Southern Poverty Law Center article on ex-gay movement: Were the facts straight?

The Intelligence Report, a publication of the Southern Poverty Law Center has two articles regarding sexual identity issues in the Winter, 2007 issue. The first one, Straight Like Me, by Casey Sanchez reads like an expose’ of the ex-gay movement as a political ploy of the Christian right designed to undermine gay rights. He covers much ground familiar to readers of this blog. For instance the picture leading the article is a screen capture of Richard Cohen holding his client, Rob, on CNN with Deborah Feyerick watching. Sanchez also interviews Peterson Toscano and highlights the increasingly vocal ex-ex-gay movement. 

On several points, I share Sanchez’s observations of some elements of the ex-gay world. He notes the “bewildering array of techniques and philosophies” used to change sexual orientation and writes critically of holding therapies and reparative theories. He included New Warriors knock-off, Journey into Manhood as an example of an emerging method of reorientation and noted JIM’s connection to Richard Cohen in method and tone. Mr. Sanchez, however, needed to do some fact checking to tighten up this piece. I should note that I have spoken with Mr. Sanchez about my analysis here and while receptive to listening, did not offer to retract or change anything. However, there are inaccuracies in this piece that compromise the integrity of the article. For instance, Mr. Sanchez wrote:

Focus on the Family, the largest and wealthiest Christian Right organization in the country, now hires Smid to appear several times a year on an ex-gay lecture circuit called Love Won Out, where he speaks on masturbation and “healing homosexuality.”

This is false. Mr. Smid attends some Love Won Out events as an exhibitor but does not speak on any topic as one of the line-up of speakers.

Regarding the recent study from Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse, Sanchez wrote,

To back up their claims that homosexuality is purely a deviant lifestyle choice, ex-gay leaders frequently cite the Thomas Project, a four-year study of ex-gay programs, paid for by Exodus, that recruited subjects exclusively from Exodus ministries. It was conducted by Mark Yarhouse, a psychology professor at Pat Robertson’s Regents University, and Stanton Jones, provost of Wheaton College, an evangelical institution in Illinois. Both are members of NARTH. The study was conducted entirely via 45-minute telephone interviews conducted annually over the course of four years. Results were published this September.

First, the study was about whether change was impossible and whether attempting to change was harmful. The study had nothing to do with proving homosexual was either deviant or a choice. Second, the initial interview was 2.5-3 hours in person at Time 1, and about 90 minutes on follow up. Third, neither man is a member of NARTH.

Then in a section that needed no embellishment, Mr. Sanchez again casts some of his stones in the wrong direction.

One of the most controversial ex-gay therapy techniques is “healing touch,” which involves men striving to become ex-gay cradling and rocking other men in their arms. Last January, Richard Cohen, a licensed psychotherapist who claims to be personally ex-gay, demonstrated healing touch on CNN’s “Paula Zahn Now” and Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.” Cohen also demonstrated “bioenergetics,” which involves beating on chairs with tennis rackets and screaming, “Mom, Mom, why did you do this to me?” When Cohen appeared on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” one month later seated next to George Foreman, he demonstrated healing touch therapy by putting his arms around the former heavyweight boxing champion and explaining, “You comfort him and love him like he’s your own boy.”

But enthusiasts and ideologues of the ex-gay movement haven’t given up hope that science will confirm their view.

After his disastrous TV appearances, both Exodus and NARTH scrubbed any mention of Cohen from their websites and released statements publicly disavowing healing touch therapy. Yet both organizations continue to promote healing touch through a program called Journey Into Manhood, whose leaders are featured at Exodus conferences and highlighted on NARTH’s website. Journey Into Manhood is a nominally secular program founded by Catholic, Jewish and Mormon counselors. The counselors operate weekend outdoors retreats throughout the country that require men to bond with one another through wilderness adventures and holding each other in “non-sexual healing touch.”

In fact, Exodus does not recommend JIM and does not allow them to exhibit at Exodus conferences. I have a comment below from JIM to that effect. When I spoke to Mr. Sanchez, he noted that JIM representatives were at the Exodus conference passing out cards with their information. However, this is a far cry from being “featured.” I attended an Exodus conference and presented the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework. However, I would not claim that Exodus endorses or promotes the SIT Framework. On point, Exodus has been quite clear in their opposition to “touch therapy.”

