Exodus Ready to End the Culture War

In a press release yesterday, Exodus International continued to articulate their new direction. In the release, a brief comment is made about Charles Worley, the NC preacher who called for gay concentration camps.

Alan Chambers, president of the 36-year-old Exodus International said, “As usual, the spotlight is shining on the furthest extremes currently engaged in a public fight. I believe it’s time for all of us to focus on the people beyond the political debate.”

While a minority of people such as North Carolina pastor Charles Worley represent the outdated and homophobic fringe of Christianity and should not be taken seriously, excellent churches like National Community Church in Washington, D.C. are drawing approximately 200 people each week to Ebenezer’s Coffee House. These individuals gather to thoughtfully discuss how the church can better care for people with same-sex attractions (SSA), those inside and outside of the church.

In the midst of the chaos and tired culture war mentality, Exodus International continues to serve a fast growing population of the Church that is ready to end the war and reach out in compassion to people who come to them for answers.

Then, as if to say, here is the new message, the release adds:

“Exodus is here to provide support to individuals with SSA who want to be faithful in their pursuit of living out a biblical sexual ethic,” said Chambers. “We encourage parents who desire to be faithful to their values to also love their gay or lesbian child unconditionally despite having differing worldviews. Finally we are here to help churches looking for ways to reach out to people in their congregations or across the divide to people in their communities.”

A few ministries have left Exodus over this approach.

Possibly, Exodus tries to do too much with this release (e.g., address Worley’s hate, communicate an end to the culture war, and describe their new direction). On the other hand, repeating the mission of Exodus as a support group for gays who want to follow traditional evangelical teaching is necessary for it to stick, both internally and externally.

Gentle readers (and the rest of you, too); what do you think of Exodus’ message, assuming they follow through?

 

68 thoughts on “Exodus Ready to End the Culture War”

  1. Very good posting.

    @ Michael B; this is in part due to your longstanding work. Thank you for being faithful and persistent. You were a “confusing presence” early in the black and white conversation and I am grateful you hung in there with your story.

    Regarding the posting, I think this is a better and more realistic framework. It should highlight more that Biblical demands put pressures on all practicing Christians to modify their behaviors—those with SSA are being “singled out,” in my opinion…and their task is much more challenging than the heterosexual. The core compassion in the conservative church is not there for those with SSA on many fundamental issues. I think Exodus is trying to build that place. Hoping they get much better.

    Exiting the culture war, while highlighting it is a good idea.

    @ David R

    You are absolutely right, that the battle must go to people like Barton who distort history to advocate for theocratic intrusions into government. But NARTH is not just a function of “Bartonism” it is connected for Analytic Psychology. It is a multi-headed beast.

    Regarding Spitzer, Exodus can only renounce it after the author has renounced it. The data were illustrative of some people like Chambers.

    People can change…some of their sensations, many of their behaviors. Will they have a truly loving community to greet them in the choices they make?

  2. All of the following Exodus agencies seem displeased with Exodus’ new brand:

    Checking the Exodus website, missing in action are: Frank Worthen (formetly Love In Action), Dan Puumala (Outpost), Andy Comiskey (Desert Stream) and Carl Conli (HIS Ministry.) There may be others I have overlooked.

    Frank Worthen’s ministry and “OUTpost” were two of the five founding Exodus agencies in 1976. Now, there are serious disagreements about which way to steer what Chambers has called the “big ship”.

    What these mutineers seem to want: (1) A reaffirmation of “reparaive therapy” and SOCE, (2) A reallignment with NARTH and Nicolosi, (3) A retraction of Chambers’ admission that 99.9% don’t change their sexual orientation, (4) A repudiation of what Comiskey calls the “cheap grace” theology expressed by Chambers and (5) A reassignment of Chambers duties at Exodus, playing a “reduced role at best”.

    Since Chambers seems unwilling to do these things, I wonder how many more Exodus affiliates are ready to abandon ship?

  3. “Following through” would mean that Exodus would apologize publicly for misleading the public about orientation change for over 30 years .

    Bingo.  Simply changing the rhetoric without owning the deceptive past doesn’t get it.  It’s great if they want to join the rest of the rational world and jettison SOCE (if indeed they are, I have reservations), but not making amends for the damage done, the lies offered and the lives ruined is not only wrong, it’s unbiblical. 

    Alan and Exodus must put at least as much effort and energy into owning up to those lies as they did spreading them in the first place.  Until then, this is simply a cheap exercise in re-branding.  And shame on those who accept it as anything more.

