We have learned that Exodus president Alan Chambers will be attending the Gay Christian Network conference this evening in Orlando, Fl. He will be participating in a panel discussion with Jeremy Marks, John Smid, and Wendy Gritter at 8:30 EST. This is all the information available at the moment.
From the GCN website:
The Gay Christian Network (GCN) is a nonprofit ministry supporting Christians worldwide who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT). Our mission, “sharing Christ’s light and love for all,” is carried out in 5 primary directions, to impact individuals, families, communities, churches, and the world.
GCN has acted as a refuge of sorts for some gay Christians who have become disillusioned with ex-gay ideology and seek a community that shares their faith and experience. There are two major groups in GCN, called Side A and Side B. From Wikipedia:
Members of the Gay Christian Network have expressed a wide variety of opinions concerning gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender life and how it should be lived from a Christian perspective. For instance, the site is committed to being a safe haven both for members who believe it is okay for gay Christians to enter into healthy, committed relationships (including sex) and for those who believe that the Bible prohibits such behavior and requires chastity. On the site, these two positions have been nicknamed Side A, i.e., those members who believe that homosexual activity is not sinful, and Side B, i.e., those who believe that God does love gay people but does not accept homosexual activity.
It is not clear what motivates this or what can be accomplished, but certainly it must be difficult for some who have been deeply hurt by Alan’s ministries to know he has been invited. We have certainly heard from many who are upset so far this morning. Apparently he will only appear on the panel and that is an optional event. No doubt more is to come.
Could this be a venue for Alan to effect some of his promised “re-branding“? He was impressed by the positive press John Smid received from his recent pronouncements. Good or bad, watch this one closely.
Wow… I saw the headline and thought “It must be some other GCN…” but it’s not.
Weird. One thing you don’t mention is that the view that being gay is itself wrong or that gay people should try to cease being gay is explicitly banned on their site. Making it all the stranger that someone who’s made a career pushing that view would be invited to their conference.
Odd that Alan would attempt a re-branding in front of an incredibly hostile audience. One of the attributes of GCN is that we do not permit promotion of ex-gay views in the forums or at our conferences. Any such presentation will be robustly refuted because of the demonstrated harm to people and the culpability of ex-gay organizations in the civil/political sphere with respect to working against anti-bullying and civil marriage equality efforts. I expect a calling to accountability on these points.
Mark, you may want to wait for the video to decide how “hostile” the audience will be. I would have made the same remarks a few weeks ago.
@David Roberts I’d expect the level of hostility would depend on what he says. Surely *something’s* up or he wouldn’t be speaking there in the first place. And I doubt GCN’s making an about-face on what amounts to their core reason for existing.
This sounds like good news to me–maybe Chambers is slowly coming around just like Smid–? At least it’s a step in the right direction. I’m confused as to why the audience would be hostile; such a reaction doesn’t sound very Christian. Is that how Jesus would respond-?
@David Roberts , as I am at the conference, I won’t have to wait. I’ll be in the room.
@ludovico Keep in mind that, at least up to now, he’s been of the crowd that opposes the very idea of a gay Christian, at least one happy in his own skin… and that many GCN members have been directly harmed by his organization and those like it.
Imagine someone like Richard Dawkins announced as featured speaker for a meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Christian” or not, hostility in some form (even if kept polite) would be expected.
“Hostile” seems perfectly fair to me… or would, if he were going to do the usual. But if that were the case, he wouldn’t be let in the door in the first place.
If, however, he’s there to announce a reversal of course… well, that would be a case for “forgive, but proceed cautiously.”
I’m more than a little cynical about Chambers’ inclusion in this event. I think there is an enormous gulf of difference between the approach adopted by New Directions (Gritter, and blog “Bridging the Gap”) and GCN (with their relationship to forum “Bridges Across the Divide” and their side A and B dialogue designations). I am of the opinion that GCN is inherently more divisive, even though I’m sure it is not their intention to be (and probably not their self-perception, either). A lot of “Side B” in my experience is notorious for not listening (and priding themselves on not listening). Chambers is the epitome of NOT LISTENING.
I think Wendy, of all participants, is open to all types of life journeys, including the one taken up by Chambers. As for what personal torments Chambers wishes to subject himself to, I really don’t give a flying (epithet of linguistic non-abstinence). I am violently opposed to his (or anyone’s) insistence that adopting their brand of self-loathing and spiritual self-mutilation is a healthy and desirable path, or that (fictional) God’s approval is contingent upon same.
@ludovico – I don’t think I could sit at the same table with my abuser, or anyone who represents my abuser. Not could I sit at the same table with someone who is actively working to restrict my civil rights as the “free expression” of their particularly narrow and punitive religious sensibilities.
@Mark L
Great, feel free to comment on the going’s on.
@ludovico
You know for certain Smid has,? Smid was never really about change of orientation, but change of behavior. That puts a different light on his statements about “never seen orientation change” in my estimation. He may have changed, but it will take a lot more to convince me for certain — and after 22 years of what I can only call psychological and spiritual abuse, it really should take a lot more.
My first thought is that this seems highly inappropriate and highly naive.
The whole GCN promotion of “Side B,” where they believe it’s ok to BE gay as long as you don’t have gay sex, is damaging to the psyche of troubled lgbt people who are themselves victims of people like Alan Chambers and the Catholic Church.
It’s time to cut it out.
As a former leader of Exodus in Australia and now psychologist and campaigner to expose the dangers of this movement I welcome forums such as these where respectful open dialogue can occur. Demonizing these people is counter productive and makes us seem as irrational as they are, however discussions where minds are gradually opened and awareness is possible are critical. I do however maintain a certain level of anger that as Exodus are floundering financially and with their credibility in the west they are now turning their attentions to South America where the people may not have as much access to evidence based truths.
‘Promotion’ is the wrong word to use. ‘welcome’ would be closer just as w e welcome those who hold side A views (me amongst them). To honor and affirm and love those who hold side B convictions is giving them respect and autonomy just as I ask for that for my views. Welcoming people with both views is intrinsic to GCN and the community we’ve been building the last 10 years.
I don’t have any problem with the Side B provision at GCN. I think it provides a necessary space for those coming from the ex-gay perspective to decompress and safely evaluate their beliefs with respect to their sexuality. Some move on to Side A understanding, some don’t, but at least neither has to be subject to the inaccurate and frequently damaging ex-gay ideology.
I have a number of concerns with what GCN is doing tonight but I will try to hold them for another, more in-depth post after I’ve seen the video. To say I am troubled, however, would be a grand understatement.
I’m proud of the leadership of GCN for having the courage to host a conversation about this. A civil conversation requires that we recognize the weakness of our argument and the strengths of the other.
