This week Exodus International is holding the annual conference at Ridgecrest, NC.
From time to time on various posts Exodus history comes up. I have been privileged to have numerous Exodus participants past and present comment here over the years, but the comments often go hither and yon.
So I am creating the post for that conversation to continue. I am going to talk to my weboverlord, Paul to see if we can get a link to it in the right column so we can find it easily. So spread the word, if you have ever been involved with Exodus International, feel free to comment here, good or bad. Feel free to cut and paste comments from other threads. I do not intend for this to become a praise or bashing session, rather a forum of sorts to discuss history and impressions, aspirations, positives, areas for improvement, etc. If you really like Exodus, I hope you might glean something from those who do not, read and learn if you will. And if you don’t like it, I hope you will recognize that some others have found much meaning and blessing in the relationships they have formed via Exodus.
I have been “convinced” it is a sin and “not convinced” it is a sin.
Either way, it is not easy to dismiss, for myself at least.
I guess this just goes to show how unique every individual is.
I appreciate all the positive feedback to what I said. That’s always nice to hear, and your comments were very kind.
Here’s the thing: There’s tremendous pain and personal investment on both sides of this.
I know that we pro-gay folks sometimes come across, as I said before, as taking joy in ex-gay leaders’ falls or trying to turn their private struggles into public objects of discussion (at best) or ridicule (at worst). I know that must be incredibly painful to those of you who identify as ex-gay. That grieves me, because it’s not at all how I want to come across.
I have friends in ex-gay ministries, and I care about them very much as people. I know that they didn’t get into ex-gay ministry in order to make a statement about others’ lives; for them, it’s a very private, personal experience. Those who share their stories publicly do so only for the sake of others like them, to provide hope to those who want it. It upsets them as much as it does me when their stories are used for political purposes – by either side.
I respect their attitudes and love them dearly as friends.
At the same time, however, every day I also see the very real damage that is being done by Exodus, not just through political channels, but through the sharing of testimonies that don’t tell the whole story. I know that none of these people mean to be dishonest in any way, but often they are simply unaware of the huge negative impact their stories are having on some people’s lives.
Many of my ex-gay friends are fond of saying things like, “We just want to offer hope to those who want it. We don’t want to push a change message on anyone who is happy being gay.” They are truly, 100% sincere in this. And they are genuinely shocked when some gay people (myself included) are so adamantly opposed to what they do. A few have even suggested that gay people get angry about this only because the Holy Spirit is convicting us of our sin and we don’t want to face it. I hope I don’t have to tell anyone here that that isn’t the case.
Just as many gay people don’t understand why ex-gays do what they do, I think it’s also true that many ex-gays don’t understand why gay people see the simple sharing of their stories as so incredibly damaging. And truth be told, what’s so damaging isn’t that people are sharing their stories, it’s that typically those stories are de-emphasizing or leaving out certain parts, and the (often unintentional) dishonesty is having a much larger impact than many ex-gays realize.
Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 5 major ways I’ve seen the sharing of these sorts of ex-gay stories damage the church, but I’m reluctant to share them just yet because I don’t want to be perceived as attacking anyone here, especially since I see that some of you are already feeling very wounded and vulnerable. I will be happy to share them in the future, however, when you feel the time is right.
So I just want to say that I understand and appreciate where the ex-gays are coming from, and I know that the ex-gays I know are good, genuine people who have no desire to hurt anyone else through their private journeys. At the same time I understand and fully identify with the anger and frustration of Michael and others, because I too have seen many horrible things come out of all of this, and at times it does feel like the truth is getting lost somewhere.
–Justin
Justin,
I see both sides to this.
Unfortunately, I was one of the ones who believed Michael Bussee’s story (of not changing) for so long that it left me isolated and lonely for many years. I thought for many, many years that only religious fanatics could find support. However, over time I learned differently, change can happen and it does. But not for everyone, and not in the same way if it does happen.
And I too am vehemently oppossed to the politicking that goes on the EXODUS website. It offends me to no end and therefore, I will never be a part of that organization. I don’t care if someone has a different opinion than mine – I do care that they send a double message to the very people they try to reach. From my perspective, we should be more concerned with His Kingdom to Come and not of this country – since it has already crashed anyhow.
I wish and do not have the answer, that somehow we could all meet in the middle.
Justin–
Please don’t ever leave us…LOL. Your voice is very much appreciated here. I know that I find myself slipping into the role of ‘fact-checker’…I proofread for a living…anyway, that tendency does make me sound far more combative that I actually am. My best friend is an ex-ex-gay. People often can’t understand how we can still be friends with our ‘big’ difference of opinion…but we can’t understand how we couldn’t be friends…we know each other so well; we only want the best for each other; we’ve got lots of views, opinions and values that ‘line up’ with each other but it’s the areas where we don’t completely agree where we challenge each other.
Thanks for being a better model of that kind of relationship than I have been.
Justin,
Forgive me if you’ve already discussed this, and if its not something you want to share here I will understand, but are you one of the principle founders of http://www.gaychristian.net? I had it in my mind you might be that Justin – you sound like him, but I wasn’t sure. If you’d like to answer me privately you can have Warren forward me any such message
jayhuck,
Yes, that’s my site.
–Justin
Justin,
The sharing of the 5 major ways sounds good to me; I’m not sure who is perceived in the category of wounded and vulnerable. If I am one of the ones, I would like to say you have a green light with me.
I have some thoughts on why that may be.
I come from a pentecostal background, of the more faith dependent sort. There was a belief that if you had faith, God would work miracles. If you were sick you didn’t go to a doctor (and put faith in the hand of man), you relied on God.
And I would be untruthful if I didn’t also say that I saw many things that cannot be easily written off or dismissed. Relying on “God’s wonderworking power” was not without signs to continue in the faith.
If that is your faith perspective (or is even an influence in your faith) there are some assumptions that this community shares:
1. God condemns homosexuality – and not just the acts, but the condition.
2. It is God’s Will that persons not be homosexual
3. Those seeking God’s Will in their life over sickness and sin can experience immediate miraculous divine deliverance
Ask anyone from that faith background and they can list the miraculous healings of all sorts of diseases. They can tell you about financial miracles and relationship miracles. They can list addictions broken. They can tell you about the blind seeing and the lame walking.
These stories are all told repeatedly from the pulpit with the healed person nodding to give faith to the faithful and to encourage the believers. The worship a powerful God.
So it really should not surprise anyone when this branch of Christianity, at least, wants an example, an evidence of God’s miraculous power.
And let’s be frank for a moment, even in the heart of the ex-gay world there just aren’t very many good testimonies of instantaneous miraculous change into heterosexual attraction. So they go with the next best example of the miraculous, marriage. Ta-duh!!
Now I’m sure we can all disagree (in many ways) about what a lack of miraculous change means about the Will of God
But I think that it does play into why some Christians latch onto testimonies of complete change.
I don’t think the “get married it will cure you” program is offered anymore. The treatment didn’t work and now a more practical approach is being applied to ex gays at EXODUS and LWO conferences.
Bringing up that is sort of like bringing up disco – kind of old.
Mary,
I think the issue isn’t so old though. These groups still offer up such examples as testaments to their worth and their legitimacy – I still see it anyway. I don’t think its old at all.
Mary,
Perhaps – and this may be more true than either of us realize – its simply RETRO
It may be in older testimonies but it is not being pushed on people who are now coming to those places for help. It’s pretty much seen as a bad thing to do and in bad form.
Perhaps you can read some of the newer books that are being published?
Trust me Mary, I have been reading some of the newer books that are being published – but its not the books that I’m talking about. I’m talking about how Exodus markets itself – who and what they put up on billboards or on talk shows, or even when marketing LWO. PFOX is also to blame for this. I know there are many people at Exodus not doing this, but its clear that message is still being pushed by some.
I do hope that you’re right, though, and this is a trend from which they are moving away
Mary,
I don’t think it’s so much “marriage will cure you” as it is “see, I’m cured. I’m married”. I’m still seeing a lot of it.
But I’m glad it isn’t being pushed to new comers inside the groups as much.
