Source: Exodus
After statements by Exodus President Alan Chambers at the recent GCN conference, some have been persuaded that Exodus may be headed in a more tolerant “congruency” direction. We’ve been around this block more than a few times before and remain skeptical of the sincerity of any such change. Having published information late last year linking an upcoming stunt such as this to a need for funds and a way to save Exodus from ruin, we are doubly cautious.
Curiously lacking, however, has been any commentary from other Exodus leaders on this new found direction. How do people with their lives and livelihoods invested in “change is possible” react after Chambers seemingly pulls the rug out from under that position? Today we have our first look in the form of a post on the Exodus blog by Exodus VP Jeff Buchanan, “The Absolutists of Change.” Buchanan has always come across as somewhat of a hard-line spiritual gatekeeper. One would not expect all this to sit well with him and he seems to make that clear.
Is change possible? Yes! Is it perfect? Not on this side of heaven. While various behaviors may change on the surface, this is not the core of change. Change happens when Christ transforms our hearts so that we can become more like him. These other traits are simply reflections of what is transpiring within. Has God changed my sexuality? Yes, but it is not perfect or absolute. I don’t believe any man can claim perfection in this area. But God has changed me and shown me that his change involves every aspect of who I am. And in that sense, His change has been absolute.
Doubts about sincerity aside, Buchanan is clearly painting a picture at odds with Chambers’ recent statements. Is this the “two steps back” we have come to expect after every glimmer of enlightenment expressed by Exodus? Or is there confusion among the leadership? It seems unlikely that Buchanan could post to the official Exodus blog without some sort of approval, which would make this a confused message at best.
Notice also this paragraph in particular:
In other words, “change” or “transformation”, whatever it means in this context, doesn’t have to include a change in sexual orientation, and it’s already clear, both from Alan Chambers’s recent admission at the GCN conference and from John Smid’s recantation, that it almost certainly won’t. So if Exodus omits to state this clearly and unambiguously in its adverts, it is being dishonest and deceitful.
@William. No doubt the messages out of Exodus are deceitful; my guess is there is schism within the ranks and as a result there is no clear message.
Those convinced that discrimination is valid on condition of changing, tend to jump on every validation of this prejudice regardless it’s a single or limited source.
But when there are recants, or any changes in this information from those well known for fomenting it, they are ignored.
Or perhaps the message and outreach isn’t strong enough. This is most essential to getting the truth out.
And why I contend that Alan Chambers is a weak person outright and still refuses to own the impact his original message has had.
Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!