We’re all going to heaven so we might as well go ahead and share space at the table.
Hello bloggers, I am currently in attendance of this event at the conference in Orlando. I can share a few things about the setting right now, and it certainly is not hostile.
First, there was a support group held for those of us who have survived the ex-gay movement before the event which started at about 8:30pm EST. This was a helpful reso.urce for those who wanted to share with others. Second, Justin is very passionate about this important dialogue and has been very comforting to those who may feel uncomfortable in this setting. Third, this forum has an incredibly loving and welcoming setting for the issue of the conversation that is being held tonight. We have welcomed Alan into our conference to build bridges and to foster a sense of reconciliation.
Me too. I find it utterly cynical that, after years of doublespeak, dishonesty and pontificating about those who don”t remain loyal to Exodus, Alan is blatantly trying to reposition himself like this. I also find it very worrying that GCN would invite him to its conference. Does the need to be welcoming to Alan outweigh the need of people who have been severely damaged by the ex-gay movement — ie, many GCN members and conference attendees — to expect a place of safety where they don’t run the risk of bumping into the President of Exodus?
@Dave Rattigan
How soon we forget. This has been the risk of “bridge building” (a phrase I am learning to despise) all along, that some gay people of faith will leap so quickly to anyone who throws them the smallest bone of acceptance, even a deceptive one. This is such a slap in the face of those who have been and continue to be hurt and mislead by this garbage. Alan Chambers has an incredible problem being honest, and he has been impotent at best in making sure that Exodus ministries “first do no harm.” The entire premise of the group is based on falsehoods.
@Joel
I’m sorry Joel, but I find that kind of statement glib and trite. But you enjoy that good feeling, others are paying considerably for it.
@Samuel Taylor
It is my understanding that the questions were prepared a head of time and that there was no open forum, is that correct? Do you know if Chambers and the others saw those questions ahead of time?
@David Roberts Good reason to tread carefully. Not *necessarily* good reason to stay away entirely. We’ll know soon enough.
I’m at the meeting. Members were allowed to submit questions. The panelists have been kindly frank with him. He, like a slippery eel, is equivocating and acting like he has no power to change things.
I’m proud of Justin and GCN for taking this step. It is more exposure for people to see this man as a fraud and a shyster. This talk was labeled as optional, and everyone was warned. An alternative event was offered for people who could not bear to confront this snake. Most of the conferees chose to come.
Being a Christian sometimes means taking the risk for reconciliation and justice. Justin and GCN is taking that risk.
@Ben Bullock
I understand what you are saying, Ben, but if Alan said nothing new and, as it appears from the feed I saw, this went just like so many other conversations with him, how is that really brave or even beneficial? Exodus is falling apart, what exactly is the point?
FYI – I’m part of the photography team for the GCN Conference, and as someone who was actually there & can do more than just speculate, I can say that the conversation between Alan and everyone else on the panel was very civil, although there’s no denying that it wasn’t an easy conversation for anyone to be a part of. It was a necessary one, however, and I’m very grateful that Justin invited Alan, and that Alan said Yes.
Everyone, please keep your emotions in check and show grace towards Alan – he was essentially walking into a lion’s den of sorts, and even if we may not agree with what he stands for, the situation is more complicated than “Alan’s evil and we’re good”. The world is not that simple, and those of us who had the “us vs them” rhetoric put on us by the conservative Christian church ought to know that.
The whole thing was recorded, so once it’s available for viewing, I’m hoping there will be no gossip, rumors, or speculation about what everyone said & didn’t say.
@Daniel Rarela
Daniel, I definitely do want to see the video, however, you need to understand that I and others have seen Alan in these situations so many times, and he gives the same responses each time — nothing really changes. He complains about Exodus being “a big ship to steer” or other nonsense. He is never responsible for the content on the website, even though it is awful and inaccurate. You bring up “change is possible” meaning change to heterosexuality and he says no one says that (Janet Boynes off the top of my head does, as do others). And people have been asking him about the way youth are treated by their ministries for years, and he never follows through with anything.
It’s not a matter of he’s evil and we are good. After seeing the same questions and the same lies in response, it’s a matter of knowing him by his character, his actions (his fruit if you will). To me, the simplistic avenue is the one taken tonight — yet another demonstration of the same thing. Nothing was accomplished beyond some people taking pride in whatever it is they think was accomplished. It was a mockery and, if not for Wendy Gritter, I don’t think Alan would have been held accountable at all.
The people at this and other sites have devoted years, many years of their lives to pointing out the duplicity, lies and misdeeds of Exodus and other groups. Alan’s standard comments about “not believing everything you read on XGW” aside, try to give us credit for knowing a thing or two about these guys. Aside from learning how to spin better, Exodus has not really improved. They are still a group that believes those of us who are gay (or even use that term as a descriptor) and accept that as a normal part of our lives are deceived and out of God’s will. They still cling to absurdly inaccurate causation theories, and employ questionable counseling techniques. And they rationalize their lies and deception as being “wise as a serpent.”
As I’ve said, there was a time when I thought a dialog with Alan and company was an important and attainable goal. It took a while, but I learned over several years that I could not trust them. I wanted to, but that wasn’t enough.
FYI, Alan asked Justin, not vice versa.
PS: I saw most of the exchange via an unauthorized feed. Trust me, there was absolutely nothing new.
It’s my understanding that the event for ex gay survivors which was held at the same time, was a last minute thing thrown together after the shit started hitting the fan.
I’ll hold off comment until the video is available for viewing but let me just say my suspicions are aroused about Alan’s motives in participating in the panel….on a brighter note I am sure Wendy Gritter will have been a mediating/positive panel member.
I would love to see reconciliation for LGBT Christians and the mainline churches (after all Christians are mean to be “ministers of reconciliation”)….sadly, reconciliation often seems unachievable.
@David Roberts…..thanks for your reporting of this event 🙂
It seems to me that the most important factor is not yet being discussed. The fact that Justin, Jeremy Marks, John Smid and Alan Chambers are all Christian men is the primary fact which impresses me. The discussion which I imagine and hope that they had is the conversation which needs to take place within the Church. For me this means a lot. Hopefully the eventual impact will be a gathering in to the Body of Christ of solitary Christians such as I.