You can’t really take someone’s story away from them. Yes, they did overcome their same sex attraction and yes, marriage is what they got out of it. That is true for some people – and that is their story. Taking that away is sort of like saying that no gays are bar flies.
However, it has been (from my experience) that more people are understanding the complexity of sexuality and that marriage doesn’t “cure” homosexuality anymore than it cures any other sexual “desire” when a person gets married.
In that sense , I think the counseling has come a long ways since the early days.
You can’t take someone’s story from them, that’s true, but if someone is saying look I’m cured and you can tell that, you know that, because I’m married, I’d simply ask them how they feel about Gov. Mcgreevey
Being married isn’t a good meter stick for determining whether someone is gay, ex-gay, etc. I think that was the point of Tim’s comment.
Not everyone has a political career that needs a wife – so I don’t think the two can be compared.
Did it ever occur to anyone – that some people do leave SSA behind, do get married, and are happier and satisfied with how their life is going?
Mary,
There are plenty examples of men who got married because that’s what they felt society/religion demanded of them – McGreevey is only one – there are many more. I don’t think it happens as much today, but it definitely does.
Do some people do what you say? All I can say is that some claim to have done that, yes!
The point that is getting overlooked here, isn’t about whether some people leave SSA behind and get married and have a happy life, or whether a man leaves his wife and marries a gay man and has a happy life – the point is that being married doesn’t make you straight! That’s all I was trying to say anyway
I should probably rephrase that – now that gay people can get married. Just because a man is married to a woman, that fact alone doesn’t make the man straight!
We’ve got that.
Nor does it mean he is gay and faking it.
(maybe you missed that part?)
Didn’t miss it – we got that too
Perhaps I was a bit confusing.
I think the point that we were discussing was why it is that ex-gay ministries place so much emphasis (or did) on a total change of orientation. I was simply pointing out why I thought that some did so: a religious culture that places great emphasis on miracles.
As for whether people “leave SSA behind”, I think that a careful inspection of the testimony of most gay men reveals that this is not an accurate description. I do hear testimony of happy marriage, but I can only think of two ex-gay men that claim to no longer experience same-sex attraction.
But clearly some do respond to such attraction in a manner that allows them to live in accordance with their values, whether they marry or not. And I’m pleased for them.
Timothy,
I always appreciate your even-handed respectfulness.
I also think that this topic is complex enough that sometimes we talking ‘apples and oranges’.
One aspect is the question of disingenuineness of those who claim to no longer experience sga – and the plea for honest, transparent and authentic testimonies. I echo this plea – and think there are other leaders within ex-gay ministries who also want to see an end to the misleading, triumphalistic style of testimonies.
Another aspect is whether or not someone who experiences sga can thrive in a heterosexual marriage. It seems clear that some such marriages end in disaster with heartache all around. This is a clear word of caution to anyone considering entering heterosexual marriage. However, there are some marriages in which one or both spouses experience lingering sga yet are deeply in love and also sexually attracted to their opposite gender spouse. In these cases, they manage their other attractions – in a similar manner to anyone in a committed and chaste marriage needs to manage attractions to those other than their spouse (of either gender). The huge challenge, of course, is realistically ascertaining whether or not the attraction that one thinks they feel for their opposite gender fiancee will be sustainable in the huge commitment that marriage is. I am just engaging with an individual who felt very sure that marriage was the best choice and now six months in this person is absolutely distraught with regret. (note – they didn’t speak to us prior to getting married) So these are very real situations that are still happening, still causing pain and heartache …… It is one thing to be married and want to find a way to live consistently with your values and save your marriage. It is another thing to enter marriage expecting everything to just “work out” …..
These are issues that Exodus needs to be brutally honest about.
Absolutely Wendy – Thank you
I was in a 20 year heterosexual marriage, and I can tell you that managing gay attractions is nothing like straights limiting themselves to one partner.
The difference is that after the heterosexual sexual activity, there remains and may even exist in the midst of it a sense that this is most definitely not my first choice or orientation. IOW it does not feel natural. It may very well feel good physically and loving emotionally, but there remains a very real and unsatisfied yearning. Probably much as heterosexually oriented people would feel about gay behaviour. Something is missing and feels off kilter. Peterson Toscano describes this in a similar fashion and probably much better than I am doing here. But it remains a reality, a very painful reality.
When one is 21 years old and the sex drive is at full tilt, who is to know that 10, 15 years down the road that the true desires and attractions will not kick in ? One simply can’t. And for many, many gay Christians they kick in much sooner. Personally, I used pornography to stave it off, but even that didn’t go for the long haul.
With the reality that reparative and other therapies do not truly cure anything, on what basis would a gay person enter a straight marriage with some reasonable assurance of fidelity? Pre-martial experimentation? I did some of that. And that is something that is referred to as fornication in many interpretations.
Yes, I wanted to live consistently with my values, and I am guessing that 99% of Christian gays who did marry did want to do that. However, the testimonies speak more of forgiveness on the part of the straight spouse as the gay partner “acts out” (hate that inaccurate term), than actual successful management.
Again, ask a straight oriented person to manage him/herself in a gay relationship, and I am guessing that eventually s/he, too, will also experience grave futility in the endeavor and fall in love with an opposite sex person.
Interesting perspective
AM,
Do you believe that gay people are born gay? Have you ever been to any counseling to discuss these issues before/during/after marriage? And how old were you when you married? What is your current age?
Yes, I have been to counseling; what Christian in my position wouldn’t have? And, no, it did not help: it did not make me heterosexual in my marriage. It was not fair to offer my former spouse an essentially asexual arrangement (which is what it became) nor for me to be in great turmoil about it.
I answered that second question because, yes, after decades of soul searching, I do believe I am hard wired gay. One can uncover only so many psychological “possibilities” and be left with nothing in its wake.
Owing to the uselessness of counseling in changing my sexual desires, my age would, by definition be irrelevant. I received no great revelation in my forties as how to truly change than I did in my 20′s. If anything, I realized that it was immutable in my case after my intense quest for root cause.
The root cause is that I am naturally, spontaneously attracted to one sex and not so much to the other. And, ironically, I have ex-gay ministries to thank for showing me that; they are truly the best evidence of little to no practical change.
Thanks AM. I hope my questions were not offensive – as they were never meant to be that way. Sometimes I get a little too clinical at times and forget there is ahuman on the other side of the key board.
Anyhow, thank you for your answers. It helps me understand you better.
Just on more question because I am curious. What year did you go through the ex gay ministry stuff?
I was introduced to HA (Homosexuals Anonymous) in the 80′s and became acquainted with the names of Ed Hurst, Robbi Kenney, and Doug Houk at that point.
Late 90′s was when I re-aquainted myself with “ex-gay” ministries, Exodus and others and realized that the HA meeting room of people falling, slipping, living in gay relationships was largely par for the course, not just HA in particular. Even though I thought at the time that HA was uniquely problem ridden. HA! Nothing new under the sun; not even Moberly and her spiel.
I hear what you’re saying. Do you think that other people who have had SSA are also born with it or do you think there is a difference?
I don’t think it matters what I think. I don’t say that callously, but to quote the old AA adage, “If nothing changes, nothing changes.” That’s how I feel about the whole nature/nurture argument.
And to put it in a purely pragmatic, self interested terms, it doesn’t really matter to me: I wasted my life, literally wasted it trying to change and deeply hurt someone else in the process.
So, overall, I think people will do the best that they know how to do to get through this life. However they define it.
AM-
I’ve been appreciating your presence here. Both you and Justin have a been a breath of fresh air. LOL. Many of the rest of us have danced many a time around these topics before. I’m a former Exodus ‘leader’…taught at conferences almost annually during my ten plus years but never served on the board. That’s why I first got invited to come to the blog. I knew (or knew people who knew) of Exodus’ first decade. But that topic is long gone. My Exodus involvement ended some 15 years ago (although I do maintain contact with Outpost, the ministry I was a part of.) I’ve been on my own journey of discovery since then, private except to family and friends. I came to the blog because of that invitation; I remained because I felt it would be helpful to my journey. And it has been.
