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, Uganda
Dear 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 homosexual
Randy Thomas
Executive Vice President, Exodus International, Orlando, Florida
Former homosexual
Christopher Yuan
Adjunct Instructor, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois
HIV Survivor
AIDS Activist
Former homosexual
Warren 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!
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.
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.
Lynn David’s comment reminded me of this quote on the evils sometimes done in the name of religion:
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.
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.
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.
Concerning the exportation of sexuality issues. Perhaps you should see my post under this Throckmorton blog post.
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.
FWIW, I just want to point out that the term used in that report was “exporting sexuality issues,” not sexuality.
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.
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.
Mob justice is a problem in Uganda. If this passes, will gays be next?
http://newvision.co.ug/D/9/183/583134/mob%20justice
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.
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.
Thanks Michael – I am glad they are involved on some level in the opposition of what is happening in Uganda.
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”?
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…:)
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.
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 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. 🙂
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?
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.)
I also sent him information on the Facebook group.
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.
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 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.
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 vote for the latter as well 🙂
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’m in. Unify this voice while we can.
Very wise words – thanks Eddy.
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
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.
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.
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?
I agree. Eddy’s observation is well taken — and his suggestions about encouraging their members to take action are very wise.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Thank you Michael – I appreciate your efforts very much.
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.
They stepped up – the HRC, who publically says they are campaigning for human rights, particularly the rights of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and trangendered has yet to. To say it is because they are an American organization is what is SAD.
Perhaps they should change their name if they are not going to back up what it stands for – HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN.
Eddy,
I don’t remember Exodus stepping up as an organization until NOW to make a statement. Pretty darn sad.
Jayhuck,
Thanks for the link, however, I am addressing the Human Rights Organization who works primarily to ensure and champion lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgendered rights. They are financially fortified to really sopeak out in many ways on Uganda. Does the fact that they are an American organization preclude them from publicly opposing what is happening in Uganda or absolve them from not addressing this very importand issue? I just don’t see where being an American organization makes a difference when human rights are concerned. If this is their excuse to ignore their gay brothers and sisters in Uganda, then it is a very sorry one indeed. Perhaps Barak Obama, who is their friend can address this with them. He has African ties, professes to be a Christian and sure seems, at least in public, to promote gay rights. How come the silence from him and the HRC? Perhaps
Ann, I found the issues section you mentioned for HRC: http://www.hrc.org/issues/int_rights_immigration.asp
I will call right now and ask them why this international issue has not prompted any comment by them. I don’t get it.
What’s ‘the Uganda mess’? If the blogger means the anti-homosexuality bill then the answer to ‘how many months has it been’ would be 1…perhaps a skooch over or under. The answer to ‘how long did it take them to finally say something?” would be ‘days’. There’s one statement from Alan Medinger that goes back to April; there’s a statement from Randy Thomas that was within a few days of the bill’s introduction.
Ann, I am sure you realize that Exodus was being called on the carpet because of the ill-advised trip to Uganda by one of its board memebrs to speak alongside folks like Lively. They contributed to the mess. HRC did not.
If Exodus had played no role in the Ugandan situation, I doubt that many people would have been particularly upset that Exodus had not spoken out against it. I certainly would not have been hounding them to do something.
But they did play a role and now they are making it right. They had (have) a larger moral responsibility because of their involvement. Now, they are making it right. My Mom used to have a sign in our kitchen that read, “If you mess it up, you clean it up.” HRC didn’t mess it up. But I still think they should strongly denounce this bill, as Exodus has done. Every organization that claims to care about gays should do it.
Jayhuck,
Under their “issues” section, there is a section for international rights. It seems this might be a good place to post their opposition or thoughts on what is happening to their gay brothers and sisters in Uganda.
Ann,
Sorry, meant to include this above….I agree that the HRC SHOULD say something though 🙂
Ann,
The HRC is a United States political organization – Exodus played a role in the Uganda mess, the HRC did not, and then remained silent for, wow, how many months has it been? How long did it take them to finally say something? Its been pretty unsettling.