In addition, I thought some of the reporting was off concerning JIM so I asked the JIM office to react to the SPLC article. Here is the reply from Rich Wyler:

About the Southern Poverty Law Center article: Thank you for sending it. This is the first I’ve seen it. It is filled with misinformation and inaccuracies.

1. Journey Into Manhood does not incorporate nudity or partial nudity.

2. I don’t know what the “10 week Journey Into Manhood curriculum” is that the article is referring to. It sounds like they are probably confusing us with another organization’s program.

3. We don’t do memory recovery work.

4. I don’t know who this Alex Liberato is – perhaps it’s a pseudonym – but in the article he admits that he didn’t go through the Journey Into Manhood weekend, so he is not a source of information on us at all.

5. Journey Into Manhood is not featured at Exodus conferences. We applied for a booth but were turned down because we are not a “Christ-centered” organization.

6. Our teaching on “healing touch” is that any such holding must be completely voluntary on the part of all participants, should be done in groups of three or more, with healing “father-son” or “brother-to-brother” intent, fully clothed, in non-sexual positions, and never in pairs of “strugglers” alone.

There are more mistakes in these two paragraphs, but that’s enough to show you how riddled with errors they are.

Rich told me via phone that the no one from SPLC had contacted him about the JIM organization.

To me, the article could have pointed out the extremes without attempting to reach for connections that aren’t there. Despite the rare acknowledgement that not all ex-gay ministries are the same, I believe the intent was to create a sense that ex-gay ministries are primarily politically motivated devices. This is a debatable point. But it seems to me that whatever the truth is about any given ex-gay ministry, there is a clear tension between ministry and policy aims. To me, it seems difficult at best to promote political aims, along with a focus on ministry and do both well. Social conservatives believe in the validity of a socially conservative political stance on sexual ethics as well as the need to offer the love of God, but the question is how should these ends be sought? In Christian ministry, offering Jesus trumps other considerations; in politics, winning seems paramount; further, in therapy, following client well being and values seems the leading indicator. I am surely open to suggestions on how to pull off an integration of those three aims that does not degrade any of them.

Back to the subject matter of the errors in reporting; in my opinion, ex-gay ministries that promote the narrow view that all or nearly all homosexuality is solely a gender-problem open themselves up for reporting such as produced by the SPLC. Given that ministry rule-books, holding, hugging, regression techniques and sports programs appear to be in the service of enhancing some sense of masculinity, it seems understandable that observers and critics will assume a seamless relationship between the theories of homosexuality and more extreme techniques to address the theorized deficits. I believe that ministries who do not condone or use the more extreme or boundary-compromising techniques need to draw sharp and public lines of distinction between themselves and those approaches with which they disagree.

I also wrote Rich Wyler of JIM in order to compare and contrast JIM with New Warriors. More on that in a future post.

13 thoughts on “Southern Poverty Law Center article on ex-gay movement: Were the facts straight?”

  1. Hey Mark,

    Congratulations on learning how to Google my name. Now that you have taken such an interest in my going-ons, please go back and construct an accurate timeline of my actions.

    Better yet, I’ll do it for you:

    2003-2005: Misison for the LDS church. Returned with honor.

    Summer 2005: Journey Into Manhood preparatory meetings, cancelled weekend excursion.

    Spring 2006: Participation with Soulforce, having been burned out by Evergreen, JIM and then one-on-one counseling with a therapist.

    Does that clear things up for you?

  2. Jag,

    I don’t think these exclude gay people…if anything, I think many gay/lesbian people would love for there to be more of a push for these types of sexual ethics. That is, if they can be included in the conversation…and talked to, and shared in this, rather than talked about or at.

    Absolutely Jag!!!

  3. Mark –

    While I don’t know the position taken on this, your remarks were unusual to me:

    “What were you doing with Soulforce, the GLBT organization? Then going to a JIM weekend? *That* doesn’t add up. It seems like you want to have a girlfriend *and* be with GLBT people in Soulforce.”

    There are a lot of straight people who support gay and lesbian issues…and some see the oppression of gay and lesbian people in our world as something important to stand up for. It doesn’t exclude them from also attending a “JIM” weekend. I think you could well have a girlfriend and be with the GLBT people in Soulforce…as much as it seems it sometimes, we are not in a state of segregation.