We talk a lot about change here. i talked a lot about change when I was in the ministry. As I mentioned earlier, I always tried to explain the dynamics…the struggles, the challenges, the growth spurts, the growing pains…or change. But I believed the end result would be different for different people. For some, change could be a satisfying heterosexual marriage but, for others, change could be a fulfilled and satisfying life without an intimate sexual relationship. Their very real change being that they found not only peace but fulfillment in an ongoing daily walk. NOBODY in their early 20′s wants to seriously consider the prospect of a lifetime without sex. (Well, I’ve heard there are a few….) I think most of us probably figured we were goihg to be a part of the ones who could achieve a good heterosexual marriage. I know I did.
But i remembered something awhile back while responding to a blog here. When I set off to Bible school in 1976, I had no visions of ever being a minister–not in any capacity. My chief reason was that I could learn enough about the Bible and its principles that I could manage ‘my issues’ …chief among them being homosexuality. LOL. I figured I needed a little more Biblical self-sufficiency than your average Joe in the pew.
My point, though, is that I had been a Christian for two years at that point. I was in my early 20′s. My simple goal was to learn management not change. I was quite happy and content with my new life and saw homosexual behavior as just one of many ‘sinful pleasures’ that I needed to harness. The church I came from sponsored a Teen Challenge…weekly testimonies re various ‘big’ issues…so, I really didn’t see the specialness of homosexual behavior…still don’t. It’s something I believe the Bible calls wrong and it’s sexual…so it’s got some oomph…and, as I pointed out more than once, the ex drug addict can come to church and feel fairly safe that he won’t get tempted right there in the pew…but the Christian with a homosexual past, not only has temptation sitting right there in the pew with them, but later are called upon to hug and share the love of Jesus. It’s a tough road. –And then, to make the road even rougher, most people in that unique Christian predicament don’t really have anyone they can talk ‘gutsy’ with. I was fortunate…perhaps a little obstinate. (I think I got what I demanded.)
LOL. I think I’m off my point. My point is that I went two or three years as a reasonably content and fulfilled Christian before I was even willing to consider the possibility of change. (I had a serious case of “Girls, Yukk!”) AND THEN, I caught the ‘change’ bug too. I had it for ten years and then some.
Probably the most tortured part of my Christian experience came when I realized that, while change meaning ‘fulfilled marriage’ was indeed a viable possibility for some, I probably wasn’t destined to be a part of that group. I’m guessing it took the better part of a decade for me to consider the word ‘celibate’ much less embrace it. Due to being in the specialized ministry for a dozen years, I had a fresh journey of reintegration to preoccupy me. (Other areas of my life that God was ready to speak to but I wouldn’t let Him change the topic.)
Oh damn, just realized I’m not 100% cured. Just then, in the back of mind, the thought went “and maybe that’s God’s surprise way of bring you around to being ready for a fulfilled marriage”.
…I believe I’ve gone to ramblin’…
AM, Justin, and Eddy – thanks for your comments. Very thought provoking.
Eddy,
I appreciate what you have said. And I think you were fortunate in that you didn’t go into the process with expectations of “change”. If I can be so presumptuous, that’s probably why you are still here when others have said, “the heck with it”.
Eddy, AM,
If we took away the word “change” and all the definitions that go with it, wouldn’t we all talk about this issue differently? Perhaps using this word as the substantive outcome of our efforts has in fact done just the opposite. It has mastered us instead of the other way around. We give it too much power to rule the outcome. This is why I think the SSI framework is so important. Being active or inactive in same gender sexual relationships is a decision only an individual can make and that decision can always change throughout a lifetime.
AM,
Your post touched me deeply. I hope in the responses that you receive, you will see that you are not alone and what you think and say does matter. I also hope you find peace and contentment in your future and that it will come to you without any more pain.
sorry – SSI should be SIT
AM – thanks for your thoughts. Your personal perspective is compelling given the crucible of your own journey with it’s pains, discoveries, joys etc.
One of the challenges that must, I believe, be wrestled with, is the complexity that comes with different people, different experiences, and different responses.
I do respect your story AM and honour your right to tell it with honesty and frankness. Our stories do carry the potential to inform, warn, encourage etc. And certainly, there will be others who resonate with our story, share similar experiences, insights and outcomes.
The caution I feel, in looking at the various and diverse experiences of people in relation to their sexual identity, is to not project any one person’s story and experience on everyone’s story and experience. This goes for ex-gays not projecting on everyone – and the other side as well.
I can never claim to offer a corrective to your experience – your experience is your experience. But in a similar way, your experience can’t assume corrective for other’s experiences. Categories and labels aside, some people who experience sga are able to enjoy a healthy heterosexual marriage – some people who experience sga are unable to enjoy a healthy heterosexual marriage. Whether that is because of orientation, bi-sexuality, fluidity etc…… you could likely find diverse combinations in diverse scenarios.
I feel for your pain when you talk about wasting your life and hurting another person. And I can completely understand why you would want to take your experience and use it to ensure that no one else has to walk the road you did. Another man, my colleague John, would say his life journey of facing his experience of sga within his marriage to his wife has been challenging but rich and that he is more in love with his wife and experiences greater intimacy with her today than ever – despite lingering sga. I don’t think he is lying – I know him well enough and know his wife well enough. And I don’t think his experience takes anything away from what your true experience has been. But nor should your experience take away from what his true experience has been.
This is the challenge of relational and discerning engagement. Each person, each story needs to be given the space to find their own path. And the paths will often look very different from the other.
I am sure that there are gay people in straight marriages who are successful and not struggling on the level that many have. But perhaps that begs the observation: they may no longer have a gay orientation/were more bisexual/fluid, etc… I believe that you said it yourself.
I talked with many, many ex-gays around the U.S. (Have the phone bills to prove it!), and the example you give above of John was so rare that I can think of only 1 person who could fit that scenario. Now the scenario you give, I am assuming that John has never physically cheated on his wife, uses porn on a regular basis, etc… Sure I encountered married gays, but they usually had extra relations from time to time.
I have no interest in refuting John’s or anyone else’s story. I am honest about mine because I am at the point in my life in which I have nothing else to lose relationally. What I do ask is that gays who are married not paint an inaccurate picture and live differently, all the while claiming change and leading others to believe a prototype when looked at more carefully is far less than honest.
AM – I think we agree here ….. everyone benefits from honest and transparent sharing of personal experiences. The whole culture of “fake it till you make it”, whether that be in the area of sexuality or spirituality in general, promotes a restriction of liberty rather than the kind of freedom I believe we are to experience in relationship with Christ. If I have to pretend I am more spiritual than I am, I will eventually lose touch with the grace that is mine in Christ. This is tragic at multiple levels, and I believe breaks God’s heart. He knows us completely – what do we gain from faking, pretending, posturing on any level? The sad reality, however, is that many, many of our churches are full of people pretending to be more spiritual and more put together than they really are. We have perpetuated a “we’re fine” persona corporately within the church ….. and the culture around us is calling us on it when over 80% of 16 – 29 year olds say they feel that Christians are hypocritical. In a post-modern context a lack of authenticity is intolerable – and yet we find so much pretending within the church …… driven by the fear of being exposed for who we really are ….. truth is, in Christ, we are accepted – the good, the bad and the ugly of us. The question is, will we risk being real? Not just same-gender attracted people in heterosexual marriages ….. but all of us.
LOL. Maybe I do believe in miracles after all…it’s been at least 2 1/2 days since anyone has lapsed into snarkiness. We’ve actually been discussing and having genuine dialogue. Does my heart good! Thanks all.
Glad the earthquake hasn’t impacted any of you seriously. (We do seem to be overrun by Californians at the moment….)
AM,
Even though you are saying some negative things, you are doing it in truth and sincerity. The negative experiences and the pain you feel today are real; I’m glad you shared them. Beyond that, nobody could say the rest any better than Wendy already did.
Timothy-
Thanks! I only take exception to one word–and it’s my fault that you used it. You said that’s maybe why I’m still here. I summed up 20 years in one paragraph…it’s near the end of my post, begins with “Probably the most tortured…” and ends with the fresh journey of self-discovery and personal integration. I alluded to the torture but didn’t elaborate. I took on an F U attitude towards the whole world and a ‘go away, don’t bother me’ attitude towards God. I self-medicated with alcohol, pot and a straight party crowd. (I purposely chose a neighborhood sports bar where, at the time, gays simply did not go.) My head was still pretty twisted and I couldn’t see (or didn’t care) about the sinfulness of not only my ‘medications’ but of the fact that I was denying God the access to my turmoils.