Tim
Arguing over how the event was handled and where it was held are certainly very valid concerns. However, the bottom line is this: WHY was this event even held? If anyone thinks it was a “wonderful opportunity to build bridges and open dialogue,” then they are desperately, desperately naive about Alan Chambers. As all of us who read this blog regularly, we know that Alan is a man whose abject lack of leadership led to the rise of anti-gay violence in Uganda because of his organization’s involvement, and as a result, people have been murdered thanks to this. (Even after he was warned repeatedly in advance, including from writers of this blog.) This is a man who tells one audience one story, then turns around and tells another audience a completely different story depending on what he knows they want to hear. This is a man that exerts absolute control over the environments in which he participates, and it appears he also got his way with GCN (no questions from the audience, questions provided in advance). This is a man who still believes that if you are a Christian and call yourself “gay,” you are going to hell even if you have never done anything sexual.
No one should let Alan’s “aw, shucks” personality fool them. There is no difference between Alan Chambers and someone like Michael Brown, other than their personalities. Both men claim to want “dialogue” with the GLBT community. Both claim to care about following Christ and “loving” the GLBT community. But both men want your civil rights abolished, both men believe that if you’re gay you’re going to hell, and both men think their shortcomings have been HOW they’ve spoken to you, not WHAT they’ve spoken to you. Alan Chambers is as much of a bully against the GLBT community as Michael Brown is, but he’s more pleasant and less honest about it. Based on Kathy Baldock’s Facebook account of his responses, it appears that nothing about Alan has changed. And yet, people actually think this was a great move on Justin’s part? It wasn’t. I believe once this all shakes out, we will see that Justin was taken for a ride by a master manipulator who is desperate to save a “ministry” that is on the verge of collapse.
What was Justin’s agenda in inviting Alan to the conference?
Had he really thought through the potential fallout?
Had he run this by others in his leadership?
What was Alan’s agenda in accepting?
Is this a step forward moving closer to a dialogue that some of us have sort?
If so should this have been the context for a dialogue considering the trauma many of ex-gay survivors have gone through?
Will Alan use this to Exodus’ advantage?
The questions come thick and fast.
I guess we may get some answers as we hear more from all concerned over the next few days and weeks.
The audio of the whole thing is up on the GCN website.
it would seem as if the people who are the most upset about this part of the GCN Conference were those who weren’t even there in the first place. I’ve been surrounded by those who actually did attend the conference for the past 3 days, and haven’t heard any sort of indignation like this from any of them.
Justin made it very clear that anyone who did not want to sit in on this conversation were encouraged to do something else in the meantime, and that attendance was optional.
In spite of that, we had a full house that night – people were very eager to listen in on what all the forum participants had to say, and as far as I could tell, nobody ran out of the room screaming or crying… in fact, I did see quite a few people coming up to Alan and talking with him after the forum ended – again, very civil.
I won’t deny that Alan seems to have this “I take no responsibility for XYZ/ yes I agree/ let me give lip service for the sake of making everyone happy/ etc etc” nature about himself, but all the same – those of you who are up in arms about the emotional state of conference attendees who had past experiences with Exodus have little to worry about. I have spoken with a few people who spoke with Alan after the event, and I can tell you that rather than being a traumatic experience for them to see him there, they were instead given an opportunity to tell him to his face that they are keeping him in their prayers.
It would seem as if it were more of a positive experience for many – nothing heals like the power of forgiveness (even without having received an apology), letting go of whatever bitterness you’ve held towards those who have done you wrong, and getting the opportunity to live out Scripture as Christians by praying for (and with) those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44)
So GCNers who weren’t at the conference…what? aren’t invested in their ministry? aren’t entitled to a voice?
I have heard from people who have attended the conference who were and are upset.
I was at the event. I haven’t heard from anyone who was harmed by the discussion and I’ve been asking around.
I did not go through ex-gay conventions or therapy and to me the point of the event was to see what this exgay thing was all about. What I learned was that Alan Chambers has a lot of fear about being gay and he is glib so he uses semantics to fog the issue even to himself. I feel sorry for him and I understand a bit better where my brothers and sisters who have been through exgay groups are coming from.
I have a lot to learn, but I think hearing the mumbles from Alan has helped me to better help others who have been hurt.
Marty
Daniel Rarela says: “It would seem as if it were more of a positive experience for many – nothing heals like the power of forgiveness (even without having received an apology), letting go of whatever bitterness you’ve held towards those who have done you wrong, and getting the opportunity to live out Scripture as Christians by praying for (and with) those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44)”
Alan Chambers has not earned forgiveness. He shamelessly continues to perpetrate harm and abuse. He continues to contribute to the animus that kills LGBT youth. He is disingenuous and manipulative. He is not to be trusted. He continues to work against the civil rights of LGBT. He continues to portray healthy, loving, well-adjusted LGBT individuals and couples as less-than, unworthy, damned.
Mr. Rarela, I find your statement to be condescending in the extreme, after the fashion of (in my opinion) one of Christianity’s worst attributes. If anything, Chambers ought to be made to face and personally apologize to every single person whose life his actions have damaged. He ought to have to listen to every single story of outrage, and loss, and bitterness his actions have caused. He should be made accountable for the incredible harm that his life work has produced. There ought to be a Hague for spiritual war crimes committed against humanity and Chambers ought to be brought before it.
THEN, if that man actually showed some genuine remorse that wasn’t some slick PR move, THEN would be the appropriate time to discuss forgiveness.
And not a day before.
I will withhold from judging this event until I see the tape. But I will make a few valid points:
1) Please don’t tell us not to speculate on what happened. If GCN did not want that to occur they would have announced a live feed or promised to make the video available within 24-hours. As far as I know there was no press releases announcing the event, no mainstream or LGBT media present to ask tough questions, and no one to ensure accountability to the broader public. From my perspective this comes across as an insular, bush league event that was specifically designed to limit scrutiny. One can have differing opinions on my work, but at least I have the integrity and honesty to send out public notices so ALL people can attend and even criticize me in a public forum. If I can take arrows from those who disagree at my own events, why can’t Alan Chambers? Dr. Michael Brown, for example, was allowed to question me in Grand Rapids. What makes Chambers so special and fragile that he should not be held to this same standard of accountability? Why not have him defend himself against his critics, unless the intended goal was to form a protective cocoon of comfort and avoid the cross examination his reprehensible record warrants? I found the secrecy of this forum in poor taste and lacking in transparency. The fact that we are having a speculative conversation after the fact says all you need to know.
2) This was not a brave event, but rather timid. Mr. Chambers will not appear on television shows with me because he likes to pick his audience. GCN was specifically chosen as a forum to reinvent himself because he expected relative softballs to be lobbed in his direction. Whether this happened in practice is not known because of the clandestine nature of the event. A brave event would have been letting me or The Advocate or David Roberts grill Alan while he defended himself. It would have been letting Christine Bakke and Peterson Toscano grill him. Want brave? Why not confront Chambers with gay Ugandans who had to flee their home country after Exodus went over there and helped create havoc?
