This letter was sent this afternoon from Exodus to the President of Uganda. It is also on the Exodus website and an open letter expressing reasons why the proposed bill is wrong and counter to Christian principles.
Exodus Sends Letter Opposing Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill
November 16, 2009
Exodus International sent the following letter to Uganda’s President Museveni regarding The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 currently being considered in the Parliament. The bill would criminalize and prosecute homosexual behavior and would require pastors, missionaries, health care providers and counselors to report those suspected of such behavior. Exodus International, along with its board members and broader network, opposes this legislation as it inhibits the global Christian church’s mission to share the life-giving truth of the Gospel and extend the compassion of Christ to all.
President & Mrs. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni
c/o Principal Private Secretary, Amelia Kyambadde
State House Nakasero
P.O. Box 24594
Kampala, UgandaDear President & Mrs. Museveni,
As evangelical Christian leaders dedicated to advancing the truths of the Bible worldwide, we commend your work to promote ethics in Uganda. In addition, your efforts to eradicate the HIV/AIDS epidemic have been appropriately praised internationally and we are praying for your continued success.
We want to humbly share our concerns regarding The Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009, introduced before the Ugandan parliament on October 14, 2009. First, we believe that sexual crimes against children, homosexual or heterosexual, are the most serious of offenses and should be punished accordingly. Homosexual behavior in consensual relationships, however, is another matter.
While we do not believe that homosexual behavior is what God intended for individuals, we believe that deprivation of life and liberty is not an appropriate or helpful response to this issue. Furthermore, the Christian church must be a safe, compassionate place for gay-identified people as well as those who are confused about and conflicted by their sexuality. If homosexual behavior and knowledge of such behavior is criminalized and prosecuted, as proposed in this bill, church and ministry leaders will be unable to assist hurting men, women and youth who might otherwise seek help in addressing this personal issue. The Christian church cannot and should not condone homosexual living or gay-identified clergy within its leadership, but it must be permitted to extend the love and compassion of Christ to all. We believe that this legislation would make this mission a difficult if not impossible task to carry out.
Many of us and those we know and work with have personally struggled with unwanted homosexual attractions and once lived as gay individuals, but have since found a new identity in Jesus Christ and have gone on to live lives that reflect the teaching of the Christian faith. We sincerely believe that such transformations cannot best be achieved in an environment of government coercion where the vital support, care and compassion of others in the Christian community is discouraged and prosecuted.
Please consider the influence this law will have upon those who may seek help in dealing with this difficult issue as well as church and ministry leaders committed to demonstrating the compassion of Christ to all. We are praying for you, for this matter and for the people of Uganda.
Sincerely,
Alan Chambers
President of Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexualRandy Thomas
Executive Vice President, Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexualChristopher Yuan
Adjunct Instructor, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois
HIV Survivor
AIDS Activist
Former homosexualWarren Throckmorton, Ph.D.
Member of the Clinical Advisory Board of the American Association of Christian Counselors
Grove City, Pennsylvania
Here’s hoping it helps…
UPDATE: 11/19/09 – Here is one eyewitness report of the effect of the Exodus letter:
The Exodus letter is a particular foil. Why, even Exodus does not support the Bill! That is a shock, to Steven Langa. An unpleasant one. Because he is using information published by some of the signatories of this letter. He quotes them. And, very embarassing that they dont support his bill! Even his allies see that his action is un-Christian. He also quotes Lively, extensively. Yes, he does. This Lively. To Langa, the true intellectual mind behind the Bahati Bill, Lively is THE prophet of his crusade. And he promotes his books. Repeateldy. Even yesterday. (It was the Pink Swastika)
I will always remember Langa’s face when he was challenged that Exodus was not supporting the bill. That they were not supporting him, though he was quoting them. And, it was a fellow pastor, I believe, who challenged him. Could he answer? Ha!
Days, weeks or months? Who cares? Exodus spoke out late. Even Alan admitted it on this thread. How late doesn’t really matter now.
Alan knows it was a mess. He knows “Exodus’ name was being “associated” with it. Exodus has taken appropriate responsibility — in that the participation of its board member “could be construed as support”.
Now, he is making it quite clear that Exodus in no way supports it. And the letter, as Warren reported today, seems to be causing some embarrassment for people who are still trying to say that Exodus supports it. I commend Exodus for their recent, strongly worded statements.
HRC was not “associated” with it in any way — but they still need to speak out, and I intend to keep hounding them about it.
Thank you Michael – I appreciate your efforts very much.
Here’s what Wiki has to say about the HRC. This is the type of information that would be available to anyone who searches the Human Rights Campaign online.