For international gay and lesbian issues, I can point you to an organization that does address them, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission:
IGLHRC
Absolutely Michael. The problem here is primarily with Exodus
As I said, I believe every Christian organization is a human rights organization — that is if it is preaching and living the Golden Rule.
I just callled them again. The woman who answered the phone stated that it was her understanding that HRC restricts its work on concerns within the USA only, but she said she was not sure that was the reason they had not spoken out.
She referred me to one of their political workers and I left a message on his machine asking him to make an exception — if it was indeed their policy to focus on USA issues only.
I also posted on their Facebook page, asking them to join the Facebook group. I will keep on it. Perhaps others could fo the same.
Michael,
I always appreciate your responses and know you are fair. Thank you for all your efforts. It would be interesting to know what Jayhuck, Wayne Besen, the writers at ex-gaywatch, and box turtle think about it. Unless I have missed something, which is very possible, I haven’t heard them address it.
I am on it, Ann. I have called and written to HRC several times. No response. To its credit, HRC didn’t play a role in the Uganda mess, but they, unlike Exodus, have not spoken out. Exodus is in the lead morally on this one..
and The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is a well known human rights organization working mainly for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender rights and throughout this awareness of what is happening in Uganda, unless I am missing something, they have yet to post anything on their web site. There is a post of the condemnation of the slaying of a gay teenager in Puerto Rico, yet nothing about Uganda. This is a financially fortified organization that had Barak Obama as a guest speaker recently, promising his support of them and and their efforts to advance gay rights. When Exodus is being labeled as a day late and dollar short in this endeavor, why isn’t the HRC being called out for not saying anything on their site?
@ Lynn David,
People put their money behind their beliefs. People ask for money from those who share common beliefs.
Your term “exporting,” is absurd.
You may be trying to access feelings and perceptions we all have which are negative about Western Imperialism.
If so, it deserved prompt confrontation.
Human beings are fully capable, without outside interference, of promoting sexual control or sexual freedom.
There are enigmatic cultural elements at work in Uganda and in other African countries. I feel as if I need to take a whole course in African history to really begin to grasp enough of what is going on over there.
I posted an article link to the Facebook group the other day about a corruption perception report that examined 180 nations. Uganda and other African nations placed very low on the confidence scale. Remember a few years back when some Nigerian scam or another kept going around? That was a running joke for a while.
Of course what is happening in much of sub-Saharan Africa is not in the least funny. It is sad beyond comprehension. I sometimes get the impression that they can’t make up their minds just how much and what kinds of help they want and need from us or other countries. And I did think out loud the other day, as well, that maybe the “gay problem” is some kind of tangible scapegoat for them to focus on.
Who knows?
David Blakeslee’s abortive attempt at humor by misrepresenting an adjective as a noun aside, I agree that this report is rather a one-sided attempt to demonize some of what has gone on. And I agree with most of what Debbie had to say. I just felt it was time to rattle the bars so to speak.
.
However, I think the acrimony someone such as Rev. Kapya Kaoma feels to those he sees getting funded via American churches (some with American government money – such as PEPFAR) is real. There may be a kernal of truth to what he sees as happening in Africa. It would seem that our own government might be to blame for some of what is ultimately going on in Uganda or greater Africa when government moneys are handled/distributed by American churches.
.
Was it American government money which helped to elevate Pentacostals like Ssempa over that of the Anglican and Catholic mainline denominations in their own countries? It seems envy is something that has even driven Ssempa. One writer from Uganda as said that his attempted outing of a pastor this summer was because that pastor’s church was more successful than Ssempa’s own.
Seriously, it has been a remarkable week or so. Still stunned and happy that so many people from such divergent points of view have spoken out with one voice on this one. God does work in mysterious ways His wonders to perform…Swords to plowshares. Let’s get to work.
HEY……That’s MY line 😉 🙂
And now, another last thought…
(Only kidding. Backing out…) 🙂
One last thought…
We can only waste time guessing. Best way to get direct answers to those questions? Call Alan. I think you know how to get in touch with him.