  4. Norm said, “…it’s disappointing Exodus has yet to respond to Dr. Spitzer’s apology.”

    They have, sort of. In a response to National Public Radio, they thanked him for publicizing their view of the Bible:

    “To that end, researchers such as Dr. Robert Spitzer, and research findings may come and go. As one who participated in Dr. Spitzer’s study I believe that it simply highlighted the fact that we, as a society, should respect a person’s right to self determine their course of action when it comes to how they choose to live out their sexual expression. Dr. Spitzer’s study also highlighted a group of people who have chosen to believe that the bible is unchanging concerning human sexual behavior, including homosexuality. For that, we are grateful.” ~ Alan Chambers

    Exodus has not explained why they no longer cite Spitzer’s study and they have not apologized for using to support their claims of “change”. There used to be references to Spitzer on their webpage. No more. Same thing for NARTH. Gone, with no explanation or apology.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/05/21/153213796/spitzers-apology-changes-ex-gay-debate

  5. What Michael and Dave said.

    They’ve got a lot to do if they want to be in a position of supporting gay Christians who hold the Side B view. New Direction is a good template. They must get rid of the notion that simply identifying as gay is somehow sinful. I view it as a step towards authenticity and truth-telling. They must repudiate that gay, bisexual and transgender people are somehow especially sexually broken. That framing of orientation and identify is abhorrent and especially damaging to the spiritual and emotional well-being of people who simply desire to follow Christ in honesty. It is spiritual abuse of the worst kind. We are no more and no less “broken” than any other human being.

  6. Look to the local Exodus ministries to see what actually happens at Exodus. A press release that does not demand that local ministries comply to a new paradigm will have limited impact. What is Exodus? Is it a guy making proclamations in Orlando? Or an umbrella for 100+ individual groups with no standards that wing it and make up policy on the fly?

    This is what Exodus must figure out. In my opinion, member ministries should all follow the same rules or lose the brand.

  7. What is a ‘biblical sexual ethnic’? The Patriarchs were a pretty raunchy bunch, weren’t they?!

  8. I saw Exodus’s press release yesterday, but didn’t think much of it. I figured they were just trying to use the recent news headlines to get a little publicity to remain seem relevant. Unfortunately, Exodus’s nomenclature is so fuzzy and vague, it’s hard to notice any significant differences in their religious platitudes. However, in light of the rumor that three of its prominent, long-time, member ministries have left their network, it is significant that the press release didn’t refer to “change” anywhere.

    That said, it’s disappointing Exodus has yet to respond to Dr. Spitzer’s apology.

  9. Anything that moves away from the idea that experiencing a total change in attraction is a prerequisite to following Christ is good news in my view.

  10. Still too many code words for my tastes.

    “Biblical sexual ethic”: The implication is that if you believe that loving same sex relationships are okay, you’re “anti-Biblical,” which in the evangelical culture, usually still means “not Christian.”

    “differing worldviews”: A term that was put into use by the culture warriors in order to draw the “us vs. them” lines.

    Plus there’s the idea that a “side” who has historically demonized a group of people and sought to deny their rights and basic humanity and a “side” that historically have fought to establish their basic humanity and rights are somehow equally at fault in terms of continuing the “culture war.”

  11. I think its too early to tell what Exodus really means by this .. I have been following them for a number of years now and just when you think they are changing course they fall back into the same old rhetoric. If you look at Wendy Gritter of New Direction of Canada .. her organization’s departure from their old ways many years ago was not readily believed at tirst and it took some folks quite a while to realize that they had truly changed course. The press release from Exodus shows little of a dramatic turn (if at all) in comparison.

    The only change I have seen (as you had reported here a while back) was the admission by Alan that true orientation change really was not happening and does not happen. But their semantics on how people choose to identify who are same sex attracted shows no sign of changing. In short ..last I checked .. simply identifying as gay is still very sinful to them. While some of their ideology has some similarity to what I have read in your Sexual Identity Therapy and in Dr. Mark Yarhouse’s book: Homosexuality and the Christian .. they still seem to take a “my way or the highway” approach on how people internally process and describe themselves.. This linguistic legalisim of micromanaging how people describe themselves is a far cry from the gracious spaciousness that people such as Wendy Gritter describe.

    Dave

  12. I liked one thing, and that is “Parents you need to love your children unconditionally” that is the part that leapt out and me and the part I thought was really GOOD. It seems like Alan really DOES care about youth who are a sexual minority.

  13. Very good posting.

    @ Michael B; this is in part due to your longstanding work. Thank you for being faithful and persistent. You were a “confusing presence” early in the black and white conversation and I am grateful you hung in there with your story.

