, the “cure” packaging is always different, even though it comes from the same source. It could explain why worldwide, Exodus always smoke screens different segments of their messages to fit different environments, according to the audience they are presenting it to, even to the point of ever changing ridiculous statements by Alan Chambers himself.
Oh, Chambers makes me mad. He really believes it’s okay to impose this way of thinking on everyone else? This part gets me. “There is no such thing as diet homosexuality. If I was going to go as far as these two women have I would just go all the way.”
So, because he would “go all the way,” it’s wrong for anyone else? If anyone is fooled by his inaccurate interpretation of scripture or gets any idea that he speaks for any true follower of Jesus, that’s ridiculous.
I don’t see that there’s much to get steamed up about in Alan Chambers’s latest pronouncement. His mindset is absurd to start with, so the addition of a bit more absurdity is really neither here nor there.