@ Eddy:
These are all interesting and valid questions. I don’t know the answers. Yes, it is my understanding, from talking with Warren and others, that “Exodus actually had ‘wise counsel’ that they received ahead of time and that they chose to ignore.” Maybe they didn’t really “get it” until now. Who knows? Only Alan could answer that. I am just gald he seems to “get it” now.
I wasn’t involved in the “warnings”. Warren claims he warned them and I choose to believe him. Warren would have more information than I do about these conversations — if he chooses to address your questions at this time. That is entirely up to him and anyone else who wants to discuss this with you. I am backing out.
IWNBWE.
Eddy, I can do nothing to “disallow” any discussion on this site or any other. It is not my site. I have no power here, except the power to express my own opinion — just as you do.
You are right, you are “connected to a predominately thoughtful group right here.” I have no objection to any them discussing your concerns with you — here or anywhere else. I choose not to.
Michael….
I didn’t say you used the phrase “move elsewhere” (if I had used your actual words, I would have put them in quotes)…your words were “Go explore them.” That was followed by more of your rationale for not discussing them here and now. Under those circumstances, I believe my interpretation of ‘move elsewhere’, if mistaken, is quite understandable.
You don’t think it’s useful. I think it is. No need to nitpick through nuances. I’ve provided my reasoning for why I think it’s useful. So far, the only reasoning you’re provided for your stance is the time pressure…perhaps we can look at these another day but, for now, time’s a wasting. (my paraphrase) But that comes across as meaningless and insincere when you’ll take the time to compose several posts re not discussing them. (If we were discussing them rather than discussing whether we should discuss them, we might actually be almost done with the discussion.)
More simply, I don’t see that David has a particularly strong anti-Exodus agenda; I certainly don’t. Even you are in a somewhat charitable mood. The climate seems very favorable for reasonably unbiased discussion of a problem that had consequences so that we could avoid such a problem in the future.
Was it timing? Was it the way in which the warnings were delivered? Was it who they were delivered to? Was it that the warnings were only re Lively’s character and questionable statements and not directed towards the conference at all? You continue to infer that Exodus actually had ‘wise counsel’ that they received ahead of time and that they chose to ignore. In your first post re this, you mentioned that they received that from ‘Warren and others’. As I’ve admitted, I’ve only been able to find discussion after the fact…Monday Morning Quarterback analysis. I’m most curious about the actual ‘warnings’.
You and I clearly hold to opposing opinions re the merits of such discussion. I wish to discuss them; you do not. Since you clearly do not see any value or purpose in such discussion–and since no one person dominates this site–I believe it would be reasonable to allow persons interested in such discussion to do so without further objection.
I believe the discussion to be topical and tangent to the thread. The lateness of the Exodus response is actually referred to in the lead commentary; the involvement of an Exodus board member in the conference is addressed in a comment by Alan Chambers himself…Alan is one of the co-authors of the open letter. These facts indicate that such discussion would not in any way approach the threshhold of detours that we have historically allowed on this site.
Hateful Stereotypes:
Rev. Kapya Kaoma seems to be engaging in them toward conservative evangelicals.
My experience with mission boards (and my family members are conservative evangelical missionaries) is that they have always been deeply concerned and equally financially invested in health, education, water supply and food issues.
Kaoma is spreading hateful stereotypes about conservative evangelicals…
It is a red herring and an indicator of liberal talking points, to characterize conservative evangelicals this way. It cannot be fit the facts.
I didn’t say “move elsewhere”. I pointed out that it IS being discussed here — and elsewhere. And, I am not saying the topic is “off limits”. It’s not my blog. I am usually the guy focussing on what Exodus does wrong, now I am just trying to focus my efforts on something else for a change. Discuss whatever you please. Unlike Uganda, it’s a free country.
oops, I don’t know why this was blockquoted.
Regarding Mainline Evangelical Denominations
David – I agree and that is why I have not done anything with this report. It overreaches to the same degree NARTH overreaches with its “reports.”
@ Lynn David,
Exporting sexuality?
Who creates such absurd phrases…
Are you suggesting that Africa had no sexuality of their own before Christians imported it!?