    Regarding the posting, I think this is a better and more realistic framework. It should highlight more that Biblical demands put pressures on all practicing Christians to modify their behaviors—those with SSA are being “singled out,” in my opinion…and their task is much more challenging than the heterosexual. The core compassion in the conservative church is not there for those with SSA on many fundamental issues. I think Exodus is trying to build that place. Hoping they get much better.

    Exiting the culture war, while highlighting it is a good idea.

    @ David R

    You are absolutely right, that the battle must go to people like Barton who distort history to advocate for theocratic intrusions into government. But NARTH is not just a function of “Bartonism” it is connected for Analytic Psychology. It is a multi-headed beast.

    Regarding Spitzer, Exodus can only renounce it after the author has renounced it. The data were illustrative of some people like Chambers.

    People can change…some of their sensations, many of their behaviors. Will they have a truly loving community to greet them in the choices they make?

  14. @ Dave

    Well said. Furthermore, the obsession with ‘law’ rather than grace, and ‘types’ rather than ‘standards’ of behaviour, is IMHO a serious philosophical and theological handicap for many.

  15. @ Dave

    Well said. Furthermore, the obsession with ‘law’ rather than grace, and ‘types’ rather than ‘standards’ of behaviour, is IMHO a serious philosophical and theological handicap for many.

  16. @ Michaelinnorfolk … Actually the root of Exodus’ problems is that they go beyond what the bible says and promises … exalting as alleged biblical irrefutable truth, things that the bible says nothing at all about. The bibile says nothing about orientation much less orientation change. It has much to say about sexual activity. People, of course, have varied views about what exactly is relevant for today and what is culturally specific. While scripture has plenty of guidelines for heterosexual sex no one is trying to change the orientation of straight people in order to follow those guidelines. My point here is that the cause of Exodus’ problems is something other than scripture and its (assumed) prohibitions.

    Dave

  17. Exodus continues to avoid facing the truth. God made some of us gay and nothing, be it reparative therapy, trying to “pray away the gay” – something I tried for 37 years without success, etc., is not going to change this reality. The root of Exodus’ problem is that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality and same sex relationships. Just as much else in Leviticus described as an abomination and worthy of death has been disregarded and thrown on the trash heap of history, so too must the passages used to condemn gays. Then there would be no need to “help” those with same sex attraction. Of course, that would mean the folks at Exodus would need to find real jobs. Exodus still isn’t being honest with themselves or with others.

  18. @ Michaelinnorfolk … Actually the root of Exodus’ problems is that they go beyond what the bible says and promises … exalting as alleged biblical irrefutable truth, things that the bible says nothing at all about. The bibile says nothing about orientation much less orientation change. It has much to say about sexual activity. People, of course, have varied views about what exactly is relevant for today and what is culturally specific. While scripture has plenty of guidelines for heterosexual sex no one is trying to change the orientation of straight people in order to follow those guidelines. My point here is that the cause of Exodus’ problems is something other than scripture and its (assumed) prohibitions.

    Dave

  19. Exodus continues to avoid facing the truth. God made some of us gay and nothing, be it reparative therapy, trying to “pray away the gay” – something I tried for 37 years without success, etc., is not going to change this reality. The root of Exodus’ problem is that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality and same sex relationships. Just as much else in Leviticus described as an abomination and worthy of death has been disregarded and thrown on the trash heap of history, so too must the passages used to condemn gays. Then there would be no need to “help” those with same sex attraction. Of course, that would mean the folks at Exodus would need to find real jobs. Exodus still isn’t being honest with themselves or with others.

  20. No prob David, I foolishly thought I was giving a compliment starting off with

    “Can I also say that it is nice to see Warren posting again articles that have in the past been a core of his blog”

    I was truly thinking how “nice” that was. I should have said this differently though, I see why you called me on the carpet,

    “but there has not been a lot I wanted to comment on for a while”

    I wasn’t thinking when I wrote that, it really wasn’t the right thing to say. It does look really bad. It seems very dismissive when actually I truly do think Warren has done us all a terrific service because as you say, David Barton is hoodwinking a lot of people. I generally stay away from religious discussions and a lot of Warren’s David Barton work was that. So I read it but I didn’t comment on it. For those who enjoy conversing about the Bible and religious discussions they probably enjoyed the back and forth in comments.

  21. SG said, “Can I also say that it is nice to see Warren posting again articles that have in the past been a core of his blog, I miss the crowd here but there has not been a lot I wanted to comment on for a while. Now that his book is published it seems like he is back in the saddle again publishing topics we are interested in.”

    I am shrugging, SG. Who’s “we” in “we are interested in”?