3) I think it is sweet that all these gay Christians keep talking about building bridges. They have been doing so since I began working on this issue in 1998. It has been 14 years and I would finally like to see these gay Christians walk across these alleged bridges to the other side. I’m not a religious man, but I pray that they have a life vest and a working snorkel when they start this bridge walk.
4) I’ll go on record as saying the Side A and Side B nonsense is about the most foolish thing I have ever heard. I have personally brought many “ex-gays” out of the closet by simply stating the truth: Being gay is good and healthy and that Exodus is consumer fraud that is harmful and ineffective. There is no need to sugar coat the situation and give training wheels to gay closeted Christians. This approach only retards the the process and validates the victimizers such as Alan Chambers.
5) Some things actually are black and white. Such as Exodus is a hateful group that perpetrates fraud on desperate and vulnerable people who are scarred by religious guilt. There is no need in this world for Exodus to exist. The world will be better off without Exodus, just as it is now that we don’t have white actors performing in blackface. Exodus is an ugly relic from a time when LGBT people were horribly persecuted, tortured, and marginalized. The job of Alan Chambers is to return us to this time.
6) The gay Christians keep talking about “dialogue” with “respect.” It seems this is a one-way street with Alan Chambers calling our relationships “counterfeit.” Why should we respect a man who says such things? Is that Christian are just naive?
7) I have heard that Alan was asked tough questions. Again, those of us not in the insular and private confines where the event was hosted won’t know until we can see the tape. However, if the following questions were not asked, the moderator likely failed to do his job:
** Alan, it took you almost a year to apologize for having your board member Don Schmierer go to a hate conference in Uganda. Considering this action has placed peoples’ lives in jeopardy, why wasn’t he immediately dismissed from the board?
** You have have said that homosexuality is for the young and that when gay men stop working out, go bald, and lose their beach tans their lives deteriorate. You have never denounced this view. Is this a view that you still hold and what would you say to those in the audience who are pale, bald, chunky and still have rich and fulfilling lives?
** There has never been a piece of punitive anti-gay legislation you have not supported and worked on with the Religious Right. Exodus was in favor of sodomy laws, you opposed ENDA, the hate crimes bill, anti-bullying laws, marriage equality and civil unions. You claim Exodus is about persuasion, but is this not really persecution?
** John Smid and a host of other Exodus leaders have said that people do not change their sexual orientation. Yet, your organization placed billboards in highly populated metro areas saying that change was possible. Exodus had already been around for quite some time when these billboards were placed. Surely, you must have known then that change wasn’t taking place as advertised. Is this not a form of consumer fraud and is there any plan to return money to victims lured to Exodus conferences by such false advertising?
** You had a television show, Pure Passion where you and other ex-gay activists repeatedly called homosexuality “perverse” and “sexual brokeness.” Is this your current view and is this consistent with the Christian love in which you say that you stand for?
** Your organization hosts conferences by Andy Comisky and sells his book (and others) that says that “Satan delights in sexual perversion.” Is this your view and the view of Exodus? If not, do you plan to drop such spiritual warriors from Exodus and refrain from selling their materials?
I could go on with more questions, but you get my point. Those of us who will watch the tape will judge it on five criterion:
1) Were such tough questions asked or was GCN duped and used by Chambers to refurbish his image and rebrand his faltering organization?
2) Was Chambers contrite and did he offer a genuine apology, or did he simply repackage and spin his fraudulent group with fake compassion?
3) Did Chambers use the event as a stepping stone to coming out? If so, the conference will be viewed in a more positive light.
4) Were survivors likely harmed by placing an unrepentant abuser on stage to spin more lies and deception?
5) Did the GCN crowd behave like mature adults or did they get overly emotional and look like they were at the Kim Jong Il funeral every time Chambers threw them a bone?
Whether this conference was a positive development or a counterproductive softball session that assisted Chambers’ disingenuous efforts to remake his image remains to be seen. But the truth will come out one way or another, so we hope GCN releases the surreptitious tape in a timely manner.
@Wayne Besen
In both of your first two criteria, you imply that those are the only possibilities. They are not. On 4, so far I’ve only heard complaints about harm from people who were not there; those who were have said no such thing. On 5, I have no doubts that most, at least, did behave as adults.
@Wayne Besen
I shall certainly be interested to know what transpired at the GCN conference, and no doubt we shall find out in due course. Whatever, I pretty much agree with what you have written, Wayne, but especially with what you have said about building bridges. Exodus preaches the message that homosexuality is a form of “sexual brokenness” and that gay relationships are immoral – which is psychological and spiritual abuse – and that our sexual orientation can and should be changed by means of an “ex-gay” program – which is deceit. I can see no more reason for us to be building bridges with Exodus than for those concerned with child protection to be building bridges with NAMBLA.
Hyhybt:
You are correct that there are other options on 1 — such as asking semi-weak questions which many of us will consider a waste of time and an missed opportunity. If Chambers spouts the same BS and isn’t challenged any more vigorously than he has been in the media than how exactly is this meeting important? After all, I interviewed him in 2001 at his house and went to his church with he he and his wife. So this is not unique or historic in terms of the first time he has met with LGBT advocates. So the question now becomes why would this meeting be important or even necessary if Chambers is not subjected to strict scrutiny and asked tough questions the media has not asked?
I also agree on point 2 that there is the options of a half-assed and half-hearted apology. Again, this will not be viewed as progress. When a person feels remorse a true and full apology is the result. When a person seeks sympathy but isn’t truly sorry for misdeeds you get spin.
In terms of 4, maybe the people who weren’t there might have been had this forum been adequately announced in advance. I was in Miami Beach and would have made it had I not learned about it only hours beforehand. Thus, you were left with GCN partisans who were significantly more inclined to support the group’s position with limited skepticism. That is the right of the group to do so, but it was also a bit secretive and shady.
If my key public appearances are announced in advance, I expect the same from GCN. What were they afraid of and why was it handled in such a furtive way? They may have a reasonable and plausible explanation, but we have yet to hear it.
@Wendy Gritter
Wendy, would you be willing to share the pros and cons of your experience of this event, particularly your take on Alan Chamber’s performance?
Also, does New Directions perform gay marriages or for that matter, marriages at all?
And are there any Catholic churches performing gay marriages in Canada?
@Wayne Besen As I understand it, the annual GCN Conference has always essentially been an… internal event. It’s for the people of GCN, regardless of who may be invited as a speaker, just as (to the best of my understanding) a Shriner’s convention is for Shriners. Given that, why should they publicize things in such a way as to attract as many outsiders’ interference as possible?
@Hyhybt
To my knowledge, even the attendees weren’t informed until the day of the event.