    Warren –

    You raised some interesting poinst…I wanted to respond to your statement here:

    “To me, it seems difficult at best to promote political aims, along with a focus on ministry and do both well. Social conservatives believe in the validity of a socially conservative political stance on sexual ethics as well as the need to offer the love of God, but the question is how should these ends be sought?”

    I agree that the simulataneous striving for political aims and ministry tends to mire both….thus the problem with FOF, in my opinion. I would throw financial issues of greed, pride, etc.. into the mix.

    I think one way to go about appeasing both ends is to focus on one. For example, a ministry who is solely about ministry will necessarily lead to groups who have certain beliefs on policy.

    As for a “socially conservative stance” on sexual ethics, I’m not sure what that means. I’ve heard it used a lot to say that “we don’t agree with homosexuality,” but to be honest – of all the friends I have…heterosexual and homosexual…I’m likely the most conservative in my values on sexual ethics, and I’m married to another woman. From the outside I am labelled in quite another fashion because I am in a same-sex relationship.

    Do you think someone can have a socially conservative sexual ethic and be gay?

    I think this question is important when examining those who consider themselves “values voters,” or in issues of ministry. Although it is obvious to me, I think that many would disagree that one could be conservative on sexual ethics and gay, or that the minister preaching about fidelity, monogamy and the importance of commitment could well be speaking to a gay congregant in a very personal way. I think they often assume that this is toward a certain audience.

    The problem, I think, Warren is that we are too hastily classifying people into categories and claiming exclusivity on these categories. For example, using terms like “conservative sexual ethics,” and making tacit claims that these people are necessarily heterosexual, against same-sex marriage and republican. They could well be homosexual, for same-sex marriage and democrat.

    I view a conservative sexual ethic as one that promotes abstinence (although not to the exclusion of other things for other people), monogamy, marriage, family stability, the promotion of family values, etc..and I don’t think these exclude gay people…if anything, I think many gay/lesbian people would love for there to be more of a push for these types of sexual ethics. That is, if they can be included in the conversation…and talked to, and shared in this, rather than talked about or at.

  4. Is this the same Alex Liberato that demonstrated and was arrested with “Soulforce” in 2006 (http://www.affirmation.org/news/2006_41.shtml)? With his girlfriend?

    What were you doing with Soulforce, the GLBT organization? Then going to a JIM weekend? *That* doesn’t add up. It seems like you want to have a girlfriend *and* be with GLBT people in Soulforce.

  5. I am Alex Liberato stand by the comments that I shared with the Southern Poverty Law Center with regards to this article and my experiences with Journey Into Manhood.

    After thoroughly reading the article, the critiques I have are as follows:

    – The writer attached too many labels (and very strong ones at that), such as “hatemonger”. Such actions aren’t journalistically proper.

    – There are various grammatical errors. One glaring goof is located in one of my quotes, where I “back got” in my car.

    – There are statements taken out of context. I did not refer to the weekly activities as “curriculum” but rather as “preparatory meetings”.

    I do, however, stand by my experiences. They were not falsified or aggrandized.

    The minute I walked in the door I had to sign a non-disclosure agreement and an agreement not to take legal action against them, and I had also put down a deposit for a weekend excursion for the summer of 2005. I attended these meetings in Provo, UT for roughly two months and weekly we would hold “clearings” and take part in activities that apparently we were going to go into more detail with at the weekend excursion.

    I have had negative and emotionally unhealthy experiences at these preparatory meetings, enough to have me back out of the weekend excursion itself (which I fully disclosed to the SPLC journalist). However, I will not be listing these experiences in detail nor the names of counselors or fellow participants in this public forum.

    If these preparatory meetings are not sponsored by Journey Into Manhood (though I was lead to believe otherwise), then JIM has no right to insist that I sign legal agreements nor should they be accepting money from me. Were these meetings loosely held by some radical counselor or avid JIM participant? It doesn’t add up.

    My suggestion to the organizers of Journey Into Manhood is that if they want to avoid negative press in the future, they then need to solidify their structure, *train* their counselors, be more forthright in disclosing to potential applicants what they’re getting into and be a little more clear in their expectations of participants.