    I’d direct your attention to the subtitle of Dr. T’s blog: ” A College Psychology Professor’s Observations About Public Policy, Mental Health, Sexual Identity, and Religious Issues.”

    It’s pretty clear from that subtitle that Warren’s intent for the blog is to cover a variety of subjects. I myself don’t often comment on a myriad of topics, but I am a frequent, if not a daily reader. I’ve learned a lot from reading the posts, including the recent ones on the misleading presentation of Jeffersonian “theology.” That I haven’t offered any comments is not an indicator of my interest or lack of it.

    Keep up the good work, Dr. Throckmorton. I enjoy the variety and have learned a great deal.

  22. Thanks SGM. I’m sorry if I sounded short, but I know how much effort Warren and Coulter have put into that research and it is really important here. I thought they deserved a little encouragement.

  23. Thanks David R. and then for the correction SGM.

    The saddle has expanded for sure, and there is more material coming relating to American history, I can tell you for sure.

  24. I stand corrected David Roberts. I should have said, “I” instead of “we”. Actually I was very interested in all the David Barton Articles, and I read them all, but it wasn’t something I commented on. More or less I followed Warrens David Barton thang, but it wasn’t my thang. I agree with you, I do think that work is very very important. He is the only one who did it, well him and his collaborator.

  25. Now that his book is published it seems like he is back in the saddle again publishing topics we are interested in.

    With all due respect, speak for yourself.  The David Barton issue is not only extremely important, but it is germane to the ex-gay topic.  Barton is being used as a foundation for a theocratic view of the United States by people who are close to the top office.  That means waves of new laws and ordinances based on a narrow religious point of view which could further denigrate LGBT rights, not to mention those of other minorities. 

    Do not underestimate the importance of the work Warren and his coauthor have been doing.  Personally, I find it not only interesting but timely and essential to the debate.  He should receive support for this, not blithely worded discouragement.  If you can’t appreciate its worth, at least try to show respect for the importance it holds for others.

  26. No prob David, I foolishly thought I was giving a compliment starting off with

    “Can I also say that it is nice to see Warren posting again articles that have in the past been a core of his blog”

    I was truly thinking how “nice” that was. I should have said this differently though, I see why you called me on the carpet,

    “but there has not been a lot I wanted to comment on for a while”

    I wasn’t thinking when I wrote that, it really wasn’t the right thing to say. It does look really bad. It seems very dismissive when actually I truly do think Warren has done us all a terrific service because as you say, David Barton is hoodwinking a lot of people. I generally stay away from religious discussions and a lot of Warren’s David Barton work was that. So I read it but I didn’t comment on it. For those who enjoy conversing about the Bible and religious discussions they probably enjoyed the back and forth in comments.

  27. SG said, “Can I also say that it is nice to see Warren posting again articles that have in the past been a core of his blog, I miss the crowd here but there has not been a lot I wanted to comment on for a while. Now that his book is published it seems like he is back in the saddle again publishing topics we are interested in.”

    I am shrugging, SG. Who’s “we” in “we are interested in”?

    I’d direct your attention to the subtitle of Dr. T’s blog: ” A College Psychology Professor’s Observations About Public Policy, Mental Health, Sexual Identity, and Religious Issues.”

    It’s pretty clear from that subtitle that Warren’s intent for the blog is to cover a variety of subjects. I myself don’t often comment on a myriad of topics, but I am a frequent, if not a daily reader. I’ve learned a lot from reading the posts, including the recent ones on the misleading presentation of Jeffersonian “theology.” That I haven’t offered any comments is not an indicator of my interest or lack of it.

    Keep up the good work, Dr. Throckmorton. I enjoy the variety and have learned a great deal.

  28. Thanks SGM. I’m sorry if I sounded short, but I know how much effort Warren and Coulter have put into that research and it is really important here. I thought they deserved a little encouragement.

  29. The comment from Exodus seemed frivilous to me — “…research findings come and go…”

    Translation: “Oh, well. Science? Who needs it really? Studies come and go. But our beliefs about homosexuality being “evil”? About gays being “broken”? About gay relationships being “counterfeit”? Those go on and on. At least we used Spitzer to get some free publicity for our biblical views. Now we deleted him. Thanks, Doc.”

  30. Can I also say that it is nice to see Warren posting again articles that have in the past been a core of his blog, I miss the crowd here but there has not been a lot I wanted to comment on for a while. Now that his book is published it seems like he is back in the saddle again publishing topics we are interested in.

  31. Thanks David R. and then for the correction SGM.

    The saddle has expanded for sure, and there is more material coming relating to American history, I can tell you for sure.