Now, is this a voice the Ugandan government would listen to? Not a chance! Could pressure from this group actually spur the Ugandan government to a rigid stand? I believe so.
Where I can see the HRC getting involved is in mailings and communications to it’s members encouraging them to contact churches and public personas who might have influence, to join the facebook group, to familiarize themselves with the entire scope of what’s going on in Uganda and to pray if they are the praying type. My gut tells me that the HRC is truly troubled by the Ugandan situtation but that they recognize that their voice would not be received well at all. Perhaps they are like Exodus in a way…wanting to respond but delaying because they realize how important it is to get it right.
Michael,
Yes, I know. How does this preclude the HRC from backing up what they say they support though – the equal rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered individuals? I did not contribute to the mess, nor did most of the people on FACEBOOK, however, we are opposing it – why aren’t they? Does it have anything to do with politics or their association with politicians?
Ann, that was the receptionist’s guess, and not an official statement from HRC. I would be suprised and saddened if that is their official policy on this matter — since, as you pointed out — they do comment on other international concerns. I think the receptionist guessed wrong. I will try to get an “official” statement from someone truly in authority at HRC.
Eddy,
I am not asking the HRC to do anything other than post an opposition to it. I am perplexed as to why they haven’t. That they might not be received well is a very prudent observation, however, to remain silent in any and all ways is troubling.
Eddy, I think you comments above about HRC are right on target. And I think your suggestions are good ones:
And my gut seems to be in sync with yours on this one:
That’s why evangelical Christian organizations, like Exodus, have a better chance.
I agree. Eddy’s observation is well taken — and his suggestions about encouraging their members to take action are very wise.
Like I said, it took approximately a month for a statement ‘as an organization’; individual statements and blog comments preceded that. It was a very long month. Yes, it’s sad. Lots of things are. Shall we wallow in that pool or should we reckon with the very short time we have and the urgency of some semblance of unity?
Michael,
I was responding to what Jayhuck wrote about Exodus being a day late and dollar short and he indicated that was SAD – I think his reference to the HRC being an American organization and holding that out as a possible reason they haven’t responded is SAD.
I vote for the latter.
Alan himself seems to regret that it didn’t come sooner and stronger — and he promises it “won’t stop at the letter”. That says something about his character. Let’s move on.
The HRC addressed the issue back in April (scroll down) indicating that Uganda would move forward with the legislation. I cannot find anything after that and nothing that addresses their public opposition of it.
http://www.hrc.org/issues/hate_crimes/12454.htm
Very wise words – thanks Eddy.
I’m in. Unify this voice while we can.
Ann, Thanks for finding that. I will reference it when I call and email the HRC later today. I have already left messages this morning, but this reference will show that they have already reported on it and that they do take stands on international matters. Now, the HRC should take action, at least in the ways Eddy has suggested.
I vote for the latter as well
Michael,
I don’t think anyone or any organization should do anything they are not in favor of, however, it just seems this is something that they would be interested in. They are well connected and financially fortified and those two things can make a big difference in promoting awareness of what is happening now in Uganda.
I thought of some positives about this law. Our communication has improved. We are standing for human values. We have some common ground, after all.
We seem to agree that between consenting adults, homosexuality should not be criminalized. We seem to agree that people should not be required to turn in children, friends or neighbors who might be gay. We seem to agree that this would hurt us all. Gays or suspected gays in Uganda would be the targets of witch-hunts and blackmail.
Human rights would be violated. Organizations that want to help gays could not do their work. We are saying “no”. Gay, ex-gay, ex-gay, straight, bi, clergy, laiety, believers and doubters. NO.
It united unusual enemies in the true spririt of the Golden Rule.
Oops. Darn eyesight! I meant to type: Gay, ex-gay, ex-ex-gay, straight, bi, clergy, laiety, believers and doubters — and usual enemies. Although, I guess we are a but unusual, too.
I just spoke with Ty Cobb with HRC. He explained that HRC is a founding member and strong supporter of the Council for Global Equality.
http://www.globalequality.org/
It looks like a statement of opposition to the Uganda Law is their lead story:
Mr. Coob clariified for me (as their receptionist suggested to me this morning) that HRC does indeed tend to focus on the more domestic issues — while they work with CGE to tackle the larger, international ones.
My conversation with Mr. Cobb made it clear to me that HRC is definitely opposed to this bill.
I also sent him information on the Facebook group.