@Dave Rattigan I know… but if that has any bearing at all on my point, it aids it.
@OldBaldGuy
You are certainly entitled to this opinion and I find it very understandable. However, I believe it is different from some of the basics of Jesus teachings and so while it’s perfectly ok to say that forgiveness is bad or foolish, it shouldn’t be something a Christian conference should be accused of. Let me also say, however, that Christian teaching doesn’t say that people who have wronged should not be held accountable. But I believe it *does* say that forgiveness indeed comes first.
Just my opinion, though.
I have to admit I’m not sure why Justin decided it is a good idea to have Alan on the panel. From what a lot of you write I hear a “he won’t change anyway” and I tend to agree. However, I’m not even sure this is the point. When I listened to it this afternoon, it really was a healing thing. I have my own history of ex-gay therapy and while I don’t believe any of it intellectually I still sometimes feel like I have to defend myself when faced with it. Actually, this event helped in this. Because I feel it totally showed who is the mature part of the conversation and – surprise – it was not Alan. So I think it helped to change perspective and transfer to my emotions some of the things I already know intellectually.
I also wonder when I hear people say something like “he does not deserve forgiveness”. I think you do not understand that real forgiveness actually frees you at least as much as the person you forgive. As long as you cannot forgive somebody they still have power over you.
At least that’s what I believe…
@OldBaldGuy
I suppose this is where you and I part. A central part of Jesus Christ’s ministry is that forgiveness and salvation cannot be earned, and yet is given anyway. Those of us who identify as Christians are called to treat other people as He did. The gay Christians who are forgiving, have forgiven, and/ or were praying for Alan at the GCN Conference were not doing so because he earned anything.
Would we like to see Alan apologize for all the damage he has done to the GLBT community? Yes, but the point of this conversation was not to twist his arm into doing that. That Alan was even willing to sit in and listen to some of his former peers (John Smid, Wendy Gritter, Jeremy Marks) grill him and tell him their testimony about how they had benefitted from changing their own perspectives was a step forward.
Also, I’m not saying the GCN’ers who didn’t attend this conference aren’t entitled to their own opinions… but it doesn’t seem to hold quite as much weight when they’re talking about this event before even having heard a word of what was said at the conference at all. How seriously are you going to take a man who describes how painful childbirth is when he’s never been there?
PS – Justin Lee has already uploaded the audio from the conversation at the conference on GCN’s message board, so I highly encourage all GCN’ers who did not attend to check the message boards and listen to it, and form their own opinions from there.
Daniel Rarela writes:
I am more than familiar with what Christians claim about forgiveness. I also live in the real world where human behavior tends not to change when there are no consequences or restitution required for harms done… and in the world that Christians created for ME for the crime of admitting that I was gay and that God wasn’t changing me. A reality that still plays out in ugly little dramas with certain members of my family on a near-regular basis, despite being out for decades.
Even a born-again must express remorse as part of accepting said highly touted Divine Forgiveness – and as far as I can tell, Chambers has never done so in a meaningful way to the larger LGBT community against whom he has seriously transgressed. This is not a matter of whatever faith arrangements he chooses to make with whatever Deity he cares to believe in, this is about real damage he’s done to real people, real pain, real loss, real personal torment in real lives.
IMHO, he ought to be shunned in much the same way his organization and way too many eagerly homophobic evangelicals thought we should be shunned (every single person I knew, including my own parents, chose to have nothing more to do with me when I came out). He doesn’t like it? Well then, Alan, payback’s a b****, karma, reap what you sow, goes around comes around.
If GCN wants to extend forgiveness to Chambers, I don’t think it makes them morally superior. Nor do I think my anger and non-forgiveness makes me the same as the judgmental variety of Christianity I reject (a false equivalence). I am of the opinion that this was a foolish move on GCN’s part – I highly doubt that this will make Chambers more willing to show the least hint of remorse or to begin to make amends for the abuses he has sponsored against our community.
I do admit to being highly biased against him (as well as somewhat biased against GCN) anyway. Is the audio available to the internet at large or only members of GCN?
@OldBaldGuy I don’t much like the idea of shunning. It takes strength, not weakness, to converse politely with those who are against you without either trying to coerce them into moving to your side or submitting to theirs.
@Hyhybt. eh, maybe me neither. I’m just very very very very very pissed off at everything he represents. And perhaps my opinion just now is more reflective of the fact that I am sick and tired of fighting the same !@#$ing battles over and over again in my own family.
…which is fueled by the likes of AC.
@OldBaldGuy
I can really feel your pain! Let me just say that for me this does not have to do anything with moral superiority whatsoever. I believe that in the long run the feelings you have are destructive but I realize that this is a foolish thing to believe and I may well be wrong. If it makes you feel any better I also believe that Evangelicals have it all wrong. And you are so right in pointing out that if indeed God requires us to show remorse before forgiving us you’re completely right saying that we can be expected to be better than this. Point is, I don’t believe this. I believe we are *all* already forgiven – and all means all, no matter if you acknowledge any deity or not.
Again, I’m very much doubting if this is true myself. But I do believe that either there is no god or God is like this. And in the latter case I want to become like this as well.
Again – in case I didn’t make this clear – I can feel your pain. And I understand that you do not want to forgive and are hurt. I didn’t go through the same kind of rejection as you apparently did. So you’re absolutely entitled to your view – and you might be right. I just wanted to explain how I understand the whole thing.
Peace.
@OldBaldGuy
And you *absolutely* should be! And I totally agree with you that AC totally fails to prevent things like this even though it might be in his power to do so! That’s exactly what came across for me listening to the panel discussion.
At what point did righteous anger become wrong, in the sight of God or anyone else? Forgiveness is inappropriate where the actions being forgiven are still in progress. To do so belittles the real harm being done to others. I would go so far as to say that doing so makes the one offering forgiveness complicit. My concern, quite frankly, is not with whether Alan Chambers gets forgiven by the people at GCN or anyone else. Exodus is failing, they are going to go away. Let them go.
OK, so I didn’t go through exgay groups. I can’t understand all of the painful things this must bring up. But why is it a problem for me to watch Justin and former exgay leaders confront Alan? I learned so much about the specifics of the divisions from the conversation. EVERY exgay survivor who was there that I spoke to found some part of the event helpful. I understand that people who weren’t there don’t like the idea. Why can’t I learn about where others are coming from??
Dialog does not mean approval or acceptance. I wish more people in the conservative church would understand that. I’ve heard too many times from conservatives that I have to agree with them before they will even talk to me. If we expect everyone to agree with us before we even talk to them, that’s a problem.
I understand many cannot and should not talk to Alan for their own health. I’m not there and I appreciate the opportunity to learn.