The word ‘tortorous’ probably encompasses 5 to 7 years! I’ve got to save some things for the book I hope to write someday but I can tell you that my ‘track record’ felt like the biggest burden; I despised it. I snarled and snapped at any Christian who tried to get close to my pain..and, to the rest, I was cold and matter of fact. The life of the party to my crowd and a total b____ to everyone else. (LOL. I meet people at karaoke who say they ‘knew me when’ and they like the new me much better.)
Then I started working on that grudge match I was having with God and the positive part of the journey began. So, it’s not really ‘still’…it’s more like “I’m back.”
LOL. I’m still more wary of other Christians than I am of most anyone else. I find myself trying to discern which Christian belief system they ascribe to (and how seriously they ascribe) before I reveal anything personal about myself. I still haven’t even found a church to settle into. I’m making do with ‘leftover’ Christian friends I made over the years, the Christians in my large family, the fellowship (though sometimes brutal) here.(I’m avoiding the public Christians at work; seems to be a ‘prayer gossip’ group.) Among my Christian friends are those who believe as I do…feeling that the Bible calls homosexual behavior sin but, LOL, I just realized that a good half of them either don’t or are undecided. (Family reunions are rife with “I see you still haven’t found a good woman” and even more “I wish you’d find a good man”.) But, for me, it’s not by popular vote.
LOL. I’ve learned over the years how strong willed I am. That can be good and it can be bad. If I believe something, I can find the will to follow through. But what if my belief is wrong? Well, that means I’d be running on all of my own steam and none of His. That doesn’t strike me as efficient!
I think I mentioned this maybe a year or so on the blog but I gave God my permission to change my mind about how I interpret those verses. I’m aware of how the Bible can be twisted to suit individual agendas yet I can’t see another reasonable way of interpreting. LOL. Earlier in this blog, I inquired sincerely about other reasonable interpretations of arsenokoitae. If he’s not talking about homosexuals, who is he talking about? A particular subset? Hustlers? Prostitutes? Were they a big enough part of the culture to merit special mention?
Ann–
LOL. The humidity is kicking in again and I’m crashing momentarily. I’m pretty sure I wanted to say something in response to your posting to me and AM about that word ‘change’. I’ll try to check back in after dinner and a PowerAde.
Eddy: I will not take Gary off the “founder’s list”. He worked harder than anyone to see to it that the first EXODUS conference was a reality. A founder is one who helps to establish something — and he did. You could also call him an organizer, a catalyst, a helper.
He printed and mailed the first EXODUS newsletters, arranged conference rooms, set up microphones, sent out invitations, drove other attendees to and from the airport, arranged host housing, cooked the food, served it, etc. By contrast, Frank Worthen, who EXODUS used to call THE “founder” of EXODUS, just sat on his butt and took part in discussion. He was more guest than “founder”.
Gary chose, to not be very public about it or serve on the Board because he had kids at the time and did not want to be in the public eye.
I am not trying to discredit anyone — I am simply pointing out that the claim that “no one besides Mike and Gary returned to the gay life” is simply FALSE. Serveral of the “founders” were still sexually active while they claimed to be “ex-gay”. You may not like it, but it’s a FACT.
Michael-
I’m not questioning Gary’s involvement but I think it’s a stretch on the commonly held definition of ‘founder’. LOL. Many founders, to most people, look like they’re just sitting on their butts as you say Frank did…that’s because the founding already happened. It’s the people who dreamed up the idea of having such a gathering in the first place; it’s the people who provided the mailing list that Gary mailed to; it’s the people who composed the schedules and materials he printed; it’s the people who spoke into the microphones he set up in the conference rooms he arranged. In common lingo, the founder(s) bring the original vision and give it shape.
You said: “Several of the ‘founder’ were still sexually active while they claimed to be ‘ex-gay’.” I am not refuting your statement since I have no knowledge other than hearsay but I would like some clarification. By ‘sexually active’ do you mean ‘doing it with another same gender person’ or does it include things such as masturbation, fantasy and pornography? You said “while they claimed to be ‘ex-gay’”. Are you saying that the sexual activity happened during the time they were serving on the board or are you counting times they may have fallen as a new ‘ex-gay’…or later in their post-Exodus life?
The allegation you’re making is a serious one. As you made this statement of FACT, who did you include in your notion of ‘founders’? (I’m not asking who the guilty ones were; I’m asking for the names of all the people you believe are Exodus founders…I want a list that I can research.) And, please, don’t read attitude into this. As i said, it’s a serious charge and you’re aiming it right at the foundation…so each of the three questions I posed deserves a straightforward answer.
1) What did you mean by ‘sexually active’?
2) Did “while they claimed to be ‘ex-gay’”, speak to times before or after their involvement with Exodus or was it speaking to their time while on the board?
I need the answer to those two to understand what the charge you’re making really is.
3) Who is on YOUR list of ‘founders’ (my possible suspects)? (You and I differ on the definition of ‘founders’ and Gary was on your list when you made the statement…but it is YOUR list so, certainly, you should include him.)
And, please, just the names. You provided ‘background info’ several times previously and I know much of it myself. Of course, if any of the sexual activity is already in print or of public knowledge, that would assist in my fact-finding expedition and I’d appreciate the saved steps! (You and Gary being ‘of public record’ is another saved step. Robbi Kenney, being a non-gay woman, is another.)
Ann-
It turns out I really didn’t have anything to add to the ‘change’ dialogue after all. It’s started me thinking but the thoughts haven’t completely gelled yet….but they are along the lines of bringing that beast into submission!
Eddy,
You say you haven’t found a church. Well I’m going to make a wild suggestion… maybe not even a good one, but an idea to consider.
Personally, I think it’s good to attend church. It gives (me anyway) structure to my spirituality and allocates a specific time for worship and fellowship.
Soooo….
I think you should try a gay church. But talk to the pastor first and make sure that s/he doesn’t require that you think “gay is OK” or that you accept the church’s doctrine on sin.
Now I know that sounds a bit odd and outside expectations, but I do know that quite often pastors of mostly-gay congregations will have at least a few parishoners that believe homosexual behavior (or maybe even identity) is sinful. Heck, I think gay churches have the most diverse church backgrounds of any body of believers ranging from Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Jewish, Mainline denominations, everything. They are used to the devout, the questioning, the agnostic and even occasionally an outright athiest who for some reason is there every Sunday.
And somehow they manage to find a way to apply Gospel to pretty much everyone there.
So if you want somewhere that you are pretty sure to be welcomed, that’s a possible place to try.
As to your concerns about temptations you mentioned earlier, this may sound funny, but I really think that you’ll find that this isn’t going to be an issue. There are never any “gee, I wonder” moments because generally there’s nothing to wonder about. And because of context, the approach is desexualized.
OK, that was my wacky recommendation. Feel free to ignore it.
Timothy-
That is something that I considered but I’m leaning more towards a church that doesn’t predominate on that issue at all. LOL. Do you realize, though, that if I did start attending any gay church (we have at least half a dozen in the Twin Cities), I’d have to go under an assumed name. You just know someone would be dying to leak that story!
Actually, that was part of the problem with the ‘regular’ churches I thought of attending…and with two of the three that I was part of while in the ministry. I couldn’t get through an entire church service without someone wanting to pull me aside for some confidential advice on ‘you know what’. Going to church wound up being more draining than edifying.
But, I think enough years have passed that I can safely resume. Thanks for the kick in the pants. Now, if I can bring my Saturday night karaoke demons under control, I could attend somewhere besides “Bedside Assembly w/ Brother Pillow and Sister Sheetz”.
Eddy, boy are you out of touch with what really happened! You were not even at the first conference so you have no business saying who did what. You said:
(1) It’s the people who dreamed up the idea of having such a gathering in the first place. I agree! That would be me, Gary and jim Kaspar. It was our idea. Frank had his own ministry and we had ours. The EXODUS conference was our idea. Frank only attended, He didn’t come up with the idea. If anyone did, I think I did.