  32. Norm said, “…it’s disappointing Exodus has yet to respond to Dr. Spitzer’s apology.”

    They have, sort of. In a response to National Public Radio, they thanked him for publicizing their view of the Bible:

    “To that end, researchers such as Dr. Robert Spitzer, and research findings may come and go. As one who participated in Dr. Spitzer’s study I believe that it simply highlighted the fact that we, as a society, should respect a person’s right to self determine their course of action when it comes to how they choose to live out their sexual expression. Dr. Spitzer’s study also highlighted a group of people who have chosen to believe that the bible is unchanging concerning human sexual behavior, including homosexuality. For that, we are grateful.” ~ Alan Chambers

    Exodus has not explained why they no longer cite Spitzer’s study and they have not apologized for using to support their claims of “change”. There used to be references to Spitzer on their webpage. No more. Same thing for NARTH. Gone, with no explanation or apology.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/05/21/153213796/spitzers-apology-changes-ex-gay-debate

  33. I stand corrected David Roberts. I should have said, “I” instead of “we”. Actually I was very interested in all the David Barton Articles, and I read them all, but it wasn’t something I commented on. More or less I followed Warrens David Barton thang, but it wasn’t my thang. I agree with you, I do think that work is very very important. He is the only one who did it, well him and his collaborator.

  34. All of the following Exodus agencies seem displeased with Exodus’ new brand:

    Checking the Exodus website, missing in action are: Frank Worthen (formetly Love In Action), Dan Puumala (Outpost), Andy Comiskey (Desert Stream) and Carl Conli (HIS Ministry.) There may be others I have overlooked.

    Frank Worthen’s ministry and “OUTpost” were two of the five founding Exodus agencies in 1976. Now, there are serious disagreements about which way to steer what Chambers has called the “big ship”.

    What these mutineers seem to want: (1) A reaffirmation of “reparaive therapy” and SOCE, (2) A reallignment with NARTH and Nicolosi, (3) A retraction of Chambers’ admission that 99.9% don’t change their sexual orientation, (4) A repudiation of what Comiskey calls the “cheap grace” theology expressed by Chambers and (5) A reassignment of Chambers duties at Exodus, playing a “reduced role at best”.

    Since Chambers seems unwilling to do these things, I wonder how many more Exodus affiliates are ready to abandon ship?

  35. Now that his book is published it seems like he is back in the saddle again publishing topics we are interested in.

    With all due respect, speak for yourself.  The David Barton issue is not only extremely important, but it is germane to the ex-gay topic.  Barton is being used as a foundation for a theocratic view of the United States by people who are close to the top office.  That means waves of new laws and ordinances based on a narrow religious point of view which could further denigrate LGBT rights, not to mention those of other minorities. 

    Do not underestimate the importance of the work Warren and his coauthor have been doing.  Personally, I find it not only interesting but timely and essential to the debate.  He should receive support for this, not blithely worded discouragement.  If you can’t appreciate its worth, at least try to show respect for the importance it holds for others.

  36. If they follow through than I think their new approach should be welcomed from us in the gay community. Personally, I do not have a problem with people trying to reconcile their beliefs about faith and their beliefs about sexuality. They have every right to do so under the Constitution. But, as many above have pointed out, they have a long way to go until they’ve actually followed through.

  37. The comment from Exodus seemed frivilous to me — “…research findings come and go…”

    Translation: “Oh, well. Science? Who needs it really? Studies come and go. But our beliefs about homosexuality being “evil”? About gays being “broken”? About gay relationships being “counterfeit”? Those go on and on. At least we used Spitzer to get some free publicity for our biblical views. Now we deleted him. Thanks, Doc.”

  38. Can I also say that it is nice to see Warren posting again articles that have in the past been a core of his blog, I miss the crowd here but there has not been a lot I wanted to comment on for a while. Now that his book is published it seems like he is back in the saddle again publishing topics we are interested in.

  39. What Michael and Dave said.

    They’ve got a lot to do if they want to be in a position of supporting gay Christians who hold the Side B view. New Direction is a good template. They must get rid of the notion that simply identifying as gay is somehow sinful. I view it as a step towards authenticity and truth-telling. They must repudiate that gay, bisexual and transgender people are somehow especially sexually broken. That framing of orientation and identify is abhorrent and especially damaging to the spiritual and emotional well-being of people who simply desire to follow Christ in honesty. It is spiritual abuse of the worst kind. We are no more and no less “broken” than any other human being.