Can someone provide a link to the audio recording?
@Marty
By your own logic then (not mine), Marty, why are you even discussing this? You are way off base as far as concerns go.
@iDavid
https://www.gaychristian.net/audio/2012conversation_pt1.mp3
https://www.gaychristian.net/audio/2012conversation_pt2.mp3
@David Roberts
Thanks David. I’m looking forward to hearing this.
On the contrary, the opinions of the GCNers who didn’t attend the conference hold possibly even MORE weight, because only a small minority of the GCN membership attended the conference (GCN has something like 20,000 members, usually around 300-400 attend the conference… that’s a very small minority!).
What happens at the conferences doesn’t affect only the attendees, it affects the WHOLE of GCN. It is not only the conference attendees who financially support GCN, far from it! So indeed the voices of those not there DO matter, very much. A result from this is that some very high profile members of GCN are very hurt by this and outspoken about it. With the amount of friends they have on GCN, their pain is noticed and matters.
There is absolutely NO valid excuse for not telling people BEFORE they registered for the conference. Yes there may have been a smaller attendance, but at least the people going would have been able to make an informed choice, and would have been prepared for this. But most importantly, this meeting did not have to happen during the conference. It could have happened tomorrow, after the conference is over.
The feelings of GCN members (whether attending the conference or not) should have been taken into consideration first, but as usual, it’s not the way things happen on GCN, not anymore anyway.
Then we’re all in trouble.
David Roberts, thanks for the links – I just listened to both parts. My impressions: most of the session was about nuances around the use of the term “gay” and how misleading this makes the way Exodus represents itself and is perceived by the world. I don’t think the questioning was strong enough. “Misleading” is too nice a label for outright fraud. A little at the end about the psychological malpractice being committed when youth are involved. Most of AC’s responses sounded like a lot of waffle, and not like an adult in charge of a large organization (he appears to have the emotional intelligence of an adolescent).
If anything, I feel even more strongly that this is a monster created entirely by the brand of Christianity that loses its mind over sex and sexuality; is convinced that the whole world is their mission field; is convinced that damnation awaits all who aren’t enamored of the forgiveness they think they have sole access to… and to the extent that GCN also participates in that mindset, I think they are also part of the problem. I think Wendy Gritter’s attempt to not cast the conversation in terms of sides (A/B/X) is a better path. I had only heard some of the pieces of the transition New Directions took away from Exodus, it was good to get a more full account of that here.
After having listened, I guess I am glad they did confront Chambers – it was a confrontation (maybe they were thinking they were trying to make it more like an intervention). I still think he needs to face much harsher judges who will hold him accountable for the greater damages not discussed in this session. I think he absolutely needs to answer for their involvement in Uganda (I’d forgotten about that before Wayne’s post).
Skeptical. I remain skeptical. Having heard all the waffle, I don’t think he has the strength of character to make the amends that need to be made or to steer Exodus in a less harmful direction. I agree with David Roberts: let Exodus expire.
@Hyhybt
So when I see someone hurting another person, I should just tell them I forgive them? That sounds like a perversion of the Gospel to me. I don’t think you or I or anyone else has any right to expect that someone do that.
“GCN has something like 20,000 members, usually around 300-400 attend the conference… that’s a very small minority!”—That 20,000 (which was more like 15,000 the last I saw it) is grossly inflated. I don’t know what a proper way to count would be, but surely simply counting up how many usernames have been registered on the message board in its history isn’t it.
@David Roberts You know better.
@OldBaldGuy
Alan’s reprehensible actions (or inactions) during the Uganda situation caused me to finally give up on the idea that he would change or that Exodus could ever be anything other than a problem. They were so paranoid that it was more important to them that they not appear to be doing something because the “gay activists” were telling them to, than to deal with a very real, very life-threatening situation.
They never take responsibility for their actions, save a few token occasions when it was literally foisted upon them. Alan is an uneducated man, ill-equipped to be responsible for such an organization — it’s purpose aside. This is harsh, but after all these years, I’ve found it to be the truth.
I think it also important to point out once again that Alan has perhaps six, or at most nine months experience being an “out gay man.” And that was when he was 18 and it consisted mainly of having anonymous sex at some regular spot. This is not a man who has any idea what it is really like to be gay, only what it is like to be gay and be in Exodus. He has no business speaking about the subject to others. I’m sure this is why his descriptions are so one-dimensional.
Exodus needs to slip into history, and Alan needs to find a real job — for his sake, and ours.
You will have to explain that comment as I don’t even know to what you refer.
@davidroberts My concern is to learn more about how exgay groups think. I am confident as a gay man and have no fear that Alan will harm me. I want to learn more about why exgay groups hold so much sway, so I can understand where others are coming from. There is value in that. And it will help me and has helped me have conversations with exgay survivors. That’s a good thing. I’m not off base here.
@David Roberts
My comment (if forgiveness requires being good then we’re all in trouble) only can lead to yours (something about someone beating up someone else) by deliberately stretching it beyond any reasonably-intended meaning, and you knew that when you did it.
@Hyhybt
Who said anything about “beating someone up?” I said hurting, and if you want to argue that people aren’t being hurt because of Alan Chambers, you have simply not been paying attention.
If you have something germane to add, please do, otherwise this tit-for-tat is not accomplishing anything.
@Marty
Marty, there is nothing wrong at all with wanting to understand the issue. However, there are gigabytes of information on this available. You could start with the archives at this site. Alan has been confronted like this numerous times, and has always said virtually the same thing. The real story here, at this particular event, is why he was invited yet again to something like this, and why to a group like GCN. There are also issues of how it was done, why people were not told until they were literally on-site. I have many concerns with the entire event, but you should not take from any of this that it is not a good idea to learn about the issue.
Likewise.@David Roberts
@OldBaldGuy
I agree with you. I came away with the same feeling. And this is exactly why I’m glad it happened.
Well, one good thing, at any rate, has come out of this conference. We have the following explicit admissions from Alan Chambers – literally on the record, since the conference has been recorded:
“The majority of people that I’ve met – and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them – have not experienced a change in their orientation.”
“Do I have same sex attractions? I do.”
David, I appreciate the opportunity to learn. And I will examine what you have on the site to learn more. Your original post asked the question about what could come out of the event, and I learned more about several things. One example is how powerful it is for an exgay survivor to say “I’m gay.” Well, duh, you might say. But I didn’t really get the baggage exgay survivors were carrying until I saw how much trouble Alan had with the word and talked to a survivor who said, “Can you see why it’s so liberating for me just to say I’m gay?” I hugged her and said how proud I was of her.
