Also, take a look at some of the related links and how other news broadcasts described the conference. How well do you think “Love Won Out” is conveying the message about what it is they do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30ocfYzdrwk&NR

One important thing has changed, though. Exodus has now begun making statements in political forums. Now, there isn’t just the confusing collision of psychology and christianity but politics is thrown into the mix. This is another area where I tend to agree with you. I wish Exodus would stay out of the political arena. I worry about sheep among wolves but I also see the tremendous potential for miscommunication and misinterpretation. I have shared my concerns with Alan Chambers at Exodus. I could not persuade him to my point of view and, while I can understand his motivations for political involvement, I still disagree.

Michael, I’ve got to tell you that the first part of your last comment was right on the mark. Not only accurate but also extremely well said. I only take exception to the ending as I elaborated above.

And Jim, thanks! Mine ‘dove-tailed’ with yours so closely that I felt I needed to clarify that I was actually responding to the one preceding it. But it did feel good to know that a few of us were starting to think and communicate along the same lines. Feels like progress to me! Time to go and enjoy the blizzard!
Peace all!

When I read your comment (#11070), I actually thought you were using my comment as a jumping off point…

They say great minds think alike. I won’t tell anyone otherwise if you don’t.

Ex-gay doesn’t refer to a change from gay to straight or even the lessening of gay attractions. Instead, the term refers to a new “identity”, a different way of defining oneself and responding to homosexual impulses — even if sexual orientation never changes. It reminds me of various “rights of passage” in which a member of a group is given a “new name” to refer to a new status and purpose.

Read between the lines and Ed sounds like Dr. Throckmorton — Ed is not talking about changing people’s sexual orientation but just helping folks to live in accordance with their values. But that’s kinda boring, and it doesn’t attraction much media attention, huh Ed? For that reaction you need to switch to the “public use” and “provoke” the media with the still misleading term “ex-gay” — whether it is your intention to mislead or not..

“I honestly don’t think that Exodus or its leaders ever intended to hide the reality of ongoing homosexual feelings”

I disagree. I think it would be highly doubtful that in all the discussions/debates/arguments Exodus has had over the years, Exodus didn’t realize that people where (mis)interpreting their use of the word “changed” to mean change from being gay to being straight. I think Exodus deliberately fostered this idea with carefully worded testimonials from people who had changed.

When one of their poster boys for change, John Paulk (sp), had been caught (more than once) in gay bars, he claimed he was there because of some sort of “outreach”, not because he still had homosexual attractions.

Sometimes when someone has a preconceived notion, absolutely NOTHING you say will get through. With this issue, preconceived notions abound. Sometimes you just lay it out the best you can and hope that someone will get the point.

The real issue here is NOT the term ‘ex-gay’. At the heart of it all is a confusing collision between psychiatry and christianity. Psychology has one definition of what a homosexual is…it’s how you think, feel and do; Christianity says its ‘the company you keep’ and what you do. So, on the one hand they can rightly be classified as a homosexual; on the other, they can’t. Since their Christian beliefs take priority in their minds over psychology’s viewpoints, they refuse to classify themselves by psychology’s definition. So, they can’t claim ‘homosexual’; they can’t claim ‘heterosexual’…they needed(need) a term that captured the ‘otherness’ but gave one very strong hint: I used to identify as gay. Any disclosure beyond that point ought to be dictated by the situation. If it’s a public pronouncement by a leader in a political situation, then that leader should be compelled to explain who they are as an ‘ex-gay’. In a teaching situation this would also be true. In most other circumstances, though, I’d encourage us all to ask ourselves first: We know they are Christians who used to identify as gay, is ‘where they’re at with that’ important to THIS discussion?

For the most part, my clients all had unique visions of where they were going in their journey out of a homosexual identity. Some simply wanted to obey their interpretation of the Bible. Others expected a healing of the hurts they associated with ‘the homosexual part’ of themselves but could see no further. Some chose celibacy from the start. Still others believed that heterosexuality was possible. Of these, some had a lot more to proceed with than some others. (More ‘bi’ to begin with….). Some lived in fear of a God they thought hated them while others knew a more understanding and merciful God. “Ex-gay” was a term that fit them all. The one thing we all had in common was that we were ‘From A Gay Background’.
(We even toyed with that phrase instead of ‘ex-gay’ but it got voted down. Someone would surely shorten it to F A G Background. Not good at all!)

A neuron just triggered in my oh, so very Catholic mind.

Evangelical Christians “claim” their justification by faith, and because of that, they are saved. That’s it; no questions asked. (I know this is a gross simplificiation, but bear with me here).

Catholics (East and West) understand salvation as being a something that we “work out”, and while in our “working out” we can never be saved, our faith alone doesnt’ cut it. Even after we stake our faith in the sacrifice of Christ, there is more “work” to do. The two go hand in hand (Again a gross simplification, but maybe yuo can see where I’m going here.)

It just somehow struck me in reading Michael’s comment that Exodus is a very “Catholic” oranization (it’s a struggle, lots of work to do to overcome, etc) with a very Evangelical vocabulary (identity in Christ, new identity, etc.)

Not that Alan Chambers is claiming ex cathedra infalability or anything…

I understand the Christian logic you use when you say “I am no longer homosexual” — but it terms of your sexual orientation, you ARE. I used to use this same logic, and I realized that people were getting the wrong impression. They thought that they would become straight by coming to EXODUS. They thought they would become “normaL”. And the “provocative” label was part of the problem. Media tricks should not be part of a Christian ministry.

You are certainly not heterosexual in the common sense of that term. You are homosexual. You are choosing not to act on it, you are choosing a “new identity”. And you have EVERY right to live in accordance with your faith. I get it.

You admit that the term “ex-gay” was meant to be provocative. You admit that it does not mean heterosexual. You admit that that “ex-gays” will coninue to struggle with daily “temptations”. (I should point out that straight men don’t have this struggle. Homosexual “ex-gays” do.)

I thank you for your honesty. Put it all together (Alan Chambers’s comments, Joe Dallas’s definition, your own explanation above) and it becomes VERY clearr that the term Ex-gay really only refers to a Christian who would rather not have (and is trying not to act upon) his basic homosexual orientation. “A new identity” does not equal a new sexual orientation — and the public has a right to know.