Exodus International: Open forum
This week Exodus International is holding the annual conference at Ridgecrest, NC.
From time to time on various posts Exodus history comes up. I have been privileged to have numerous Exodus participants past and present comment here over the years, but the comments often go hither and yon.
So I am creating the post for that conversation to continue. I am going to talk to my weboverlord, Paul to see if we can get a link to it in the right column so we can find it easily. So spread the word, if you have ever been involved with Exodus International, feel free to comment here, good or bad. Feel free to cut and paste comments from other threads. I do not intend for this to become a praise or bashing session, rather a forum of sorts to discuss history and impressions, aspirations, positives, areas for improvement, etc. If you really like Exodus, I hope you might glean something from those who do not, read and learn if you will. And if you don’t like it, I hope you will recognize that some others have found much meaning and blessing in the relationships they have formed via Exodus.
Will you (or someone) be offering topics for discussion or will it be a free for all? My inclination is that I might observe it for awhile to see if there’s any hope of civility and mutual respect in the conversations. If there is–and if I’ve learned a few things by example–then I’d be inclined to join the conversation.
LOL! Warren, maybe I’m in a pessimistic mood, but unless you’ve got a boatload of current and former Exodus folks that are itching to discuss, count me out. If it gets to history from the time that I was involved, get yourself a site librarian to see how I responded the first time. (Neither ‘do over’ or ‘look it up’ appeals to me.) I’m already over my time budget here; I already spent plenty of time in Exodus history and Exodus related discussions. To have that as the focus of the entire site would mean the ‘conversation’ level would always be tense. Yukk! But if you do have some folks in the wings who have been interested in having some focussed discussion–some Golden Rule people maybe? Then there’d be an offsetting reward for the challenging (several ways to take that word, they all apply.) conversation.
I might add to the post as information warrants but for now I wanted to have a post that we could grow into.
I might be pulling some links together from past posts and archiving them here.
My experience with Exodus was over a four year period of great intensity. I was ready and willing in a way I had never been to get serious with God and homosexuality. There was nothing left in my life: no long term relationship, no established career, nothing.
I had gone the Homosexuals Anonymous program route in the late 80’s. As a matter of fact, Robbie and Ed’s names were familiar to me back then. I started a relationship with a woman in 1989, but she was killed in a robbery.
From that point on, I did not pursue the “gay lifestyle”. Neither did I pursue anything else, the majority of my energy devoted to shutting down my sex drive. I lived with a male friend for most of my adult life.
In 1997, I believed there was something more: that God had a husband for me. I had been celibate for quite awhile.
As I talked with as many ex-gay ministries in Exodus who would talk with me, I derived one overwhelming reality:
GLBT Christians who are ex-gay are not celibate; they live lives that I had given up. Now, they may call themselves SSA and say that they have slips or falls (sometimes ongoing ones for years), but I can name 2 unmarried Exodans who claim 20 years or so of celibacy: Dan Puumala of Outpost and Karen (forget her late name now), who worked for Regeneration.
I am not saying that there are not others, but the majority of Exodus contacts I had were with people who were “strugglers” not overcomers. I use those words advisedly, but some delineation needs to be made.
I found the Moberly model still hauled out…and yet also found that the brothers and sisters who had tried desperately to grasp her theory (and therefore be repaired — from reparative, of course ) were non existent. At some point in time they jumped ship and are now settled with partners.
So…when I would ask, “Does anyone change? What does change mean?’, I was met with the most deafening silence of my life. It has made me wonder if God is silent, too.
So, no, I will not be attending any Exodus conferences. I just pray that the sense of abandonment will lift enough that at some point I will want to pursue a genuine relationship with God.
Thank you.
AM — “So…when I would ask, “Does anyone change? What does change mean?’, I was met with the most deafening silence of my life. It has made me wonder if God is silent, too.”
Sadly, AM, that is an all too common experience.
As one of the founders of EXODUS, I would be happy to answer any questions bloggers may have about how and why EXODUS was formed, who the other key players were, etc.
I can only speak of the years I was directly involved — from 1974 to 1979. My intent will be to give the most truthful and accurate account I can possibly give — no “bashing” or “spinning”.