Reading things on a blog just isn’t the same. I doubt my conversation would ever have taken place without the panel discussion. So you wanted to know what it accomplished? I could hug a survivor who in the moment knew I understood what she was telling me. That’s a pretty good outcome.
@iDavid
It has been a very packed weekend, and I am just getting to all of these comments now.
I have mixed feelings about the panel. I have always felt that it is better to engage then to disengage and that is why I accepted the invitation to participate. Anything that I was able to interject during the discussion are things that I have said privately to Alan previously. I am well aware that no new ground was covered, nor were any new responses offered. I am also aware that many issues that need to be raised were not addressed.
Like many, I am deeply concerned for ex-gay survivors who feel re-traumatized and angered by this event. I also understand that some who were present and had the opportunity to confront Alan personally after the official event have found it very releasing. This has been a complex situation that elicits multiple responses from different people.
I am unsure of what any future reverberations from this conversation might be. While I deeply hope for profound systemic change, I can’t say that I am tremendously optimistic. The power that intersects the system that undergirds Exodus is well developed and it would take both great courage and a willingness to sustain great loss to deconstruct it and move the system in a new direction. So while I hope for that, I am uncertain about it actually happening.
As to your other question, New Direction isn’t in the marriage business – gay or straight.
It comes down to this: Alan is in this thing too deep, and he’s shit-scared to do anything to rock the boat. As long as that’s true, things aren’t going to change. He’ll just keep on prevaricating, fudging the truth and talking out of both sides of his mouth. He’ll say one thing to GCN and another when he reports back to his own constituents. This has blatantly been the case for a long time, and it can’t change, because Alan’s entire existence would fall apart if it did. I’ve listened to the entire audio, and it’s only confirmed it for me. If he hasn’t already, he’ll soon be squirmingly explaining to his supporters (publicly or privately) why what he said at the GCN conference didn’t really mean what it seemed to mean.
^ Note to Christians — sometimes being blunt and calling out a person for pretence and abuse is the most loving, gracious, generous and Christian thing to do. ^
I wholeheartedly agree with this!
Me too.
Chogyam Trungpa used to call the desire to do good, to be ‘nice’; but but allowing the benevolent desire to blind one to what is actually right idiot compassion. It allows one to go unchallenged because you don’t want to hurt their feelings
@Wendy
Thanks for your perspective. Though things seem dim in the matter of Exodus going a new direction, maybe a full deconstruct is imminent eventually. I see their actions as Christian barbaric savagery and maybe a request for Alan Chamber’s resignation may have some effect.
In light of people’s dreariness around this event and you being from Canada, here’s something that I think will give some a chuckle. I’d vote for you. Go Canada. ; )
https://front.moveon.org/theres-a-new-party-running-in-2012/
@David Roberts and Dave Rattigan,
What do you think a well worded Moveon.org petition demanding Chamber’s resignation and/or the closure of Exodus (including possibly Jonah and Courage) might accomplish? You guys are both bulls eye writers and many straight allies look at the new petitions on their sight and join in if they feel so moved.
@David Rattigan
“It comes down to this: Alan is in this thing too deep, and he’s shit-scared to do anything to rock the boat. As long as that’s true, things aren’t going to change. He’ll just keep on prevaricating, fudging the truth and talking out of both sides of his mouth.”
I agree, forked tongued Alan Chambers from my viewpoint, is the most hated gay male in America. He is also the most visible gay man, or at minimum bisexual, that admittedly hates gay sex. I would think he would have been quite nervous being the only obvious dark force at this event.
It’s unfortunate he is running on a fouled interpretation of the Bible. Anyone who does even minor research might rationally deduce that Leviticus 18:22 was enshrined in verses directed at “straight” married men. If a married man were secretly stepping out on his wife to be with a man, it then makes sense some would find that act of betrayal an “abomination”.
It seems the world wide hate aimed at Chambers matches the hate he so intensely emanates. He’s perfectly doing “what you give you get”.
Alan chambers is a sexually insane silly mess of besieged opposites in need of unbiased mental health care.
OldBaldGuy,
You err in a way similar to the pattern of anti-gay Christians. Instead of talking about what the faith commands you, you want to talk about what it commands others.
Whether Alan repents has no bearing whatsoever on how I am commanded to treat him.
You may argue that it is intuitive to shun him. Christianity is not intuitive. You may argue that it is fair to shun him. Christianity is not fair. That’s the whole point, if we expect God to forgive our outrageous behavior, we don’t get to look at fairness. There is no way that we can win the fairness comparison with God. If we got what we deserve we’d be a most unhappy people. So we don’t dole out what others deserve.
If this really boils down to forgiveness without repentance, why are we only talking about Alan? Let’s talk about Joseph Nicolosi, Arthur Goldberg, Richard Cohen and DL Foster, too. Or… is this forgiveness thing just a big red herring? Talk of whether we should forgive Alan is not only something for individuals to decide, but also a huge distraction from what really matters in this. The real issue is whether we should give him and the organization he represents our trust. The answer is easily settled for me: He has been prevaricating and playing semantic games for years; on Friday, he appeared in public and failed to acknowledge the prevarication and semantic games; instead, he prevaricated yet again and played more of the same semantic games. The question isn’t whether I’m loving enough to forgive Alan; it’s whether I’m naive enough to trust him.
@Dave Rattigan Continuing conversation does not require either forgiveness or repentance.
Listen again. When Chambers spoke about how problematic the word gay is for him (Part 2 – 41 mins) , he sounded just as ‘authentic’ as the other speakers.
I am not a Christian. I am an ex-born again, I walked away from my lifetime of faith when I came out. My comments and opinions are in no way to be construed as Christian. My quarrel with Christians and Christianity is not a quarrel with God, as there is no God for me to quarrel with. My concerns for justice and fairness come from living in the real world with real human beings.
I disagree with the Christian proposition that we are born evil. Getting what we deserve? Hell? I walked away from that God as the ultimate cosmic megalomaniac bully… and the bullying of followers who insist that I deserve hell, if not for being gay, then for the crime of being born a human being.
Heaven and hell are what we create for each other on this earth, right now, and in this life. Alan Chambers and Exodus have contributed vast amounts of hell for far too many for far too long. It needs to stop. Amends need to be made. Rehabilitation needs to happen, for the perpetrators as well as for the victims. Listening to AC in the recordings sounding anguished… I felt a little bad for him – but whatever help and healing he personally needs in no way lessens the debt he owes all LGBT and in no way excuses him from the necessity of paying that debt.
I stand by my opinion. He has not earned forgiveness. He believes in a God that forgives him? Fine. May that comfort him when he faces the parents of dead teens. May that comfort him as he is made to listen to story after story of alienation, spiritual abuse, family cruelty and violence. May that comfort him as he hears the terror of Ugandan citizens whose lives are now imperiled.