Realism tells me that this ‘kum ba ya’ will pass. It’s fine to enjoy it while it lasts but don’t be deceived. The rancor, especially that of the gays against the ex-gays, is barely concealed. The kum ba ya might last until some resolution occurs re the bill but, once the need (that of the gays for the conservative Christians) is gone, the kum ba ya will be forgotten. (Much like the kum ba ya that occurred here on the blogsite a few months back.)
Eddy said:
I think we would agree that it works both ways — not just gays towards ex-gays. No side is blameless. I really don’t think we (gays) have any real issue with ex-gays — just some of the dumb things they do and say.
I will try to tone down my own negativity towards Exodus and ex-gays — and will encourage others to do the same. I know, Eddy. I have sung kum-ba-ya before and then quickly turned sour.
But, I think I am maturing and Exodus has done much lately to calm the waters. Regardless of what some of its critics are saying, I will always be grateful for what Exodus is doing now. There is no need for the rancor if we stay focussed on what we have in common — a God who loves us and a Golden Rule to guide us.
I admit it, eddy I forgot. Maybe this will teach me a lesson. I need to pray — and listen to that song over and over until I get it
I wonder if there is a karaoke version?
I have been thinking about it. I seem to have problems minding my kum-ba-yah manners with only a small handful of ex-gays — not ex-gays in general. I am sure that is my own fault. It’s most likely a personality conflict of some sort. Other gays may have a general disdain for ex-gays. I do not.
I don’t even have a big problem with Exodus. I don’t agree with their theology on homosexuality. I get really frustrated that they aren’t more cautious about their afilliations and that they seem slow to speak up at times.
But so long as they are spreading the primary message that God loves gay people, I can deal with the differences.
Here is the link to organizations that are part of the Council For Global Equality — of which HRC is an founding member. The Council is clearly opposed to the bill:
http://www.globalequality.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=101
I know it’s the way of things to say ‘oh it works both ways’…’it goes both ways’…but I made my statement fully aware of that and I chose to emphasize that the rancor is more demonstrated by gays towards ex-gays. I did this because I firmly believe it. This site demonstrates it on an almost daily basis.
Yes, there is often tension from both sides but the full-spirited rancor…slurs, insinuations, allegations, questioning of timing, questioning of motives, sarcasm and snarkiness, suspicion…that is the primary domain of the gays against the ex-gays and/or conservatives. I’ll admit that I have my snarky moments but they are reserved for a few individuals with whom I’ve had some very extensive and often frustrating dialogues. The rancor I refer to is more the rancor that gets hurled at someone like Ann. Without even knowing the person–or their heart–there is pre-judgement based on the perception of ‘conservative’. I do not see a counterpart to that. I do not see conservatives or ex-gays verbally browbeating some new blogger simply because they identify as gay. ….So, in this instance, I don’t think it’s a two way street–and if it is, the one side of the street gets a significantly greater traffic flow.
Eddy: If you are saying that, as a rule, the gays here have been harder on the ex-gays than the reverse, I would say that is accurate. You guys have, in general, demonstrated better manners. As for the gays, I have been the worst offender, I fear.
For example, I unfairly unloaded on Ann before I met her in person. I pre-judged and dismised her. I asked for and received her forgiveness. I swear I will try harder to show the same respect that bloggers here have typically shown to me.
The personal tension between you and me is likely to emerge from time-to-time — especially on issues where we are equally passionate. I am really trying to contain it. For some reason, I take what you say very personally…:)
Why do you suppose that is? Is this an innate part of being gay or is it a learned response? Why would gays have such “full-spirited rancor”?
Thanks Michael – I am glad they are involved on some level in the opposition of what is happening in Uganda.
Here’s a list of the other “Organizational Members” of the Council: Amnesty International – USA, Anti-Defamation League, Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute, Global Rights, Heartland Alliance, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First, Immigration Equality, International Gay and Lesbian, Human Rights Commission, Metropolitan Community Churches, National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Out & Equal.
I agree with Eddy. Uganda probably won’t listen to gay rights groups like HRC — but I am glad they oppose the Bill. The Christian response has the best hope of success.
Mob justice is a problem in Uganda. If this passes, will gays be next?
http://newvision.co.ug/D/9/183/583134/mob%20justice
Well, it wasn’t my term. I guess I should have put that paragraph in a block quote, but it wasn’t my description of the report.
Michael did NOT say this…but before someone else makes an absurd statement…’mob justice’ is not a Christian thing. You won’t find it in the Bible (except where Jesus confronted a mob…and they weren’t Christians.)
And you don’t find it in our Christian cultural history. You do find groups (like the KKK) who try to justify their insanity by appealing to Christian tenets but calling them truly Christian (followers of Christ or born again) is a considerable stretch.