  40. Look to the local Exodus ministries to see what actually happens at Exodus. A press release that does not demand that local ministries comply to a new paradigm will have limited impact. What is Exodus? Is it a guy making proclamations in Orlando? Or an umbrella for 100+ individual groups with no standards that wing it and make up policy on the fly?

    This is what Exodus must figure out. In my opinion, member ministries should all follow the same rules or lose the brand.

  41. “Following through” would mean that Exodus would apologize publicly for misleading the public about orientation change for over 30 years .

    Bingo.  Simply changing the rhetoric without owning the deceptive past doesn’t get it.  It’s great if they want to join the rest of the rational world and jettison SOCE (if indeed they are, I have reservations), but not making amends for the damage done, the lies offered and the lives ruined is not only wrong, it’s unbiblical. 

    Alan and Exodus must put at least as much effort and energy into owning up to those lies as they did spreading them in the first place.  Until then, this is simply a cheap exercise in re-branding.  And shame on those who accept it as anything more.

  42. To add to Michael Bussee’s suggestions, I would also like to see Exodus and similar ministries do more to take responsibility for and rectify the fact that they have historically enabled the anti-gay political machine with their “change is possible” rhetoric. Organizations and individuals who have actively sought to deny LGBT citizens their rights and equal protections under the law have often used Exodus, NARTH, and the rest of the ex-gay community as proof that LGBT people don’t need — let alone deserve — to be protected if they simply can change their orientation.

  43. If they follow through than I think their new approach should be welcomed from us in the gay community. Personally, I do not have a problem with people trying to reconcile their beliefs about faith and their beliefs about sexuality. They have every right to do so under the Constitution. But, as many above have pointed out, they have a long way to go until they’ve actually followed through.

  44. If people wish to pursue something as unnatural as denying their sexual orientation (straight or gay), have at it. Meanwhile, I think it fully appropriate that religious adherents begin to be challenged to realize certain biblical edicts do go against nature. The bible denies nature in the existence of gays being a natural part of our common reality (as fully comfirmed by all mainstream health organizations); it attempts to refute the reality of no world wide flood; not to mention the contradiction of nature/science in stating the earth was here BEFORE the sun.

    There is a reason no faith or religion can stand as provable fact. Following that, what the bible states and what our common reality actually encompasses are not synonymous.

  45. @ Dave

    Like you, I’m not entirely convinced (hence my cynical comment – about which I do feel slightly guilty – early on in the thread, I suppose), although the words “Exodus is here to provide support to individuals with SSA who want to be faithful in their pursuit of living out …” might indicate the shift of attitude that you (rightly, in my view) say needs to take place on the issue of ‘orientation’. More clarity? Yes – I agree with you that that is needed to even begin to convince fully the likes of you and me; any kind of (implicit) ‘value judgement’ of people based solely on their sexual orientation / identity is abhorrent to many of us. (Personally, I would go further then just ‘orientation’ and include ‘quality of relationship’ – I know too many people in what seem to me to be loving same-sex partnerships to think otherwise.)

    Perhaps such clarification will be forthcoming. I do hope so. Chambers does, from what I’ve heard about him in recent months, strike me as a man ‘on a journey’ – and this is what I like about him.

  46. “What do you think of Exodus’ message, assuming they follow through?”

    If they want to be a support group for homosexual Christians who don’t want to act on the “SSA”, fine.

    “Following through” would mean that Exodus would apologize publicly for misleading the public about orientation change for over 30 years .

    Or as Wendy Gritter urged them when she was still part of Exodus: “Deal humbly and transparently with the perception that we have lied about [orientation] change.”

    It would also be helpful to explain why they no longer support NARTH, why they no longer endorse “reparative therapy” and why several affiliates have left — including two of Exodus’ founding ministries.

  47. To add to Michael Bussee’s suggestions, I would also like to see Exodus and similar ministries do more to take responsibility for and rectify the fact that they have historically enabled the anti-gay political machine with their “change is possible” rhetoric. Organizations and individuals who have actively sought to deny LGBT citizens their rights and equal protections under the law have often used Exodus, NARTH, and the rest of the ex-gay community as proof that LGBT people don’t need — let alone deserve — to be protected if they simply can change their orientation.

  48. Well .. I hate to rain on anyone’s parade but I remain skeptical. Exodus has said things before only to be followed by clarifying statements that put them right back where they started from. They don’t address problems with their rhetoric .. re: that being celibate is not enough .. that a person must repent of their orientation .. that taking the gay label is sinful even if you are celibate .. It was just a little over a year ago that Alan put this out in a newsletter .. see here: http://exodusinternational.org/2011/03/identity-matters-letter-from-alan-chambers-for-march-2011/

    This wasn’t a misstatement of his position .. In his book: God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door.” He made similar statements claiming that taking the gay label was just as sinful as having promiscuous sex. At the GCN conference in January of 2012 he still seemed to hold on to this anti-gay identity rhetoric.