  6. Southern Poverty Law Center tells alot of lies.

    Eddy said: “I doubt that anyone is drawn to ex-gay ministry for the money” Yes, but not according to major x-gay watchdogs (e.g Besen).

  7. Tim,

    Personally, I think the national lobbying efforts taint the name of the organization and thus do harm to the individual ministries. I suspect the national political activists in Exodus would disagree.

    The national lobbying efforts do do harm to the organization and the sooner Exodus figures that out, the better for them!

    People have started to figure out that gay people do not fit the stereotype that the religious right has tried to create. As long as they continue down this path, the majority of people are going to realize they care more about politics than about Truth.

  8. It seems absurd on the face to claim that treatment options for strugglers are a thinly vieled attempt to coerce a political movement.

    The church has been an agent of support and change for all sorts of strugglers for some time before a political movement was underway for homosexual rights.

    Again, heterosexual strugglers with promiscuity have been a focus of the church and will continue to be even when a political movement arises for those who wish to live out those desires.

  9. One of the main reasons that Exodus is so misunderstood is that it began as a ‘loose-knit coalition of Christian ministries’. The ministries existed before Exodus did. The ministries then in existence were small and had extremely limited resources. (My ministry partner and I often faced the dilemma of whether we’d send out our monthly newsletter or use that same money for our ‘salaries’. My salary quadrupled while I was there…going from $200 a month to $800 a month.) Counseling by way of correspondence was a poor substitute for any form of in-person counseling or support. We wanted to be able to refer people to others closer to them geographically but, naturally, we couldn’t possibly know all of these more localized resources. We needed an umbrella. We needed one centralized point of contact with a basic set of standards that would help us to ‘know each other’ better.

    The first Exodus conferences didn’t have teaching sessions or seminars; they were simply gatherings where we got to know each other, brainstorm how we could be more effective, share our experiences, goals, strategies, and learn from our respective successes and failures–both individually and as ministries.

    From those discussions, the future shape of the Exodus conferences emerged. New individuals and ministries would come to ‘present themselves’ to those already a part of the coalition. If part of your goal was to receive referrals from other agencies, you could become first, an affiliate and later a member agency.

    With all of these people gathering annually with a similar goal of reaching out to the gay community, the shift to providing classes and seminars was a natural one. If a general consensus of the member agencies was that a particular theme or area of study would be beneficial to all, then a class or two devoted to that theme would be added.

    Exodus did not pretend to be anything other than a ‘loose-knit coalition of Christian ministries’. Some Christian ministries leaned more towards charismatic and inner healing theories. Others majored on discipleship. Others focussed on de-specializing homosexuality…seeing it as one of many issues a new believer might struggle with and applying the same Christian basic principles to that area as to all the others. Still others were purely evangelical. (Using Jesus’ words that “I will make you fishers of men”, they ‘caught the fish’ but referred them on to others for ‘cleaning’.) So, you went to an annual conference and had a number of class selections to choose from.

    For approximately a decade, maybe longer, the staff of Exodus was a single person who simply answered the mail. A person writes in from Florida, they’d try to locate an agency close to you. They’d also send you a basic packet of information…usually ‘teaching sheets’ from the various agencies that provided encouragement on the basics. The Exodus board was made up of individuals from across the country who demonstrated consistency and leadership and provided a balance to whatever ‘flavor’ the board had. (Much like in any other organization, you don’t want a board where everyone’s expertise was in the same area.) Suggestions for board members came from both the affiliates and the member agencies; board candidates were limited to those from the member agencies. At first, voting was limited to member agencies only but I believe it was later broadened to include the affiliates.

    As the Exodus coalition grew, so did the tasks and responsibilities of ‘Exodus central’ (for lack of a better name). The staff of central grew primarily to handle the increase in correspondence, the increase of new individuals and agencies wanting to be a part, and the planning and coordination of the annual conferences. Even then, ‘Exodus central’ wasn’t much more than the staff of an information clearinghouse.

    A number of the member agencies and affiliates strongly resisted making public statements associated with any causes but a larger number felt that a greater good could be achieved by speaking out. In my mind, the major harm that came from the shift from being only an information clearinghouse to actually making public statements, is that it made ‘Exodus central’ an entity in itself and obscured the fact that its component parts–the affiliates and the member agencies–were still quite diverse in their approach, viewpoint and experience.

