Mike Ensley’s article in the latest issue of Charisma Magazine illustrates everything that is wrong with Exodus and the ex-gay movement. In What to Do When Your Child Is Gay, Exodus’s “Youth Analyst” warns parents against trying to control their teenage children – and yet achieves a more subtle manipulation through misinformation.
Unfortunately, while aiming to help parents deal with their child’s homosexuality, labelling it a “problem” is the problem in itself. By making sexual orientation (“same-sex attraction,” in his terminology) into an issue to be rectified, Ensley and those who share his ideology are the problem, and consistently defining homosexuality as a “struggle,” rather than a simple reality, is what makes it a struggle.
“Realize homosexuality can afflict any family,” are the first of Ensley’s words of advice to parents of SSA children, thereby tagging gay orientation with yet another negative label, “affliction.” He continues: “You need [support and resources] because you’re suffering, and your wounds matter simply because you matter.” Such words have a veneer of compassion, but ultimately they legitimize the characterization of homosexuality as an affliction, without ever questioning why it should be so, or whether those negative perceptions are the crux of the problem itself.
It is not long before the familiar specter of the “gay lifestyle” is invoked:
I find that [parents’] primary focus is to “fix” their kid—and it’s no wonder, considering all the danger, sin and uncertainty we associate with the gay lifestyle. Naturally a loving mother or father wants to rescue their child from the consequences of such a lifestyle by keeping him or her from becoming entrenched in it.
Here is a prime example of misinformation and myth-making, depicting homosexuality as a single, monolithic – not to mention dangerous – lifestyle from which children need rescuing. Ensley may disavow overt attempts at control, but such hazy, unsubstantiated rhetoric is simply a less obvious way to manipulate through fear.
“Discover your part in the problem,” is Ensley’s encouragement to parents. While denying that the “brokenness” of homosexuality can be traced to a single cause, such as a person or event, he surmises that a family’s “healthy and unhealthy turns” must be sought out in an effort to get to the root causes, and that they must identify “intentional and unintentional” sins and “repent of any unhealthiness.”
Ironically, after all this, Ensley observes that it’s the “shame and stigma surrounding this issue that keep young strugglers in the dark.” Has it not become obvious in the course of the article where that shame and stigma comes from? Christ “takes our guilt and shame upon Himself,” he assures his readers, but how did that guilt and shame get there in the first place?
Homosexuality a crisis, a problem, an affliction, a dangerous lifestyle, a sign of brokenness, an indicator of a family’s sins and unhealthiness? Regretfully, the encouragements to be understanding, compassionate and loving mean little in the context of an article peppered with language that perpetuates the very shame and stigma its author decries.
Message to Mike Ensley: Being gay is not the problem. You are.
Were Mike Ensley to give this same advice to parents who have children born blind or deaf or with something not considered “normal,” he’d probably be sued by parents, the medical profession, the ADA, and a whole list of others. I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to tell parents to tie their kids left arm if they start to show an inclination to left-handedness.
Homosexuality a crisis, a problem, an affliction, a dangerous lifestyle, a sign of brokenness, an indicator of a family’s sins and unhealthiness only if one let’s it be as such. Heterosexuality can take on the same negative traits again if they allow it to be as such.
Why doesn’t he write a book entitled “You Got a Faggot for A Son…Living With the Shame” and enclose two paper sacks with sad faces painted on them so the parents can hide their shame. (“You Got a Dike for a Daughter” would be the obvious title if the couple have a girl, of course!)
Or better yet, instead of writing a book or an article on the subject, why not make posters for these families with the following passages:
“See that you do not despise a single one of these children because I say to you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” – Jesus Christ
“For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made so by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. May those who have the capacity to understand this, understand this.” – Jesus Christ
AlanS…I just wanted to thank you. Your book titles brought me danjeruss close to spewing coffee out my nose.
I would also note that if one checks out Mike Ensley’s bio (found here: https://exodus.to/content/view/411/) it reveals that he holds NO degrees that qualify him as a therapist. Rather, his degrees are in English and Theater Arts.
Unfortunately, Ensley is all too typical of these ex-gay employees who hold no legitimate credentials. State regulatory agencies need to find a way to shut down such unlicensed counseling.
Actually, it only says he attended college as an English and Theater Arts major. That is usually code for not having actually finished. Given his age and the time-line, I’m not sure what kind of degree he could have attained, but someone from Exodus is welcome to correct the record on this.
The last time we asked about someone’s training there, it was Randy Thomas and we received a snarky little reply saying he wouldn’t tell us anything.
In reading the full text of the Charisma article, it is very striking to see there is no mention of anything resembling ‘unconditional love’. In fact, the entire article is quite ‘conditional’. It is unfortunate the approach here is not to remove a yoke but instead, to drive a wedge even deeper into the obvious misunderstandings between conservative Christian parents and their LGBT children. Mr. Ensley’s article is not about healing but rather aggrevating wounds. It then points to Exodus ministries as the salve, clearly in interest of self-promotion and not at all to offer aid to families truly in need of reconciliation.
fr Michael Hamar:
>…Unfortunately, Ensley is all too typical of these ex-gay employees who hold no legitimate credentials. State regulatory agencies need to find a way to shut down such unlicensed counseling.<
those so-called “reparitive therapy” organizations need to be shut down, permanently. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with being GLBT, the danger is usually the “concerned family” who shove the kid into unneeded “counselling” to “cure” them of being gay.