(2) it’s the people who provided the mailing list that Gary mailed to. Again, that would be me, Gary and Jim Kaspar! We made the phone calls. we researched what other small ministries were popping up across the country. We found out about Frank’s and Frank gave us names of others we might contact. That’s all Frank did. He didn’t invite them or compile the list of delegates who would get invitations. Many of the attendees were ministry students at Melodyland School of theology, where Gary was attending, Some were Hotline workers at Melodyland. Gary, not Frank, invited these people..
(3) It’s the people who composed the schedules and materials he printed. Again, that would be me, Gary and Jim Kaspar. We created those schedules and materials. Gary typed them out on an old IBM Selectix while the three of us brain-stormed. Frank had NOTHING to do with that.
(4) it’s the people who spoke into the microphones he set up in the conference rooms he arranged. OK, so Gary was not one of the speakers. Organization and hard work were his strengths, not public speaking. If you are only going to count as “founders” those who actually spoke or presented workshops, you would have to excluded some of the commonly accepted “founders” who did not speak — and include Walter Martin who did speak.
(4) In common lingo, the founder(s) bring the original vision and give it shape. Here, I agree with you! And Gary — whether you like it or not — was one of those people. Frank did a lot for the second EXODUS conference, but actually did very little to bring about the first — except for suggesting some names. Even Alan Chambers finally agreed (on this blog some months ago) that Gary should probably be counted among the true “founders” of EXODUS. You sure weren’t and since you were not there, you are no authority on who acutally was.
Eddy,
That’s one of the reasons I don’t “out” myself at church. I’m not sure I want to be the gay answer lady.
Michael-
I stand corrected. Thanks for the further insight to the first two years.
Now can you help me with your statement?
What did you mean by ‘sexually active’?
Did ‘while they were ‘ex-gay’ mean while they were with Exodus or did it include pre or post Exodus times?
Who were the ‘founders’ from your list?
I’ve got you, Gary and Jim from your last post. Frank? Greg? Anyone else?
To answer Eddy:
(1) What did you mean by ’sexually active’? I mean that all of us who talked to ech other privately and off the record were still masturbating to gay fantasies while with EXODUS. We wanted to stop, but gay feelings were the only ones we had — and most of us were still rather young with very strong, healthy, young adult sex drives.
The topic came up all the time at our meetings and at our support groups — what do to do about the problem of ongoing masturbation to gay feelings? What did God expect? Were we supposed to be entirely sexless — no outlet at all? Some suggested that it might be OK (Biblically) to masturbate “as long as we didn’t fantasize about anything” while we did. You ever try that? Is that even possible? We reasoned that if we could just “do it quickly with no fantasy” then we could still think of ourselves — and call ourselves — “ex-gay”.
Some of us,(nd I willl not say who) were sexually active with each other — a one time happening for two of the leaders, an ongoing addiction to gay pornography for another. We were all (with the exception of Robbi Kenney) still homosexual, even though we were claiming to be “ex-gay” by faith. We had not been “delivered”. We were not “free’ of it. We wanted to be, we believed we would be — but we were still gay. Some could live with that paradox. Gary and I could not.
(2) Did ‘while they were ‘ex-gay’ mean while they were with Exodus or did it include pre or post Exodus times? Yes, pre and during EXODUS times. I don’t know about after.
(3) Who were the ‘founders’ from your list? I’ve got you, Gary and Jim from your last post. Frank? Greg? Anyone else? This is a hard one. Some would argue that the only true “founders” were the ones who were on the first board. Some say that all 63 delegates were “founders”. That would include my wife and the Hotline volunteers and theology students from Melodyland — even though many of these attendees did very little.
Others will argue that it’s whoever played a major role in getting EXODUS started. I take this last definition. So my list would include, me, Gary, Jim Kaspar, Robbi Kenney, Frank Worthen, Greg Reid, Ron Dennis — I may have left someone out. I am sorry if I have. I mentioned Perry Desmond only because he was such a “big” personality during the early years of EXODUS– not really a founder, but you could argue that. He had been doing ministry for some time — just like Frank Worthen who started the first “ex-gay” ministry in 1973.
I have never claimed, as some have accused me of doing, that I was “the” founder or that Gary and I were the only founders. If Gary, Jim and I had not gotten the ball rolling, someone else would have. It might not have been called EXODUS, but some sort of “ex-gay” organization would have been created sooner or later.
Thanks, Michael. That helps a lot. LOL. I wonder if straight Christians regard masturbation as being ‘sexually active’. At one of the early conferences, I’m thinking it was year 3, 4 or 5, a ‘prophetic word’ came out ‘that some of you still masturbate’; a friend later quipped that the real eye-opening revelation would have been ‘that some of you don’t‘.
Anyway, when you followed the charge with a statement that suggested I’d have a hard time believing this FACT; I thought you were referring to ‘interpersonal sexual activity’…I have no trouble believing that most probably masturbated…and likely with fantasy. Several years later I wrote “Masturbation Dilemma”, a teaching insert in the Outpost News…it was our most requested piece of literature for years afterward. LOL. We even gave it it’s own unique paper color so it would be easier to spot on our lit sorter rack. When it was time to replenish the stock, we’d embarrass our Christian printer by requesting it be printed on ‘masturbation blue’. I think it’s real name began with a c…cobalt blue, perhaps.
Eddy, you said: “I have no trouble believing that most probably masturbated…and likely with fantasy.”
Neither do I, that’s what gay men do. but that’s also a big reason why I have trouble thinking of these folks as “ex-gay”. I don’t think straight men masturbate to gay fantasies, do they?
Actually, a fair number of straight men openly admit to enjoying gay fantasies…it’s just that they’re fantasizing two women together.
Eddy,
Actually, a fair number of straight men openly admit to enjoying gay fantasies…it’s just that they’re fantasizing two women together.
This may not be as common, but believe it or not, I’ve had female friends admit to me the same thing about two men. Odd, isn’t it?
I am tempted to ask Eddy for stats when he claims that “Actually, a fair number of straight men openly admit to enjoying gay fantasies…it’s just that they’re fantasizing two women together.”
Hey Eddy, any reserach studies you can cite to support that claim? I ask because you seemed incredulous that religious guilt could be a contributing factor to gay teen suicide and challenged me to prove that.
In any event, you completely avoided the point. As far as I know, truly “straight” men do not “struggle” with masturbation to fantasies of nude males or achieve orgasm by thinking about sex with men.
That’s what gays and “ex-gays” do. Or are you “ex-gay” as long as you limit yourself to masturbation, virtual and imaginary gay sex — and never really touch another guy?
Michael–
We’ve had this conversation in other ways before. We disagree on labels, when to apply them, and, most importantly, on what ‘ex-gay’ means. I’ve said many times that for any productive conversation to take place we need to come to some common definitions…but, discussions on this blog never do come to conclusions…so, we have no common ground for discussion.
I’ve agreed with you that they likely masturbate; I’ve also said that, if they fantasize when they do, the fantasies are most likely of the same gender. I mentioned that I wrote an insightful piece on the “Masturbation Dilemma” and I could bring some of that insight into this discussion but I won’t. 1) The topic isn’t masturbation or the definition of ex-gay 2) You only have one filter working at the moment and won’t hear anything except how it might fit into your belief; therefore the effort will be a serious waste of my time.
I know that latter statement will strike you as harsh. But please consider your previous statements on this thread where you said that your interest in the whereabouts of the founders was out of your concern for old friends and colleagues. I bought into that. I e-mailed Robbi Kenney, one of your dear former colleagues from Exodus, and informed her of this conversation. In response, she came and blogged and was quite forthcoming with whatever updates she could respond. Do you realize that you didn’t even say “hi” or “thanks for stopping by”? A caring person such as yourself was blinded by their single purpose of exposing Exodus as a sham—so, all you did, was summarize her post and how it supported your point…you even threw her into the mix due to the one project she’s interested in. So, Michael, I feel no need to be gracious to you. I will be respectful and will do my best to be courteous but I won’t dance to your questions.