The person with the most extensive video history of EXODUS’s roots is documentary film-maker, Lisa Darden. She has hours of interviews with all of those who were most closely involved in the formative years of EXODUS: http://www.hopeunlimitedproductions.com/
Warren commented: “And if you don’t like it, I hope you will recognize that some others have found much meaning and blessing in the relationships they have formed via Exodus.”
I am glad you pointed this out, Warren. Exgay Survivors (me included) are quite critical of EXODUS and yet we did have some very positive and meaningful experiences during our time with EXODUS. This from the Beyond Exgay webpage: http://beyondexgay.com/
“Not that it was all bad: Some of us received positive help through our ex-gay experiences. We grew to understand our sexuality better and in some cases even overcame life-controlling problems. But for most of us, these experiences brought us inner turmoil, confusion, and shame. We are still in a process of recovery from the damage. Through sharing our stories with each other, we find wholeness and healing,”
Thanks for the link, Michael, I’ve been meaning to check that out. One clarification though… there were several key players from the early years of Exodus who declined to be interviewed. I was among them.
So…when I would ask, “Does anyone change? What does change mean?’, I was met with the most deafening silence of my life. It has made me wonder if God is silent, too.
So, no, I will not be attending any Exodus conferences. I just pray that the sense of abandonment will lift enough that at some point I will want to pursue a genuine relationship with God.
AM,
That is my biggest objection to reorientation based ministries (along with their polital activism).
Far too often participants believe that they must choose between their orientation and God. And finding that they do not experience reorientation, they believe that they have been failed by God or rejected by God or that if they embrace their orientation that they cannot approach God.
It was with encouragement that I read the following quote Alan Chambers made to the Asheville Citizen-Times:
I genuinely hope that this is not just for public consumption or has special secret meanings that are the opposite of what the reader hears. I really hope that this is a change in perspective because too many people have left Exodus believing that they are going to burn in Hell forever so what’s the point of seeking a relationship with God.
Timothy, thanks for the quote. I find it puzzling to me that some in EXODUS are now saying the very things I have been saying for years — things that used to get them really upset: “Gays will go to heaven,” “I dont’ think I have never really met an ex-gay” – both comments from EXODUS president, Alan Chambers.
“EXODUS needs to deal with the perception that it has lied (about orientation change)” and “EXODUS should make a clean break from politics and stick to pastoral ministry” — both from EXODUS’s Wendy Gritter.
“Ex-gay does not mean ex-homosexual” and they (ex-gays) are just ‘Christians with homosexual tendencies who would rather not have those tendencies” — both from EXODUS’s Joe Dallas.
How come when they say it, EXODUS supporters don’t get upset and when I say these things, I am dismissed as an unrepentant gay activist? Isn’t this a glaring double standard?
Michael, I very much hear what you’re saying.
When I was more active in Exodus circles nearly 10 years ago, I was heavily criticized for suggesting that Moberly’s theories couldn’t explain all SSA or that promoting 100% gay-to-straight change as the goal was unrealistic and counterproductive. Now, it seems, some of those very ideas are being discussed in Exodus leadership.
To be honest, though, I find that refreshing. But now that I’m viewed most definitely as an outsider (I’m now Executive Director of The Gay Christian Network), I’m not sure how to gauge the extent to which the mindset has actually changed within Exodus. Is this more nuanced approach really reflective of what is taught on all levels, or is there still a disconnect between the PR and the daily ministry?
That’s what I’d really like to know. I am no fan of ex-gay ministries; I think they’ve done tremendous damage to the church. But I also don’t want to bear false witness against Exodus if the Exodus I knew 10 years ago has truly become a different ministry today.
–Justin
Yeah, it’s nice to be able to breath around Exodus. I’m glad to see that there is an admission that gays are not doomed to hell.
Justin Lee
When I was actively involved in Exodus–from the late 70’s to early 90’s, the Moberly model was popular but wasn’t viewed as the only model. However, there were individual ministries that seemed to think it explained everything. I’m wondering if your impression comes from exposure to the ‘parent’ Exodus or from exposure to one or more member agencies. During my more than a decade with Exodus, it always seemed that there were at least two or three theories of origin and two or three (at least) approaches to therapy.