Africa is where humanity was born…they exported sexuality!
The political phrases in this debate are getting goofier.
Imperialist Christians Exporting Sexuality…geez.
I don’t see any reason to move elsewhere (Box Turtle, Ex-Gay Watch, the Facebook group) for enlightened discussion when I’m connected to a predominately thoughtful group right here.
You say the discussions are going on there…and I wonder why that needs to be to the exclusion of here.
I’m usually the one branded as the stalwart Exodus supporter but I believe that support goes far, far beyond a few rah, rahs. On a football team, they don’t wait til the game is over to explore and address what broke down. Neither do they look at the break down as a total negative…it’s a chance to learn…a chance to grow. And the learning is quicker and clearer when the memory is fresh and the application/connection is most apparent. I like to look at problems when they are presented…and, if I’m not mistaken, it was you who introduced them into this particular thread on Nov. 17 at 7:11 PM.
If it wasn’t the time to talk about them, why then did you bring them up? Do we introduce notions into our conversations here that are off limits for further discussion or dissection?
Perhaps, in the future, if you deem something to be unworthy of discussion here on the blog, it might be best not to go there yourself.
Eddy, they are being explored — here, on Box Turtle Bulletin, Exgay Watch, the Facebook group and many other on-line journals and blogs. Go explore them. I do. I spend several hours each day exploring these issues. There is much good discussion going on by many people who clearly oppose this bill — including Exodus.
I just don’t think it’s particularly useful at this point to belabor what Exodus knew, when they knew it — or why they didn’t listen to wise counsel. Only Exodus knows that. Instead, I am choosing to focus on the good that Exodus is finally doing rather than on what they could or should have done earlier.
Who said that? If a Christian organization is not also a human rights organization, then in my mind, it’s not really a Christian organization at all.
I read that interview, Lynn. Most interesting. It does provide more context for the situation in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa.
That said, I do have some concerns with it. The evangelical African who is doing the talking, while entitled to call it as he sees it, nonetheless sees it through a progressive lens. And evangelicalism is owned by neither right nor left. The culture war has the two ideological sides fighting each other, unfortunately. It is evident that this rift has extended to Africa in a so-called proxy war. Back here, we have been slow to grasp that.
Listen to some of this man’s talking points:
That’s a low blow, and a common mantra of those seeking to disparage conservative evangelicals. It’s simply not true.
This one’s interesting. Is he implying there really is a problem with too much pro-gay sentiment or an excessive gay-rights push here in the U.S.?
Don’t those evil, mean-spirited, always-lining-their-pockets (at the expense of the downtrodden and disenfranchised) conservatives just turn your stomach? Please.
There you go again. “We” get to explain what the right stands for, but God forbid they should get to do the same with regard to the left.
Now, none of this excuses any truly shameful and shady backroom dealing going on in Uganda, and certainly does not in any way excuse folks like Scott Lively passing themselves off as representative of evangelicalism.
Exodus is…
A day late and a dollar short AGAIN – but I’m glad they’ve finally done this!
I at once found this quote both amusing and disturbing!
The report dealt with in the interview:
http://www.publiceye.org/ark/africa-report/pdf/africa-full-report.pdf
Possibly a reason why such a letter will not gain a sympathetic ear in Uganda?
.
A new report documents the trend of evangelicals like Rick Warren exporting sexuality issues to Africa, whose clergy, in turn, support the minority antigay view in mainline denominations, weakening them. The author of the report, Rev. Kapya Kaoma, speaks with RD at length about what he found.
.
Read the interview here.
Things don’t have to ‘make a difference’…at least not one that is immediate. When circumstances bring situations to light that some of us find to be sources of potential illumination, why is there such a resistance to exploring them? I have found that I learn best when there is a concrete and immediate situation rather than a hypothetical. I realize that’s not where everybody finds their best classroom but given that classroom attendance and participation is not mandatory, I fail to understand why some bloggers criticize the legitimacy of others to explore rather than simply opting not to participate in a part of the dialogue they aren’t interested in.
What difference does it make now? They were warned. They screwed up. I think they know it. They are trying, in their own way, to make it right. They promise to do more. Let’s give them a chance to prove it.