If that seems unfair, consider this: In your first comment on this thread, you advised those reading of your Exodus history and how you could enlighten them. You then linked the site that has ‘hours of interviews’ with all the original founders. We now have that list. You provided it, Robbi concurred and so did I. You said “ALL”, Michael. How many of the ‘founders’ are interviewed? I’m thinking that if even half of them were interviewed–for hours–that you would have KNOWN where they are today. So,it’s a question that I’VE asked…that YOU haven’t answered…and, IMHO, it’s more legitimate because it is closely tied to the topic.
(LOL…if you define and use the simple word ‘all’ that much differently than I do, how can we ever really communicate using even more complex words and concepts???)
If I neglected to say Hi to Robbi of “thanks for dropping in”, I may have missed her comments. I have been hospitlized recently and had no access to computer. So don’t be so quick to judge whether or not I care about her. I do. I think of her as one of the most honest and caring people I know. And you should really quit taking jabs at my honesty or caring. The founders were my friends. As to how many of the founders were interviewed on camera, you would have to ask the producer of the film.
Eddy, you said: “I’ve agreed with you that they likely masturbate; I’ve also said that, if they fantasize when they do, the fantasies are most likely of the same gender.”
By any reasonable definition, that’s a homosexual person, not a heterosexual one. Calling it “ex-gay” doesn’t change that basic fact. I am pretty sure that straight guys don’t get off sexually thinking about other men’s bodies and/or what they would like to do with them.
Michael,
Sounds like you’ve been sick. Not to be rude, however, perhaps this subject has run its’ course.
As we have discovered, many things will not be agreed on. Since you have been hospitalized, you have probably more time on your hands than you know what to do with. LOL!!!! But can we let this go, gracefully?
I hope you return to health and can be active in your other interests again. Take care.
Mary: Thanks for your good wishes. Just so you will know. I am doing well and this IS (blogging) one of my “other interests”. But, I am not going away simply becuse you think the subject has run it’s course. Eddy keeps side-stepping the issue. “Ex-gays” are STILL gay. Sorry.
I was first objecting to Eddy’s rather sarcastic implication that I didn’t care about Robbi Kenny because I had not not popped in lately to say “hi”. Hard to do when you are laid up. He should not assume things about me or imply that I don’t really care.
On the topic of homosexual masturbation, I just find it highly objectionable (if not downright dishonest) to claim to be “ex-gay” when a man has ONLY interests in the same sex and still masturbates ONLY to these male-on-male fantasies. Straight guys don’t do this.
Therefore, “ex-gays” (as the title of Wayne Besen’s book correctly suggests) are “Anything But Straight”. You can’t become heterosexual by redefining it any way you choose. It’s time “ex-gays” stopped fooling themselves and misleading the public.
Why not call it what it is? A homosexual person trying NOT to act on his homosexual feelings for religious reasons? But to give the impression, deliberately or not, that one is a “former homosexual” or “ex-gay” when one still has ONLY gay attractions
MIchael,
You are sick and that is obvious. I am sorry that this has happened to you.
Also, we know ex gay has a broad definition and it depends on with whom you spoke. Let’s not rip that open again. As I will respect your definition of you and you respect my definition of me.
I am just trying to say to you , in a polite way -that you’re anchoring on to something in an obsessive way. So much so, that something else seems to be at work here rather than just the topic. I truly have concern for your health.
We all know you and I and others will have to agree to disagree on some issues if we are ever to walk across the soial schism and shake hands. A meet in the middle where we can talk.
Hi, Michael.
Sorry to hear about your hospitalization. Hope you have recovered/are recovering well.
Regarding saying ‘hi’ to Robbi. My comment wasn’t intended as sarcasm; it was intended to wake you up to how obsessively you pursue this ‘ex-gay label’ point. I was being cordial–even helpful. I coaxed Robbi to post. She did—and, then you responded…not even acknowledging that she had dropped in. But you took nearly everything she said and demonstrated how it fit your point.
Her question to me after reading your response was “why did I even bother? I knew better.” She made another comment that ties in to what I think Mary has been saying. “The conversation is circular. They always bring it back to the same point.”
And that’s where we are now. I’ve given you some pretty candid statements re behavior. And I’m simply refusing to turn this topic into ‘the definition of ex-gay’ or ‘the pros and cons of labeling’. We’ve pursued both topics endlessly and, the divide of mistrust and miscommunication here on the blog is such that we’ve never come to any real consensus. So, until either topic becomes THE topic again…and until we get other reasoned voices to join in on the discussion…I will do my best not to follow such detours.
On the bright side, your argument and reasoning behind your belief is here to be read without any challenge or rebuttal from me.
Mary: You are not qualified and I do not appreciate your trying to diagnose me. It is not “sick” or “obvious” that “something else is at work here” — besides my desire that ex-gays tell the truth.
As I said, you can use words any way you please (just like humpty dumpty) — but they are still misleading, confusing and not needed — we have perfectly food English words to describe the experience. Even Eddy admits ex-gays are not straight and most (if not all) continue to masturbate to fantasies of their own gender. Any way you slice it, That’s GAY. Straight guys do not do that.
If it is “obsessive” to point out the obvious, so be it.
Michael,
Once again you wish to draw on the extremes of this debate to negate those who do not see the world as you do. 100% straight men may not fanasize about other men, but there are many levels between that and 100% gay which you seem to want to put out there as your norm. It is not for many who may have some level of attraction to the same sex for some as of yet unknown reason.
Michael,
As much as I would like to see you find peace with you decisions, I cannot accomodate you by seeing only through your eyes.
You are ill and unreasonable. I think the two are connected. I hope you are able to heal – both.
Hi everyone! I’m back!
I’ve been reading this latest discussion with great interest. I hate to see things turn personal or for tensions to get so high. I suspect that it’s partly because this question of what “gay” and “ex-gay” mean, though it might seem to be way off subject, actually strikes pretty closely at the heart of the differences between the groups and helps to explain a lot of the tension between gays and ex-gays.
I’m trying to get my thoughts organized before I respond fully, but I’m planning to post something shortly with what I hope will be a fair analysis of why this is so important to both sides and how we might go about resolving these tensions.
For now, let me just say that my heart is grieving for the obvious pain and frustration I’m sensing on both sides. More soon.
–Justin
JustinLee:
Welcome back. Rather than bring those observations to this thread, might I suggest that you submit them to Warren and he, in turn, could make them the actual topic of a thread? (LOL. This thread was supposed to be about the value of having an Exodus-related sidebar…about the possibility of discussing multiple issues without getting caught in the endless loop…about assessing both the good and the bad within Exodus over the years. We haven’t spoken to any of that since the third or fourth comment in this thread!!!!)
This could be great! I’ve complained frequently that no matter what the topic, it always gets turned to ‘the meaning of ex-gay’ or ‘the validity of the ex-gay experience’. Now, I’m wondering what would happen if THAT turned out to be the topic…would we stick with it or detour to some side issue?
Some of us have blogged here A LOT …and for several years. There’s been heat, smoke and even fire on a number of occasions. This discussion has actually been rather tame by comparison. We are people who KNOW we disagree and yet still come together to discuss. (To get a sense of where we’ve already been, your best bet is to plug either ‘Exodus’ or “ex-gay” (with and without the hyphen) into Throck’s searcher…it’s probably where a number of us regulars began our climb up the ‘top commenters tally board’.)
Michael:
I actually agree with most of what you just commented. Your conclusion makes perfect sense–for you. Psychology is your #1 god and so, you not only accept its definition for yourself but you DEMAND that Christians who still have God as #1 bow to your god.
My God says that if I’m not doing it…not planning to do it…not attempting to identify myself with it…then I’m not IT. He doesn’t say “if you are tempted”, He says “when“. I don’t think He’s got a sin meter running…tallying up my homosexual temptations while neglecting my issues with selfishness, unkindness, slothfulness, etc. I don’t label myself by any of the latter terms so I can’t see why I must, at your insistence, label myself according to the first one. I took on the label ‘ex-gay’ because I felt it was honest about what, at the time, was the main focus of my life. I had chosen to leave ‘gay’ behind, realising that I’d likely hunger for ‘the leeks and the garlics’ from time to time–but I did make my exodus. Just as I saw Exodus, the organization, as ‘a journey out of homosexuality’, I saw the term ex-gay in much the same way. “I’m ‘out of’ gay…’out of’ homosexuality’.