I, personally, never believed in “100% gay to straight”. Although I never quantified expectations, I think somewhere around 90% was my highest hope for anyone. I’ve always maintained that once we’ve found pleasure or gratification through any means, we are susceptible to temptation in that area again. It may not be as often; it may not be as intense; it may be easy to dismiss–but the temptation will likely come again. Many in the Exodus of my day shared that view.
Mary
…now if we could only concede that SOME gays are indeed likely on the path to hell and figure out how to reach them–and with what message…
Eddy,
Well said.
Eddy: “…now if we could only concede that SOME gays are indeed likely on the path to hell and figure out how to reach them–and with what message.”
Why pick on gays, Eddy? Doesn’t conservative, Evangelical Christianity teach that we are ALL “on the path to hell” and that we are ALL in need of a Savior? (Romans 3:23)
The “way to reach them” is that same way to reach anyone — to preach and live the Gospel — to communicate and demonstrate the love God has for ALL His children. (Romans 5:8)
” It may not be as often; it may not be as intense; it may be easy to dismiss–but the temptation will likely come again”
“Likely?” In my experience with ex-gays, it’s more like “certainly”! Have you ever met a person (who previously had only gay attractions) where the “tempations” disappeared entirely? I am not saying it’s impossible, but In thirty plus years of searching, I have not.
Eddy calls it “temptation”. I call it sexual orientation. Same thing. The sexual orientation (meaning the prevailing direction and object of the “temptation”) does not seem to change much. The attractions may not be as intense or as frequent, but the person is still not straight.
Michael
I’m not picking on gays. Responding to gay–for good or for bad–is what the topic is when discussing Exodus.
Please note that you are the first person in this conversation to assume what the attitude of another poster is. You judged me to be picking on gays and infer that I have a different standard for them. Based on what?
I am actually in total agreement with the rest of your statements except that I find them somewhat dismissive. I thought maybe we could discuss the unique issues surrounding presenting the Gospel to gay people. Evidently some well-intentioned people have made some serious blunders in their attempt to do this and it sounded like the intent of the discussion was to delve deeper respectfully.
I try not to speak to thinks I am not sure of. Michael, not knowing, would still say ‘certainly’; I, not knowing, feel the word ‘likely’ is more honest.
While there are similarities and overlap in the definitions for ‘temptation’ and ‘orientation’, there are significant differences as well. Our understanding of one another would be better served by trying to grasp the distinctions and their significance to the various points of view…this, rather than trying to make the terms synonymous.
You are being a bit overly sensitive, Eddy. We both seem to bring that out in each other, don’t we? I am not implying that your motives are hostile towards gays. I know better. I know you believe that homosexual behavior is sin, but I don’t assume that you have any particular attitude towards the sinner. I apologize if my words made it sound as though you do.
I wish you could see my facial expressions or hear the tone of my voice and not just the words I use. I guess I should have used the :). I meant it tongue-in-cheek — and should not have used “picking on”. I apologize if I offended you. It was trying to convey a gospel truth — that we all sin and all need God’s forgiveness.
What I am getting at is that I don’t think there is any special way to to communicate the gospel to gays — it’s just that you often have to dig through a lot of anti-church/anti-religious sentiment to get there.
Eddy said:
To answer your question, my impression comes primarily from the national Exodus conferences in the late 90s. As a gay man who has always had a close relationship with both parents, was not a victim of abuse, and had plenty of same-sex friends growing up, I didn’t fit the boxes people tried to put me in (which were Moberly-related about 90% of the time).
I agree with Michael that what one person calls “temptation,” another calls “sexual orientation,” and it’s always seemed disingenuous to me when someone says he is “no longer gay” if he continues to experience SSA, unless he is very clear with everyone that he is using the word “gay” differently from how everyone else uses it.
One of my primary struggles with Exodus in the late 90s was the proliferation of ex-gay testimonies (shared through venues like Focus on the Family) where someone talked about “coming out of homosexuality” and being “no longer gay” while minimizing or not even mentioning the continuing same-sex attractions. For me, as a teenager who was openly gay and openly celibate, it was incredibly frustrating, because people would tell me that I should trust Christ to become like so-and-so when I knew very well from private conversation that so-and-so was experiencing just as much SSA as I was and simply used a different word to describe it.
But again, this reflects my experience from 10 years ago and may not reflect the Exodus of today. I truly don’t know.