@ Lynn David,
My recollection is that he posted on the planned trip.
When he did so, I made allusion to Lively’s controversial views…
At that point he began looking into them as a topic of concern.
Could you let me know when you believe he first became aware of them?
I’m absolutely sure that Warren did know at the time; he has blogged about it. That was addressed towards Alan Chambers.
I’ve got to quit changing my mind on the fly in the middle of sentences….
Sometimes, zeal impairs judgement. Sometimes, listening to your critics is the wisest course.
@ Lynn David,
I am not sure that Warren knew the details of Lively’s views until he explored them as a part of understanding the concerns of BTB.
He appears well versed in them now…
Damn! Something else to work on with my therapist. 🙂 Focus, Mike. focus…
Note to those who might suggest that the efforts to stop this bill will not work — or that it would have worked sooner or better if we had only taken their sage advice:
PS: Yes, I recoginize the “naysayer gene” in me as well — and that annoys me too. I am working on it in therapy…
BTW: The Facebook group now numbers almost 5,000. Some might try to spin that or diminish its significance, but it won’t be me. 🙂 Thanks to all who took part in the Uganda World Prayer Day and blessings to the 5,000 on FB, and to everyone who opposes this law — whatever their reasons might be — as we move ahead.
Reading the World article on the letter has left me with the feeling that the main purpose of Exodus is using this as simply a publicity stunt among Christians here in the US, as there was no mention in the World article of Exodus board member Schmierer’s part in this throwing gas on the fire of Uganda’s home-grown homophobia. And Alan Chambers then says:
Please… it was blogged about here, at Box Turtle Bulletin, and at Ex-Gay Watch and other places about how ill-conceived this this conference was for two reasons. And Timothy Kincaid of BTB has written that he even wrote to you about how ill-conceived Schmierer’s involvement was. If Schmierer didn’t know it was simply because you didn’t convey any concern to him.
But the conference was deemed ill-conceived even before it occured, first due to the entrenched homophobia and pogrom like outing of gays in newspapers of Uganda in the past (and Langa’s part in some of that). Second was the the very idea of an Exodus board member being on a ‘team’ with Scott Lively. But you were “convinced that his [Lively’s] intentions were honorable there only after reading the World article?” So you agreed with Lively’s bile that he has spewed out in eastern Europe and with the Watchmen on the Walls? You agreed with his lies concerning the Nazis? All I can say is that being Christian must really cloud your eyes to truth when another comes along with a Christian ministry; you certainly are a poor judge of character.
…
Excuse me, but WHAT????
.
You don’t think that you are just made the same naive assumption that Don Schmierer did?
Thanks Michael for not bickering.
But it’s interesting that although we couldn’t be distracted from the ‘so much to do’ urgency of the hour to even look at the warnings Exodus didn’t heed, we had the time to post 4 times with comments that were in response to my post.
That’s not stirring, David. Point well taken. I think it describes “ex-gay” very well.
“A personal struggle against unwanted homosexual attractions, once living as gay individuals, a new identity in Jesus Christ and living lives that reflect the teaching of the Christian faith.”
The only think I would add is “living lives that refect their understanding of
the Christian faith”. Genuine Christians can and do differ on this issue.
Oops,
….by ex-gay.
To stir the pot…this is what is meant my ex-gay.
I think that Exodus, in spite of whatever warnings were given, might not have really understood the gravity and urgency of the situation until now. Maybe being pressured did evoke some resistance and slowed them down. Who knows?
I am just glad they finally did. My sincere “thanks” to Alan and all of Exodus for speaking up, for sending the letter, for blogging, for posting here, for putting it on their website, for issuing a press release, for joining in the day of prayer and for promising that they will do more.
Inspires me to want to do more, too. 🙂 Now, here’s a message from our sponsor. Thanks, Warren. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=198541255168&ref=mf
If Warren feels so led, perhaps he can tell us when and how he warned them. At this point, I believe him when he says that he (and others) did.