Yes, Uganda is very unlike America. It’s been my chief caution all along. Rules of behavior that we take for granted are more or less foreign to them. I’ve no doubt that ‘mob rule’ and ‘mob action’ are distinct possibilities there. This, too, needs to be addressed. Murder, here in America, was overlooked, was called something else when the KKK was behind it. Laws existed that should have protected those whose lives were taken or threatened…but corruption within the legal system prevented just penalty from being imposed on the mob. To have the impact we all want to have, we have to step outside of our American/democratic mindset and really attempt to understand this culture. Putting our faith in fine-sounding, articulate and reasonable rhetoric will not be enough…it wasn’t enough to thwart the KKK.
FWIW, I just want to point out that the term used in that report was “exporting sexuality issues,” not sexuality.
You know, it wasn’t all that long ago, historically speaking, that vigilantism was a common thing in the good old USA. And not just in a racist sense. My dad was reminding me only recently how much like the Wild West our mountain region of Central Virginia was when he was growing up. It was not uncommon for people to confess to old murders on their deathbeds or even commit suicide because of their guilt burdens. I’ve heard him tell unbelievable stories, some of them legendary around here. And those crimes also included incest and sexual abuse, I am sad to say.
Human nature can be most ugly. When crimes are fueled by a gross misuse of Christianity, as Eddy points out, they are even more heinous.
Concerning the exportation of sexuality issues. Perhaps you should see my post under this Throckmorton blog post.
That’s all most interesting. Also interesting is this note after the Wikipedia entry for Howard Ahmansan:
I don’t take Wiki entries as any kind of gospel, but the one on Ahmansan is fairly detailed.
Ahmansan (his identity apparently checked out as it was at first assumed the postings were phony) reportedly left this comment on an Orange County Weekly blog called Navel Gazing:
Ahmansan has also made this comment on the blog prior to that one:
There is an intricate web, I’m sure, woven throughout Christo-politics, whether of the conservative or liberal variety. I think most of us probably don’t even want to know everything as it might cause us to retch and tempt us to withdraw into a cave. Are there some who could probably own the title of Dominionist? I’m sure there are. Are there others mistaken for them? I’m sure of that, as well.
Man surely knows how to muck up the Gospel and play into the Enemy’s hands.
Debbie…. I have no doubt that Ahmanson more or less means what he says. But I think his public statements likely belies a private demeanor unlike the tolerance that someone like Alan Chambers has espoused. Why else would Ahmanson’s employee, Don Schmierer, be in agreement with Lively’s Pink Swastika?
However, I think they’ve gotten in over their head and it is not just Schmierer/Exodus, Lively, and Brundidge/Cohen who are to blame. But it is Exodus who has taken the brunt of the blame, perhaps even not rightly so. They are the cushion for the likes of Ahmanson whose dabbling in African and ECUSA/AfricanAnglican religious issues have helped to lead up to this ‘fiasco’ by the Brundidge/Lively/Schmierer triumvirate. Money and self-righteousness often make for rather bad bed-fellows even if you think you are following a good book.
Just wanted to make it clear that I have never suggested that we ought not to try to understand Ugandan culture — just that “compromise” (for example “lighter sentences” for being gay or for not turning them in) was too morally objectionable to consider. Along with Psychology, Cultural Anthropology is one of my main fields of study. I am certainly not against knowledge.
On the contrary, we need to learn as much as we can if we hope to have an impact. I have been doing a lot of research on Uganda’s history, politics, religion, economy, culture and its many social and human rights problems since this whole issue came up. Many Facebook members regularly post such information and the internet is a very rich source.
The more I have learned, the more I am convinced that this law would have a terrible effect on that culture — especially when one considers that the sentences would surely include some mob justice to carry them out. Understanding a culture does not preclude taking a stand. In fact, I think it provides a firmer foundation for taking one.
Lynn David’s comment reminded me of this quote on the evils sometimes done in the name of religion:
Money, sadly, has papered many a slippery slope. How easily we forget that all is God’s and that we can firmly trust in His providence over our own abilities or schemes, no matter what our limited vision shows us. The ends do not justify the means. Sadly, some people caught in this lie truly believe they are doing the right thing — that they are God’s providential tools and that He will make it all come out right.
I find it trite and offensive that Exodus even post an open letter regarding this distaster; considering that they played a huge part in the intial cause of this whole mess. Exodus is just like a child who has manipulated his little brother into stealing something out of a store, only to tell police later that he was just joking.
Perhaps Exodus should stop and think about the affects it has on people…and now, foreign legislation, before it acts.