–Justin
Michael
LOL. It seems you can’t help yourself. You said “Why pick on gays, Eddy?”. I answered rather matter of factly and unemotionally and now you’re declaring “You are being a bit overly sensitive, Eddy.” There is a way to make your points without injecting value judgments or critiques as to attitude before any such attitude is clearly presented.
Seriously, you came back in your later post and said you knew those weren’t my attitudes? So what was the point of saying it? Would it enhance the experience of some troubled youth that dropped in? If I didn’t respond to it, wouldn’t they assume that the inference was true…that I didn’t grasp the revelations you were about to lay out next?
And, if you were to see me right now, you’d see no burning intensity of any kind. I’m simply working on a problem/issue in a timely fashion at the point it presented itself. If you were in the room, I’d have rolled my eyes in exaggerated exasperation at the word “Seriously” and likely have playfully punched your shoulder.
LOL. You’re good at pointing out my bad habits and I’m good at pointing at yours. I’m really trying to learn from the things you’ve pointed out and I trust you’re doing the same in kind. Let’s mutually agree, when faced with a choice, to aim for taking the high road. (chuckling aloud: I think the blog would appreciate it.)
Justin
Thanks. I was honestly under the impression that the Moberly model was no longer a main focus. If they were still featuring it prominently at national conferences, then it seems obvious that it was still having major impact.
The peculiar thing about the ‘common definition of the word gay’ is that the word speaks to a ‘condition’–a state of mind or being–something that you ARE. That psychological definition is at odds with the Bible understanding. First, the Bible doesn’t really identify anybody (other than Pharisees and hypocrites) by labels, When the Bible does make statements that appear to apply to the issue, it speaks to behavior. If you’re actively engaging in the behavior, the label fits. If you’ve engaged (regardless of how recently), if you’re forgiven, the label no longer fits–not ‘in God’s eyes’.
The implications of this distinction are significant. Many believers, when faced with identifying by a Bible definition or a psychological one, choose the Bible one. What’s unfair to the discussion though, is when they are aware that what they are saying is being misinterpreted–and they take no steps to correct the wrong impression. That’s disrespectful to the truth. Equally unfair is the demands by their opposers for them to define themselves by the psychological definition. (Or, when they’ve shared their experience to ‘pronounce their label’…I think of people who are big into astrology. They meet someone who (usually for religious religious reasons) does not identify astrologically. I believe we agree it would be offensive to say “Well, guess what, you’re a thus and such and here’s what that means…”)
Eddy: “If you were in the room, I’d have rolled my eyes in exaggerated exasperation at the word “Seriously” and likely have playfully punched your shoulder.”
Ok, I get it. And If you you had been in the room, you would have heard and ssen that I was not “injecting value judgements”. I should not have asked “Why pick on gays, Eddy?” — without some sort of explanation. I meant it playfully, like your “punch on the shoulder”.
I KNEW you weren’t picking on them in the sense of having negative intent towards them. As I said, I KNOW better than that. I should have said something like, “Lest anyone think that you are singling out gays or picking them out as being especially needful of salvation, you and I both agree that pertains to everyone — gay and straight — right, Eddy? — knowing that, as an evangelical Christian your answer would certainly be “yes.”
On the issue of “temptation” versus “orientation” I would really like to understand how you see these concepts. I see them as synonyms — one religioous and one secular. What are the distinctions you see?
Michael
I think the biggest distinction I see is the one I cited in my response to Justin. That seems to be a frequent point of communication breakdown. Neither side feels that they can give an inch in the discussion and they can’t seem to find common language to talk it through.
Even when we can’t find the common language, it seems we ought to be able to grasp the other person’s intended meaning (if they aren’t, as I suggested earlier, being purposely deceptive). I quickly learned that ‘bad’ meant ‘good’ when my teenage nieces and nephews started talking cool. I haven’t changed my usage–and they understand that–they haven’t changed theirs–and I understand that. Usually the context of the conversation will elaborate on the definition.
Also to Eddy, “The peculiar thing about the ‘common definition of the word gay’ is that the word speaks to a ‘condition’–a state of mind or being–something that you ARE.”
I know that is how you and how some people (maybe even most people) use the word “gay”. I do not. I use it only as a synonym for homosexual — meaning not heterosexual in orientation, the opposite of “straight”.