Warren (and others) also expressed frustration that Exodus had not spoken out clearly and sooner against this bill — but he is now pleased, as I am, that Exouds, “albeit late” (Alan’s words), finally has. And Exodus is to be commended for it.
Hardly. It’s day of prayer, not dancing. The Bible says there is a “time to dance”, but this definitely ain’t it.
I will not bicker with Eddy.
I checked again and it appears the conference occurred around March 3-5…so warnings would have needed to precede that. Haven’t been able to find them but the tone of both responses to my inquiry suggests that we don’t have time for the truth or for learning at the moment. Busy with our victory dance.
How very dismissive!!!! This comes from the same blogger who took the time every time I suggested discussion of compromise to dismiss discussion of a compromised position…some of the very compromises that are now considered and addressed in the Exodus letter. Perhaps their letter could have come earlier if they had had the benefit of our reasoned discussions as well. Silly me. I didn’t want to go to Exodus with a ‘Do something, dammit’ but with a ‘here’s an approach that might be productive’ and I thought I had access to a thoughtful and caring group of people who could help formulate such an approach.
Me too. At a less urgent time, we can always revisit that. Perhaps we could all look back for ideas on what not to do the next time something like this comes up — God forbid. In the meantime, there is much to do and fault-finding isn’t top priority.
Yes, there were warnings at the very beginning. I believe those inclined can go back to the March posts on Uganda to find them.
For now, I rather am quite glad for what is happening now.
In any event, ”who did or should have known what and when” is a distraction from the important task at hand. Something rare is happening.
Nearly 5,000 Facebook members. Hundreds united in prayer today, speaking up and taking action. Ususal “enemies” are united on this issue: the bill must be defeated in its entirety — and Exodus agrees. This is urgent. We can always find fault with each other later.
I believe you advised against it, right Warren?
I’m having trouble finding anything re the climate ‘on the ground’ or warnings to Exodus or Don prior to the conference. Admittedly, I’m not one of the best web or site searchers. I totally agree that they should have smelled something rotten in Lively but it’s this more specific allegation that I’m curious about.
Who warned and what was their warning? (I’m a strong believer in learning from the mistakes of the past; perhaps in examining these warnings we can learn how to deliver more effective warnings in the future.)
As would be expected, there have been criticisms these recent statements from Exodus are not enough, too late, slanted towards there own self-interest, insincere, etc. One could make that argument.
Even Alan admits it may be “abeit late”. He seems to reget that somewhat. It also sounds like he may have other regrets about this situation — in which Exodus played a role.
Also, many folks believe that if Exodus did not know what Scott Lively stood for — or how what was going on “on the ground” — that they were warned and should have known. They should have been better informed and much more careful. Warren and others warned them.
But “woulda, coulda, shoulda” is not going to help now. It’s time now. Time to pray and write and speak. Time to focus. Exodus has expressed it strong oppostion to this bill and I believe them. Let’s move on.
(Wow, Defending Exodus. Doesn’t that sound weird coming from me?)
Alan, I salute you and Exodus for taking this stand. Thank you, brother.
Just to be even clearer….
Our position at Exodus is that we hate this bill. I hate that one of our board members was involved in the initial conference that lent credibility to this. I remain absolutely sure that Don Schmierer had no idea what all of this was about until on the ground there and that his desire in speaking was to teach what he always teaches about giving grace to those in need.
Until I read the horrible comment Scott Lively made in World Magazine today about homosexuality needing to criminalized I was convinced that his intentions were also honorable there.
The truth is I don’t believe homosexuality should be criminalized. I don’t think therapy should be mandated, I am opposed to the death penalty in general not just where homosexuality is concerned.
I didn’t try to carefully word this letter. It was a joint effort and a genuine, albeit late, response to what is happening in Uganda. I wish I’d spoken publicly sooner and I wish Exodus’ name wasn’t associated with anything that could be construed as support for an evil bill and position against people whom Christ loves and died for. Hopefully our attempt to reach the President of Uganda will help end the hysteria there. We won’t stop with this letter.