So, you detest the term that I feel best sums up who I am (if I must label myself by my sexuality) and DEMAND that I accept ‘gay’ which, as I’ve explained again above, conflicts with my Christian religious beliefs and, due to my Christian beliefs, no longer fits me the way it once did. (And, yes, I know you’re a Christian too…that’s partly why I find your intolerance so baffling.)
Hi Eddy! Thanks for the welcome back.
I would be happy to hold my comments for a separate thread, if you think that would be best. (Though if we’re going to do that, would you mind being the one to ask Warren for it? You’d likely have more pull than I would, since I’m such a newcomer around these parts and Warren hasn’t had a chance to get to know me yet.)
I’m actually quite eager to post my thoughts. I’m very interested in trying to represent both sides fairly and I’d like to know if you think I’ve done a good job, and if not, how I might improve.
There’s a lot more I’m tempted to say now in response to some recent posts, but I’ll hold my tongue until we decide what to do.
–Justin
JustinLee:
LOL. I have no special pull with Warren. Several times since I’ve been blogging here, Warren has posted interesting or insightful comments that people have sent to him for consideration. If it ties in with the new Exodus sidebar he’s contemplating, I’ll bet he’d appreciate suggestions for discussion topics. Otherwise, he’d either consider setting it up as a topic or introduce a topic where your comments would fit in well.
And, you could present your thoughts here in this thread, but new readers would likely wade through a lot of verbage before getting to the part where the conversation hopefully turns. I’m just thinking that they’re more likely to get lost here. LOL. At this point, the only subscribers are probably me, Mary and Michael. I think most others bailed this conversation a while back.
Eddy said in post 121367:
Psychology is your #1 god and so, you not only accept its definition for yourself but you DEMAND that Christians who still have God as #1 bow to your god.
This kind of childish attack is uncalled for and I think you owe Michael an apology.
Psychology is the appropriate field to define sexuality, not religion. What Michael is doing is pointing out how religious leaders have inappropriately redefined homosexuality to suit their purposes and deceived people in the process. Not all of these people are doing it on purpose ( “Never ascribe to malice was can be easily explained by stupidity” ), and perhaps Michael needs to recognize that. However, you have repeatedly and inappropriately tried to attack Michael’s character, apparently because you don’t like his message. This latest attack sounds an awful lot like: “you don’t believe as I do so you’re not a true christian”
Eddy,
Psychology is your #1 god and so, you not only accept its definition for yourself but you DEMAND that Christians who still have God as #1 bow to your god.
Wow Eddy – I’ve seen you slam Michael a great deal but this is pretty low. Coming from someone who has been at the receiving end of your seemingly never-ending put-downs, this probably won’t mean much to you, but I think you should apologize. Psychology is your number one god???? Are you serious?
Boys:
No apology is owed. None will be coming.
I was making a point that–even though I had responded honestly to Michael’s questions, that was not enough. Ex-gays, if they still have homosexual feelings, must accept the fact that they are GAY. That’s Michael’s point. And it continues to ignore the point that I’ve made umpteen times, that God defines it differently. My analogy was intended to be thought-provoking…not just provoking. (I gave Michael all the admissions he asked for…the only thing i resisted is identifying myself as gay because it conflicts with my religious beliefs…and Michael both–won’t let it go and won’t give an inch. He must have that admission. He insists, therefore, that my religious beliefs bow to his psychological ones.) I can live with that…but I can’t pretend that that isn’t what he’s doing. It’s way too obvious.
Your diligence for the truth is severely one-sided. Michael said in 2nd post on this topic re Lisa Darden: “She has hours of interviews with all of those who were closely involved in the formative years of Exodus.” That statement is simply untrue. If he meant the original board members…it’s untrue; if he meant a broader group that just the board, it’s still untrue. “All” is a word in the English language that means ‘every’; even one exception means that “most’ is the word that you use if you are speaking accurately and truthfully. I’ve established that there are a number who did not participate in the interviews. Michael’s later questions, if sincere, revealed the same. (Would he need to ask the whereabouts of Jim Kaspar, Greg Reid, Ron Dennis if he had access to hours of fairly recently interviews with them? I know that Robbi Kenney declined to be interviewed…and if we’re going beyond the originators…I declined. Perry and Gary are both deceased. That’s a whole lot less than “All”, don’t you think?)
What makes it all the more ironic is that Michael’s protest in his last post was about the dishonest and misleading speech of the ex-gays…and yet he says ‘all’ when he means something else entirely. I’m not attacking Michael. I’m going after untruths that are being spoken–not only in my presence–but often, directed directly at me. “So what do you think of THAT, Eddy?”–not an exact quote but the attitude in several of the comments. Well, now you know what I think. I haven’t used the words ‘liar’ or ‘lies’ re Michael and his statement because I feel that those words carry a sense of intent. I’m not sure that Michael intentionally spoke an untruth but that doesn’t change the fact that the statement itself is, without question, untrue.
Why do I seem to be endlessly harping on that one point? 1) Because it’s never been answered…only danced around. 2) Because the principle of having our words be honest and true is actually one of the things you all gripe about the most re Exodus and ex-gays. Fairness demands that you also be extra attentive to the truthfulness of your statements. 3) He made that statement in a post where he was telling newcomers that he was their ‘go to man’ if they wanted the facts about the early history…and already, he was misrepresenting the history.
The fact that my straightforward question was dodged so many times–and usually with some fresh bashing towards either me, ex-gays or Exodus–meant that I had to be even more direct. Directness, in writing, has its risks. It’s often misinterpreted as an attack.
Oh, and while you have your scorecards out, see how many times I tried to leave this conversation somewhat tactfully and gracefully and then see what pulled me back.
JustinLee. LOL…once again, I’m thinking your thoughts deserve a less tainted environment than the tail end of this thread.
Eddy,
This is how I feel too. My temptations come but they do not define who I am. I define myself as to how I respond to them. Also, I have a life to live and God to serve, and the labels that work for others just have no place for me personally.
I chatted with Warren about it and he indicated that this thread would be the right place for the discussion, not a new one.
I’m pulling something together and will try to post soon.
–Justin
Here’s revolutionary idea!
Some people view themselves as gay. Some don’t.
No one defines another person except that person.
Oh and one more revolutionary idea – I don’t pray to other people’s God. You don’t have to pray to mine.
Not Carlin enough for you?
Try this: I’m not fooling you. I will define my life and by the same token LET you do the same for your own life. Because really, you don’t want me to tell you as I see you.
Because – I am certain – you wll disagree with me.
JustinLee:
I’ll look forward to it. I was afraid that this one might have run its course but Warren knows best! Glad you’re willing and able to hang out here for a spell.
Mary:
Yikes! I think the comments you’re responding to were directed at me…and I didn’t find them terribly offensive. I think sometimes the frustrations from past conversations creep into the new ones. Believe me, I understand and sympathize with the frustration completely but blog conversations are difficult enough without any flare-ups. I’m hoping we can proceed somewhat graciously. (LOL. I know that’s asking a lot of ALL of us but I do have high hopes!)
Please forgive, I don’t mean to sound like the blog police…I’m really looking forward to JustinLee’s promised comments and I was hoping we’d at least rate as ‘cordial’ when that conversation proceeds. I may be a bit hyper-sensitive as I await those words that might lead to ‘peace in the valley’.
Visualize Whirled Peas!
Fair enough. You’re right – past conversations reside in my heart and at best are emotionally untidy.
I was terse, flippant and overall disrepectful. I apologize to you ( and/or anyone else) for the offensive attitude.
I respect your opinion and hope my outburst does not prevent others from sharing.
I did re-read Emerson’s essay on Self Reliance today and found an interesting quote…
“… The simplicity of nature is not that which may easily be read , but is inexhaustable. The last analysis can no wise be made.”
Well, enough of my soapboxing.
Hi Gang,I heard about this forum and that my name mentioned several times. Did a quick scan of the text today for the first time. I need to read it through (from July postings) and will get back in a few days – but wow!!! what a bunch of hearsay, misinformation.