How will recognize who they are..if they are not who they are?
It’s still about the perception of what is normal and given as a matter of harmony with our differences. We can look all around us at different body types, at different hair colors and dress that is according to comfort or gender or both.
Anorexia is the result of unrealistic portrayals of the woman’s form in current popular media.
We wouldn’t call a young girl a ‘struggler’ with her weight, if she in fact had a healthy body and appetite, would we?
Then why is Ensley and the whole ex gay industry getting away with calling gay children ‘struggling’ with homosexuality simply because some Christians haven’t caught up to the norms of sexual orientations and IT’S categories.
Just like physicians have classifications for body types (endomorph, ectomorph) and so on, the categories of orientation are valid for the same reasons.
The fact remains is that plastic surgeons make big business doing painful and expensive surgery on perfectly normal people who’s attributes ARE normal, but not the norm for the unrealistic standards portrayed in the media.
And folks, the Bible, Qu’ran and Torah are media.
The standards and practices of the ex gay industry are like a plastic surgeon’s lobby to convince the public that THEIR brand of surgery is required or without accountability, regardless of the dangerous side effects.
On NORMAL people.
We also don’t allow the medical establishment to scare a child’s parents into expensive treatment for cancer (which they don’t have), because a large percentage of people DO get cancer. And it doesn’t MATTER if they might not, the doctor insists they WILL.
See, the activity of the ex gay industry is very much like that. They use scare words, that homosexuality INEVITABLY will and MUST lead to disease, despair and death…at BEST.
And no key to the kingdom of heaven at worst.
But most importantly….if a normal person went to a plastic surgeon as well as people who might have gotten their nose broken in an accident, what begins to happen is sort of like what happened to the LEACHES.
They ALL looked alike, with almost no variance. There was an assembly line effect and indivuality was lost. Eventually, it might be taken for granted that ALL the ex gays look and sound like heterosexuals and behave like them.
Who is who? What distinguishes us from each other if, certain religious people interfere with ‘the natural order of things’?
So for ex gays to INSIST on distinguishing themselves AS former gay people is like the LEACHES without their star. The question is : they have no embellishment to spruce up their narrative.
But aha…! Just living with all the privacy and attendant priviledge being straight offers, put in a little gravitas that life as a gay person is loaded with promiscuity and drug use and lack of restraint…and there ya go.
And like an assembly line of leaches…ex gays walk, talk and behave the same.
And they tend to represent a segment of straight people I never met, and a lot of YOU haven’t either.
The sort of gay person that’s exaggerating what should come naturally and without practice and a constant need for validation of it.
The pressure to maintain that public persona must be exhausting.
A REAL heterosexual or gay person DOESN’T have to work THAT hard.
Being gay or heterosexual comes easy. It may not be easy to BE those things, as it’s not easy to be a curvy woman in a place that enobles skinny women.
But you get my drift. The assembly line is devoid of imperfections, character and variations. People that strive to look, walk and talk alike under the coaching with the same agenda, cease to become themselves
and appreciation for INDIVIDUAL character and talent and quirks ceases also.
And then the assembly line type become the only standard other people know and those who never were, might be forgotten.
In a way, the mainstreaming of gays and lesbians has diminished the things that distinguished THEM.
So the ex gay industry is really waxing on something that was never good in the first place and couldn’t exist to begin with.
And just as the media is now reconciling dark, dark skin…epicanthic folds and gray hair into the ranks of normal…oh and let’s not forget a NORMAL sized girl won America’s Next Top Model’s last cycle….
The ex gay industry will likely KILL OFF ITSELF.
It does not offer freedom from struggle, so much as running into boring oblivion, which they don’t want either.
What’s amazing to me is what a stupid strategy they have.
Because the mainstreaming of gay young people will do EXACTLY what the ex gay industry says it’s doing.
Mainstreming eliminates struggle, closes the door on insecurity and risk of promiscuity and despair…and nables gay kids to enjoy anonymity of a sort.
The ex gay industry wouldn’t have any prey…and at the same time, you’d think they’d be happy the work of freeing the gay soul is done already.
Maybe not THEIR way, but it’s happening, nonetheless.
Mike Ensley doesn’t especially have a new or exciting message to convey. He’s excruciatingly BORING, as a matter of fact.
Bring on the quirks and dimension and depths and let us straight and gay folks strategize how we can work TOGETHER without anyone losing their authenticity.
If Ensley doesn’t think gay and straight are a God given alliance, he hasn’t witnessed a k.d. Lang/Tony Bennett concert.
Now, THAT was heaven!
All this reminds me of another article written by him.
Surprisingly, he never mentioned anything on how “evil” or “great sin” homosexuality is in the Christian sense. Instead he goes on how homosexuals are the least faithful beings, how they are the least monogamous bunch, how younger gay men do not last three years in a relationship (but curiously, how many young straight men last that long?), and others.
He mentioned he was drawn to masculinity (Does that mean he was less than a man?)
And he uttered the only danger there unto gay men lives is AIDS:
Mike Ensley is like saying, nah, AIDS is not your fauly but your “sexual practices” done it to you. Like heteros do not get STDs as well. This is absurb stereotyping of gay behaviour.
He talks about homosexuality. But lesbians could barely relate to everything he says!