We came at all of this from the angle that we believe in and that we thought would bridge the gap between the very conservative Ugandan government and the mostly liberal folks crying out for mercy. As a conservative organization, Exodus speaking in concert with gay activist decrying this law will hopefully carry weight.
Consider this quote from the Exodus’ letter:
Sorry for the multiple posts today, but I wanted to speak up in defense of Exodus for taking a stand. I am usually in critic mode… 🙂 Will try to lay off posting today. Time for prayer.
Cynic or believer? Today, I choose believer.
I would like to point out that Alan Chambers and Exodus are endorsing and participating in today’s Uganda World Pray Day, specifically:
Their hearts are in the right place on this. #2, especially, sounds pretty humanitarian to me.
Amen.
Makes sense to me.
I’m so sorry – I understand now – thank you for your patience in pointing that important fact out.
No tomatoes, just a reminder that the letter was addressed to a professing Christian.
At the risk of sounding petty and having tomatoes thrown through the computer – what if an individual does not understand Christianspeak or has (yet – hopefully) a Christian view of the world – will they understand the message? I think Jesus spoke to people in parables so they could understand, not Christianspeak, did he?
To that, I add a hearty “Amen!”
Exodus does oppose the bill on humanitarian grounds when they say: “and extend the compassion of Christ to all.”
The “to all” includes all people. In Christianspeak and within a Christian view of the world, this is the most humanitarian sentiment – Christ loves and died for all of humanity, thus anything that interferes with this message is to be opposed.
For heaven’s sake, the Exodus letter is hitting on all the necessary cylinders from a Christian perspective. Exodus is a Christian organization, not a human rights one. I’d have had no problem putting my name to that letter. It is petty to second-guess every little intention of the thing when the thing is inherently good. Those are concerns best kept to oneself.
Today is a worldwide day of prayer for Uganda and against this bill. It is my hope that all who acknowledge God and understand ALL the reasons why this bill should be opposed would pray fervently, and that others would at least not hinder the spirit in which we pray.
Well, that’s more between Warren and myself than you and me.
I suppose Exodus oppposes the bill, Michael, I just do not think they made it clear why it should be opposed. I said before on this blog that “the sanctimonious and self-righteous always get a free ride in such a culture.” I firmly believe that. Museveni told a group of school children over the weekend, “I hear European homosexuals are recruiting in Africa.” The mindset of the Ugandans is not going to change. They see nothing wrong in what they are doing with this bill. In their Christian or Muslim zeal they will make allowances for ministries to get around the only real complaint made by Exodus. That this bill hinders them from de-homosexualizing people.
I think they made it clear why they oppose it. Maybe not the best reason why, but at least they do. Sadly, I tend to doubt that it will sway Uganda, or that any of our reasons will.
Over 4,500 people on Facebook oppose it. I am sure they all have their reasons — political, economic, human rights, personal, religious… If Exodus had opposed this law for the same reasons I do, they would not be Exodus. They would be “gay activists” — like me. And if I opposed it for their reasons, I would still be part of Exodus, not one of their main critics. 🙂
I think we are thinking past each other. Would I have liked to have seen Exodus denounce the law on humanitarian or civil rights grounds? Sure. I am just glad they oppose it, that’s all.
You didn’t care why they opposed the bill, which opposition did not include human rights for gays, but while I know you do care about that, you did not care…. ok… my bad.
Well, yeah, nuances…. I guess I should have recognized that. Sorry, my bad.
My apologies.
No, I guess not. I am convinced that Warren would not have signed the letter if he was not convinced that Exodus opposed it. As for Warren — he has openly opposed the bill on many levels — including the civil rights issue.
I don’t think Warren’s signature indicates that he believes that Exodus’ objections to the law are the only or best reasons, but that the signers of the letter agree it would make church mission more difficult — and for them, for where they are coming from, it’s a good reason.
NO, I said I didn’t care why they opposed the bill.
Michael… I wrote that you said (otherwise meaning, you wrote) that statement but did not endorse it. I thought that was a fair assessment of your position. But I was endorsing it. And you said you didn’t care that Exodus didn’t write “civil rights” into their letter. I simply said I did care that it wasn’t in the letter, especially when I saw Dr T’s name appended to it.