    There needs to be a lot more clarity here. When I compare this to what happened years ago when Wendy Gritter of New Direction indicated her organization’s change in this area it was not believed at first. She had a guest piece on exgay watch in which many people challenged her and asked questions. There was a lot of repenting. This press release pales in comparison. Its easy to condemn fringe off the wall groups .. It serves to take the attention off what Exodus has done and is still doing. What exactly does Exodus believe they have done wrong in the past? What are they repenting of? .. How are they going to undo what they have done? .. What requirements are they going to have of people, churches , and groups that are Exodus affiliated? And what can we expect in the future?

    It’s too early to tell if this is really something new or just the same old stuff.

    Dave

  49. If people wish to pursue something as unnatural as denying their sexual orientation (straight or gay), have at it. Meanwhile, I think it fully appropriate that religious adherents begin to be challenged to realize certain biblical edicts do go against nature. The bible denies nature in the existence of gays being a natural part of our common reality (as fully comfirmed by all mainstream health organizations); it attempts to refute the reality of no world wide flood; not to mention the contradiction of nature/science in stating the earth was here BEFORE the sun.

    There is a reason no faith or religion can stand as provable fact. Following that, what the bible states and what our common reality actually encompasses are not synonymous.

  50. @ Dave

    Like you, I’m not entirely convinced (hence my cynical comment – about which I do feel slightly guilty – early on in the thread, I suppose), although the words “Exodus is here to provide support to individuals with SSA who want to be faithful in their pursuit of living out …” might indicate the shift of attitude that you (rightly, in my view) say needs to take place on the issue of ‘orientation’. More clarity? Yes – I agree with you that that is needed to even begin to convince fully the likes of you and me; any kind of (implicit) ‘value judgement’ of people based solely on their sexual orientation / identity is abhorrent to many of us. (Personally, I would go further then just ‘orientation’ and include ‘quality of relationship’ – I know too many people in what seem to me to be loving same-sex partnerships to think otherwise.)

    Perhaps such clarification will be forthcoming. I do hope so. Chambers does, from what I’ve heard about him in recent months, strike me as a man ‘on a journey’ – and this is what I like about him.

  51. “What do you think of Exodus’ message, assuming they follow through?”

    If they want to be a support group for homosexual Christians who don’t want to act on the “SSA”, fine.

    “Following through” would mean that Exodus would apologize publicly for misleading the public about orientation change for over 30 years .

    Or as Wendy Gritter urged them when she was still part of Exodus: “Deal humbly and transparently with the perception that we have lied about [orientation] change.”

    It would also be helpful to explain why they no longer support NARTH, why they no longer endorse “reparative therapy” and why several affiliates have left — including two of Exodus’ founding ministries.

  52. (I feel slightly bad about my cynical comment – but I always have such trouble with this ‘biblical’ thing. The important, and very positive, point for many of us is the truly Christian – as opposed to ‘biblical’ – themes evident in this statement.)

  53. Well .. I hate to rain on anyone’s parade but I remain skeptical. Exodus has said things before only to be followed by clarifying statements that put them right back where they started from. They don’t address problems with their rhetoric .. re: that being celibate is not enough .. that a person must repent of their orientation .. that taking the gay label is sinful even if you are celibate .. It was just a little over a year ago that Alan put this out in a newsletter .. see here: http://exodusinternational.org/2011/03/identity-matters-letter-from-alan-chambers-for-march-2011/

    This wasn’t a misstatement of his position .. In his book: God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door.” He made similar statements claiming that taking the gay label was just as sinful as having promiscuous sex. At the GCN conference in January of 2012 he still seemed to hold on to this anti-gay identity rhetoric.

    There needs to be a lot more clarity here. When I compare this to what happened years ago when Wendy Gritter of New Direction indicated her organization’s change in this area it was not believed at first. She had a guest piece on exgay watch in which many people challenged her and asked questions. There was a lot of repenting. This press release pales in comparison. Its easy to condemn fringe off the wall groups .. It serves to take the attention off what Exodus has done and is still doing. What exactly does Exodus believe they have done wrong in the past? What are they repenting of? .. How are they going to undo what they have done? .. What requirements are they going to have of people, churches , and groups that are Exodus affiliated? And what can we expect in the future?

    It’s too early to tell if this is really something new or just the same old stuff.