Life is not fair. It would behoove us, I would think, to create fairness and justice where and when ever we can.
As far as how GCN chooses to act – I would argue that while they are busy being merciful to AC that perhaps they have forgotten the “do justice” part of Micah 6:8.
Brilliantly stated, OBG. I would have been proud to write that myself.
From Tom Robbins “another roadside attraction”, one of the greatest books ever written IMHO, more or less.
the policeman said, “I am an American citizen, and proud of it”
Amanda replied, “I am a human being, and prepared to take the consequences.”
That is, so to speak, the Money Shot”
What I heard was someone who looked like a duck and quacked like a duck trying to explain why he wasn’t a duck.
Does everyone have to be gay, bi or straight identified? It’s not as if Chamber’s doesn’t know that everyone thinks he is really a homo.
Joe_s,
Very astute of you. I have to hand it to Chamber’s natural tendencies, quacking with a lisp is quite remarkable. I’m sure some in his straight money donating continuum would like to whisper to him “change is possible”.
I fully sympathize with any LGBT person who wants to shed any or all of those labels. In fact, there were people at the conference who only use words like “gay” and “lesbian” reluctantly for themselves, if at all. However, they also affirm the right of other people to identify as they choose.
I don’t care if Alan wants to identify as gay or not. Being a married man, I can understand his reservations about that. Besides, I’m sure we all have some postmodern friends who refuse to identify as gay or straight (or take on tertiary identities such as “queer” for political reasons). The telling point of the label conversation wasn’t how Alan chose to identify himself, it was his waffling over whether Exodus would hire a staff member who called himself “gay” even if he held to an ethic of celibacy (like the “Side B” attendees at the GCN conference). I’m glad Wendy Gritter asked that question, because that took it from being about how Alan labels himself (which is up to him), and whether or not he condemns those who use the term “gay” for themselves, whether or not they have homosexual intercourse.
Sure – because homophobic insults are fine when they are aimed the right sort of wrong person.
Attack his politics if you want to – that’s OK. But when you mock his faggy ways it says a great deal about your own kind of internalized homophobia.
@Joe_S
Sorry, but Chambers is radically comical to me on this point. I have my own “gay mannerisms” that I do not judge in others or myself. However, when a rainbow colored lisping gay duck says he is not gay to bolster and uphold his own conflicted world, and points gay fingers at others for being their authentic descriptive gay selves, I don’t hold back on the humor. I find it truly hilarious, and sad at the same time.
As far as attacking his politics being “ok”, his “politics” are “I’m not gay” when he knows that he is. He says one thing and does another which is out of integrity, but what I see is he says one thing, and IS another. Therefore, an even more organic distrust from the public. That is what that gay duck’s entire political platform rests on, a distrustful dual sided ill manufactured image.
His distaste for the gay “label” isn’t because he is some bohemian who truly runs the scale of an all inclusive nature and doesn’t want to box himself in. His distasted for the gay label is because he hates he is a homosexual. He didn’t have sex with his wife for nine months after they married, his kids are adopted, he sexually thinks about guys and he quacks like a gay duck. His gay hard wiring bothers him and he, nor “God”, can resolve it. And he has built an entire life trying to perfect that he’s straight to himself God and everyone else because of that one basic fact.
Then to compound the problem, he went to his religion for healing from “sexual brokenness” when his religion was the actual super sleuth that delivered the death blow to his sexuality in the first place. That’s called being in love with your abuser and asking for more abuse. It’s no different than the battered wife syndrome.
This is not even one iota a straight man’s profile. It’s not even a near miss. Alan has constructed a completely fabricated “straight” life out of fear of full and unobstructed sexual ownership. Not that there aren’t perks to “straight” conforming, but it is way short of authenticity, and his life smacks of inauthentic “conforming”.
I have a non religious gay friend who was married to a woman for 23 years and had three kids, then divorced his wife and found his true love of his life in a man. He told me after they had fallen in love, he realized he had always loved his wife but was never truly inlove with her. He said he never knew what being inlove meant until he met the man of his dreams. He dotted all the “i’s” and crossed all the “t’s” with his new found love. He filled in the missing gap that could never happen with a woman. The chemistry just isn’t built-in and never could be. It’s impossible because it is just plain unattainable. They have been together for over ten years now. I believe many including Alan are in that same pre divorce boat.
So if I poke humor at Alan’s lisp filled dicotamy, it’s because it’s just blatantly and humorously at odds with itself. I’m sorry if that offends you but that is how I process. Try not to take it presonally.
Lighten up. Have a laugh. Humor is more often than not, more healing than a fight. I’m sure you have experienced that from time to time, at least I would hope so.
@iDavid
iDavid, there’s nothing wrong with your perspective. I totally understand it. For all I know, Chambers might be the biggest liar from Fantasy Island.
But there’s also another equally authentic Christian perspective that minimizes the importance of “self-realization” and “authenticity” (in opposition to God). Any Christian listening to Chambers ‘spin’ or ‘double-talk’ is likely to take that point of view into account.
As for taking things personally – LOL
@Joe_S
Well, we know that Chambers is a liar, saying one thing to GCN panel and a different thing the day before. Intentional deception = lies
A thing that is in “opposition to God” is a subjective position as is all human, fallible belief in divinity.
Self-realisation and authenticity are things allowing the human being to live NOT in opposition to the way God made them.
Self-deception and inauthenticity are in opposition to God.
Not if you are a Christian 😉
I’m not asking you to change your own beliefs – but just allow for the fact that other people have different beliefs.
In the belief system I ascribe to, fear is the only opposite of god. And all fear will have to be erased to sense gods true presence. That includes sexual fears. The very fear that god punishes at all must go. Fear cannot know love. Alan and all people distraught with their bodies natural tendencies will have to address their fears and drop them before “entering the kingdom of Heaven within”……it only makes sense. The fear has to be resolved. Shmid did it as have countless others. Alan, and Randy Thomas also, is just taking the scenic route denying the pain Exodus has caused others, while kids slit their wrists.
Jesus is about love and acceptance. He would have blasted Alan at that conference for his denial, which could have brought Alan down to face his fear. That’s Jesus’s only mission, to have us drop our fear, the love then follows automatically. When those two “authenticate” they will understand the errors of their ways.
@iDavid
Yes. I had that till I went to a place called GCN and was filled with poison again. If the place helps you – God bless you. If I ever hear the word ‘network’ of any kind again, I am taking a hammer to this bloody thing. One simple step to freedom. Thank for you a great reminder David.