Ron
Disregard the strikeouts on my post, I hit the wrong button and it would not correct. Everything posted stands.
Ron
<
Glad you posted, Ron; it reminded me to follow up on what I said earlier.
I mentioned before that I wanted to talk more about my thoughts on the debate and trying to find points of agreement.
Rather than trying to do it in this thread, I created a new space to post some thoughts and get everyone’s feedback.
I’d really like to hear from the ex-gays here as to whether you feel I’m representing you fairly in this.
Here’s my introduction to what I want to accomplish:
http://startingdialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-this-space.html
And here’s where I start posting some of the thoughts I was originally going to post a few weeks ago:
http://startingdialogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/why-do-some-people-identify-as-no.html
Would some of you be willing to give me some feedback on this and let me know if you feel I’m on the right track? I’d appreciate it. There will be more to come after that, too.
–Justin
Ron, great to hear from you. It’s literally been ages. I look forward to hearing more from you. I hope I didn’t contribute to the ‘hearsay’ issue. If so, I’m sorry. I’ve tried to emphasize that there is much I wasn’t privy to. (BTW: I’m in regular–almost daily–e-mail contact with Robbi, Lori and Doug. I’ll let them know you’ve checked in.)
Justin–
I don’t believe that this was your intent but, in effect, it seems you are asking us to leave our conversation here to go and have it over at your place. One of the reasons this conversation ended rather abruptly is that a number of us were awaiting your promised comments. Now, it appears we have to go someplace else to get them and discuss them. That isn’t sitting well with me.
If it was your intent to discuss them here, you are placing an extra burden on those who comment. In order to reference something you said, we would have to quote it or rephrase it in our own comments before we can respond to it. (LOL. And if we said “re first post, paragraph 3″, a reader would have to keep accessing your link as we referenced different comments. That’s not much fun, either.)
Historically, the links provided in the opening topic thread are often discussed but links provided in the comments generally fall into the ‘for more reading’ category. More for research than discussion. (LOL. And the numbers aren’t in on how many comment without following the links at all.)
I’ll follow both links by the weekend, I promise. But, I think that if I do any discussing, it’ll be back here with my homies.(If what you’ve written is as good as I hope, even if we don’t discuss the ideas directly, you should begin to notice a difference in tone in our responses to one another in all of the topics that hit close to our ‘trouble zone’.)
Thanks for the links Justin. It is ok by me to discuss either place but I think we could have some cross fertilization.
Eddy said:
Oh dear! That wasn’t my goal at all! I’m more than happy to have the conversation here.
The primary reason I posted the comments on the other site was because you had said that you didn’t think this was the best place for them, since this thread was “tainted” and likely didn’t have many people still following it. I didn’t want to post them on my (pro-gay) site, since that wouldn’t be fair to you, so this morning I took some time and set up a new, entirely private blog just for this conversation. My intent was to only link it here, so that only you guys would have access to it, and then you could invite any others you wanted without forcing them to wade through the negative stuff earlier in this thread.
Also, at the time when I first suggested that I would post some thoughts, they were just a few sketchy ideas in my head. Over the last few weeks I’ve been fleshing them out more, to the point that they’re now quite a few pages long. So I decided to break them down and take them one bit at a time, which seemed easier to do in a fresh space with separate links for each section.
I did it that way, thinking it would be easier on you, not harder, and that it would create a friendlier, more neutral environment for you. I had no idea I was breaching protocol by doing so. Please accept my apologies; give me a few minutes to re-do the HTML code and I’ll paste the first section into my next comment.
–Justin
Okay, here was the introductory post I made:
Justin-
Thanks for responding so quickly. So, are you saying that so far it’s really just been published here? That could definitely work. One of my biggest concerns is that some of us would have all of this history and baggage and we’d be discussing along with people who we’d have to keep explaining ourselves to.
I don’t recall seeing any posts for a few weeks from some of the regulars; it may take a while for the conversation to get rolling.
I’ll check out the links by Saturday at the latest.
So, obviously, the part I want to discuss isn’t the introductory section I quoted above; it’s the second section, which is a response to the ex-gay question. I’m still working on getting that ready to paste.
Eddy:
Right, the site I linked to earlier is one I set up this morning. It’s set up to be hidden from search engines and doesn’t appear in any listings. I only created it for the purpose of discussion with you guys (and whomever else you wanted to invite) and only linked it here. It’s not a public blog or a pre-existing website. It was just a way to take a piece of this discussion and expand it a bit into several sections.
Do you want me to go on pasting the rest of what I’ve posted so far?
–Justin
Justin–
We’ve suddenly got plenty to get started with. Let’s see who drops in. I really am in a bit of a time crunch…just got back from vacation and doing errands,etc…so will check back in either tomorrow before karaoke or on Saturday.
You went to a lot of work and were unbelievably thoughtful. I sure hope the others were subscribed and will come and join. Talk to you later. Dinner is calling.
Veni…Vidi…Voci. (I came…I saw…I spoke….made that last one up.)
This is just my way of letting the others on the blog know that a conversation has begun on Justin’s links. ( see post: 126159) There’s more on the second than the first but that’s to be expected. Hope you’ll drop in.
Hi Gang,
After hearing that I was being “beaten up”on the Exodus International Forum, I reluctantly and hesitantly went there to see what was going on. I’ve been interneting since the 80’s, and the few forums or’blogs’ I ever went to (gay or Christian) started out good, but always degenerated to *&#@* and name calling. It’s refreshing to hear civil dialog from both sides.
I’m going to try to keep this short for now. Lots more to read. It’s great to hear from some “old timers” from the original Exodus Board. Hi Robbi, and Mike. Hi Ed, Justin, et al.. Been in touch with Frank, Doug and Greg a few times over the years.* Once with Jim K (years ago). He requested his name be withheld and I’ve honored that request. Did some ministry together with Perry Desmond in California a few years before he died. I still have a few copies of his book, “Perry.” What ever happened to Sharon Kuhn. I remember she married. I still have a copy of her little red booklet, “Misconceptions of Homosexuality.”
*note: all the original Exodus Board did not “go back into the gay lifestyle” – as posted elsewhere.
BTW Mike
I think you have me mixed up with someone else. My testimony speaks of being beaten up and left for dead in a robbery at my home several years before my conversion to Christ at MCC in 1973. Haven’t hit (cruised) the bars since. There was a Brother at Oakland Exodus who believed God was calling him to go into gay bars to minister, could have been him.
Most of my dialog with you and/or Jim was weeks before the first gathering at Melodyland that you both thankfully pulled together (1976?). A friend from church in Las Vegas had visited Melodyland (his wife sang there one weekend). He brought me a bulletin mentioning an informal gathering for people in ex-gay ministry. He knew my story, and that I had started Theophilus Ministries here in Nevada (NV), which still goes on. He thought maybe I ought to go. I thought we were the only ministry of its kind.
I called EXIT and wanted to come. Response was, “No, it’s a closed meeting.” I called a week later, response was about the same but “we’ll see.” I called a third time, the day before and said, “I’m coming,” and the rest in history.
memories Mike – A long time ago, several of us were concerned when you took your path away from Exodus and family. We located and visited you. We were invited in to your place and met your friend. I believe that was Gary.
All for the moment, will be back soon.
With love in Christ,
Ron
<
Ron-
Didn’t mean to ignore the fact that you had dropped in. I was actually waiting for Michael to respond to you. I did note that he was commenting on some other topics but then most of the topic threads went to the political race and a number of us regulars got a bit scarce.
It was good to hear from you. I’m in regular e-mail contact with Robbi K., Lori T. (now Lori R.) and Doug H. Since Warren’s blog pulled me ‘sort of’ out of retirement, I’ve also had a few email chats with Alan Chambers and Dan P. (current director of Outpost).
I’m trusting all is well with you…and hope that you ‘subscribed’ to this topic so that you’ll get my greetings.
The side blog that Justin created was active for a few days but I’ve checked in occasionally and the conversation came to a halt weeks ago.
If we survive Campaign ’08, check back in and search either ‘ex-gay’ or ‘Exodus’, it’s likely you’ll find us commenting there.
Eddy,
Thank you so much for reminding me about Justin’s blog – I hope it continues.