    Dave

  54. Warren, this is truly groundbreaking news. Thank you for posting this. As much as Exodus has been hammered in the past; and, not without good reasons; this change for Exodus deserves lots of notice and lots of welcoming minds and hearts.

    Thanks, again, Warren.

  55. Putting in my 2 cents: I think this is great news for those of us homosexuals who choose to be chaste. This is quite a monumental shift for a large group of Christians; and, most welcome … at least for not an insignificant group of gays.

    We’ve always been the ones taking heat from both sides. For many Christians just being homosexual was a sin; and, we weren’t welcome in their communities. For those gays who have chosen to live their lives in a manner different than us, we were branded as self-hating homosexuals, maladjusted, running around with internal homophobia.

    I, for one, am very pleased with Exodus’ change; and, the courage shown by Alan Chambers. I am happy to receive help in living my single life in accord with my faith belief; and, also, now to be able to share my gifts with others in community.

  56. (I feel slightly bad about my cynical comment – but I always have such trouble with this ‘biblical’ thing. The important, and very positive, point for many of us is the truly Christian – as opposed to ‘biblical’ – themes evident in this statement.)

  57. Anything that moves away from the idea that experiencing a total change in attraction is a prerequisite to following Christ is good news in my view.

  58. I liked one thing, and that is “Parents you need to love your children unconditionally” that is the part that leapt out and me and the part I thought was really GOOD. It seems like Alan really DOES care about youth who are a sexual minority.

  59. Warren, this is truly groundbreaking news. Thank you for posting this. As much as Exodus has been hammered in the past; and, not without good reasons; this change for Exodus deserves lots of notice and lots of welcoming minds and hearts.

    Thanks, again, Warren.

  60. Putting in my 2 cents: I think this is great news for those of us homosexuals who choose to be chaste. This is quite a monumental shift for a large group of Christians; and, most welcome … at least for not an insignificant group of gays.

    We’ve always been the ones taking heat from both sides. For many Christians just being homosexual was a sin; and, we weren’t welcome in their communities. For those gays who have chosen to live their lives in a manner different than us, we were branded as self-hating homosexuals, maladjusted, running around with internal homophobia.

    I, for one, am very pleased with Exodus’ change; and, the courage shown by Alan Chambers. I am happy to receive help in living my single life in accord with my faith belief; and, also, now to be able to share my gifts with others in community.

  61. I think its too early to tell what Exodus really means by this .. I have been following them for a number of years now and just when you think they are changing course they fall back into the same old rhetoric. If you look at Wendy Gritter of New Direction of Canada .. her organization’s departure from their old ways many years ago was not readily believed at tirst and it took some folks quite a while to realize that they had truly changed course. The press release from Exodus shows little of a dramatic turn (if at all) in comparison.

    The only change I have seen (as you had reported here a while back) was the admission by Alan that true orientation change really was not happening and does not happen. But their semantics on how people choose to identify who are same sex attracted shows no sign of changing. In short ..last I checked .. simply identifying as gay is still very sinful to them. While some of their ideology has some similarity to what I have read in your Sexual Identity Therapy and in Dr. Mark Yarhouse’s book: Homosexuality and the Christian .. they still seem to take a “my way or the highway” approach on how people internally process and describe themselves.. This linguistic legalisim of micromanaging how people describe themselves is a far cry from the gracious spaciousness that people such as Wendy Gritter describe.

    Dave

  62. What is a ‘biblical sexual ethnic’? The Patriarchs were a pretty raunchy bunch, weren’t they?!

  63. I saw Exodus’s press release yesterday, but didn’t think much of it. I figured they were just trying to use the recent news headlines to get a little publicity to remain seem relevant. Unfortunately, Exodus’s nomenclature is so fuzzy and vague, it’s hard to notice any significant differences in their religious platitudes. However, in light of the rumor that three of its prominent, long-time, member ministries have left their network, it is significant that the press release didn’t refer to “change” anywhere.

    That said, it’s disappointing Exodus has yet to respond to Dr. Spitzer’s apology.

  64. Still too many code words for my tastes.

    “Biblical sexual ethic”: The implication is that if you believe that loving same sex relationships are okay, you’re “anti-Biblical,” which in the evangelical culture, usually still means “not Christian.”

    “differing worldviews”: A term that was put into use by the culture warriors in order to draw the “us vs. them” lines.

    Plus there’s the idea that a “side” who has historically demonized a group of people and sought to deny their rights and basic humanity and a “side” that historically have fought to establish their basic humanity and rights are somehow equally at fault in terms of continuing the “culture war.”

Comments are closed.