    That diversity still exists today and, if Exodus remains true to its original goal of being a coalition, the diversity will continue. You’ll have your evangelists, your live-in programs, your counseling centers, your support groups, your evangelicals, your charismatics. You’ll find some that are focussed only on men’s issues and others that try to incorporate lesbians, spouses and AIDS concerns.

    Leadership in the individual agencies changes for a variety of reasons. A leader ‘falling’ or ‘returning to the lifestyle’ means that the local agency needs to remove them from leadership or lose their affiliate or member standing. But leaders change for other reasons. Some have moved on to start new ministries in other locations; some to work with other established agencies; some to pursue further schooling; some to simply ‘get on with their life’ without homosexuality or ex-homosexuality as a central focus. Other factors that are notable are burn-out and the need for a realistic income. (Although salaries as a whole have improved since my days in the ministry, I doubt that anyone is drawn to ex-gay ministry for the money.)

    But, since Exodus actually is that coalition, ‘Exodus central’ doesn’t select the new leader and doesn’t set guidelines for what approach or focus they bring to their local ministry.

    I know this has been lengthy. I do want to add, though, that I appreciate that Timothy has grasped that there is a distinction between ‘Exodus central’ and its component agencies, ministries and individuals. As an ‘insider’ for over a decade in the early years, I hope that my foregoing comments help to make that distinction more clear. Call me stubborn but I still believe that ‘Exodus central’ ought to refrain from political involvement or statements…leaving that up to individuals. (Not even agencies or ministries…but leaving it up to individuals. It is presumptuous to assume that all the people involved in a local agency share the same political and social viewpoints.) I also still believe that there’s a price that comes with trying to incur the favor or respect of larger or more well-known Christian organizations when those organizations are committed to political or social agendas. It’s another area where Timothy and I are in almost total agreement.

  10. Thanks for pointing out shortcomings in the SPLC report.

    I take minor issue with your separation of JIM from Love Won Out. LWO does not permit distribution of competing viewpoints — attendees are carefully screened upon registration, and unauthorized materials are confiscated. If JIM was distributing unauthorized materials, did LWO take action to stop them?

    Why does LWO permit attendees to promote same-sex sexualized encounter groups and other masculinity cults, but silence the critics of these ethically, therapeutically and sexually dubious groups?

  11. Sanchez suffered from some of the same problems that the NGLTF authors suffered. It is very difficult to learn the intricacies and subtleties of the ex-gay world through limited observation and a little research. Alliances shift, positions change, organizations morph, leaders fall and are replaced by others with different views, goals and beliefs.

    I believe that I have as good an understanding as most and yet I’m certain that I would make errors if I tried to write an all-encompassing piece on the ex-gay movement.

    Re: Jones and Yarhouse:

    First, the study was about whether change was impossible and whether attempting to change was harmful. The study had nothing to do with proving homosexual was either deviant or a choice. Second, the initial interview was 2.5-3 hours in person at Time 1, and about 90 minutes on follow up. Third, neither man is a member of NARTH.

    While the study was not about supporting the claims of “deviant choice”, Sanchez is correct in noting that those who do support this notion (though probably not in such exact and sharp language) use the study to argue that change in orientation is possible though Exodus, (ie. you choose to seek change or you don’t, you deviant you).

    And while the first interview was in person, by Step 3 all interviews were by telephone.

    Despite the rare acknowledgement that not all ex-gay ministries are the same, I believe the intent was to create a sense that ex-gay ministries are primarily politically motivated devices. This is a debatable point. But it seems to me that whatever the truth is about any given ex-gay ministry, there is a clear tension between ministry and policy aims. To me, it seems difficult at best to promote political aims, along with a focus on ministry and do both well.

    I quite agree. I think Exodus has sought to overcome that obstacle by having the individual ministries focus their time and effort on ministry to the strugglers while the national organization is almost entirely a political lobbying group.

    Personally, I think the national lobbying efforts taint the name of the organization and thus do harm to the individual ministries. I suspect the national political activists in Exodus would disagree.

Comments are closed.