So are we square, or am I missing something other meaning? Which would be a meaning I didn’t mean, but I understand not getting the sentiment right….
Let me put it this way….
I’ve gotten used to Dr Warren Throckmorton being a straight shooter. And I was surprised to see your name on that letter, which I felt missed the mark.
Ok?
Lynn David, don’t misquote me! I did not say I didn’t care. And, I did not say,
You left out the first part of my comment. What I said was,
Some have said so. I have not said so.
I think they (Warren and the other signers) are doing it because it is the right thing to do. Yes — I think they are concerned that it would make their mission more difficult. That’s important to to them. But I also think they are doing it because it is the right thing to do — and I thank them for that.
Hear! Hear! Thanks, Warren. Your efforts are sincerely appreciated. Doesn’t matter what the motivation is, what we think of the wording — or how long it took. They oppose the bill. That’s what matters now. It’s on their website and will be wildly known. They are to be commended for that.
Well, Warren, it was just this vibe I got from it that I call Cameronesque, because I felt that you were being too ‘diplomatic’ and a little too less literal about what was wrong with the bill. I honestly don’t think they understand that distinction in Uganda. And this letter did not make that distinction either. Same-sex abuse of children is not homosexuality per se.
.
I’m not denying your good intentions here, Dr Throckmorton. I just felt the letter was …. well, it wasn’t my letter as a gay person. It was Exodus’ letter and yours as a people who wants to de-gay everyone on the planet – if you could, your god willling. It was as MIchael Bussee said but did not endorse, “Exodus is only focussing on how this law would make Exodus’s mission more difficult — not that it is both immoral and unjust — and not that it would make the live of gays more difficult.” Except after my 55 years, unlike Michael, I do care.
…
Worth the wait. Thanks Exodus for taking the time to think and pray this one through.
Lynn David – Ugandan law does penalize “defilement” of girls even if the “defiler” is under 18 as well. Life in prison is the penalty although I don’t think it has been enforced.
As to the accusation of Cameronesque, I don’t get that at all. The effort was a letter of concern, not a comprehensive analysis of the bill.
I am going to be limited in my comments about it other than to say I don’t think the intention of the letter is unclear, especially when you look at the material that preceded it on the Exodus website – they oppose it.
And for goodness sake, I have not invested multiplied hours per day to this because I am lukewarm on the matter.
You certainly chose your words well but probably didn’t make a good enough point that child abuse doesn’t have a dang thing to do with homosexuality. It seethed with pangs of Cameronesque-like intent (at least to me – did they call abuse of female children ‘aggravated heterosexuality?’). It was like you were talking down to him, because he does not have the understanding you have concerning human sexuality. The letter will probably get about as much thought as someone put it in the other facebook group:
If you are going to disapprove of the consentual adult aspects of this bill why wouldn’t you mention that law presently on the books that criminalizes adult sexual conduct? Diplomacy? So much for what should be basic human rights…..
And my thoughts about what Exodus does? I quit having such thoughts….
Some will say, indeed already have said, that Exodus is only focussing on how this law would make Exodus’s mission more difficult — not that it is both immoral and unjust — and not that it would make the live of gays more difficult.
Although that would be great, I don’t care. I doesn’t matter much to me why they oppose it, as long as they really do.
That was a well composed letter that seems to have covered many of the issues vetted out in public forum over this the last couple of weeks.
I am glad to have waited for such a thoughtful response. It is very appropriate and considerate.
By the way, being the shameless salesman that I am, I could not resist the urge to plug the FB group — of which all of the signers of this letter (and commenters so far) are members. 🙂 Come on. Join.
Kudos to you all.
Let’s all pray for Uganda. Here is information about the Uganda World Prayer Day: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=198541255168&ref=mf#/group.php?v=app_2344061033&ref=mf&gid=198541255168
And a link to the Facebook group that is promoting the day of prayer: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=198541255168&ref=mf#/group.php?v=wall&ref=mf&gid=198541255168
Hats off to Exodus for this. Well done. I hope it will help, too.