And by “orientation” I mean only the “persistent and prevailing direction of one’s sexual/romantic/emotional attractions and drives.” Mine are gay.. My brother’s are straight. I do not mean it as a “condition”, as an all-encompassing description of the person’s “identity” or as a definition of what or who the person IS — only that they are not heterosexual..
What if I don’t choose to identify myself by my sexuality all? If I’ve decided not to give it any undue recognition in my daily affairs? If I want to leave my ultimate sexuality in the hands of God? Must I still self-identify by one of the existing labels? Why can’t it be ex-gay or something else that expresses that for personal reasons I don’t fully identify as gay–or straight–and i certainly don’t want to be re-evaluating the label every six months to see if I’ve shifted on some scale of identify. Dangerously introspective!
Whoops! I’m late for the fair! Volunteering…. Later…
Eddy: Please forgive me, but due to my visual problems (reattached retinas make it hard for me to read small text sometimes) I cannot seem to locate where you discussed wiith Justin the distinctions you see between “tempation” and “orientation”.
To me, “temptation” implies (as in the dictionary) “an inducement; an allurement, especially to do something evil” or “the desire to have or do something that you know you should avoid; as in “he felt the temptation and his will power weakened”.
For example, Alan Chambers of EXODUS says that homosexuality”evil” and speaks of homosexual “temptation” (and especially homosexual acts) in these terms — as something he believes is wrong or sinful and should try to avoid..
Whereas, to me, “orientation” is just a description of the prevailing object or direction of those desires – with no value judgement (at all) as to whether or not the desire is evil or the behavior is something one knows is wrong and should avoid. To me, “orientation” equals “direction” — nothing else, as in “the house was buility with a north/south orientation”.
It seems as though “orientation” may mean something very different to you. I am not insisting that my understanding of these two terms is the only and only correct defintion, so I am “willing to give an inich” in trying to understand how you understand these things. Would you be willing to try again to explain to me?
Eddy asked: “What if I don’t choose to identify myself by my sexuality all? If I’ve decided not to give it any undue recognition in my daily affairs? If I want to leave my ultimate sexuality in the hands of God? Must I still self-identify by one of the existing labels? Why can’t it be “ex-gay…?”)
Answer: That is your choice. There is no law that says you owe anyone, including me, an explanation or that you “must” apply any particular label to yourself pertaining to your sexuality. No one says you “must” self-identify by of the existing labels.
It’s a free country. You can do anything you please. You can make up any term you want. You can redefine any existing label to fit your personal experience. You can call yourself “ex-gay” or “former homosexual” or “from gay” or…. You don’t have to give the matter any more recognition than you want.
All I am asking of you, or any person who uses such terms, is to explain what they mean when they use them. But, that being said, you can tell me to stick it. You also have to absolute right to say: “I don’t want to explain.”
What if I don’t choose to identify myself by my sexuality all?
Eddy,
IMHO you don’t have to - why would you?
If I’ve decided not to give it any undue recognition in my daily affairs? If I want to leave my ultimate sexuality in the hands of God? Must I still self-identify by one of the existing labels?
Again - IMHO - NO! Why would you? You are a whole person, not a label.
Eddy,
I definitely understand and appreciate the reason that many ex-gays choose not to identify themselves with a word like “gay.” You’ve explained those reasons eloquently. But if you’re going to use a word to mean something different from what everyone else in the culture uses it to mean, you need to explain that every time you use the word to avoid confusion.
Example: Let’s say Sue has been diagnosed with a terminal cancer. For a while, she lets this news get her down, and she allows the label of “sick person” to take over her identity. One day, through prayer and reaffirmation of her faith, she makes a bold decision: she will no longer allow the label of “sick” to categorize her! She will no longer see herself as dying, but rather as living!
A wonderful change of heart, to be sure. Nothing wrong with that.
But then let’s say Sue goes on national television, and on the radio, and begins a speaking tour of churches and hospitals, saying, “Thanks to God, I am no longer sick! And you too can overcome your disease if you just have faith!”
What she means, of course, is that she is no longer bound to the depression and identity of a sick person. But to say “I am no longer sick” suggests that she no longer has cancer, which is not true. What she ought to have said is, “I no longer identify myself as sick because I don’t want to label myself that way, even though the cancer is still active in my body.” That would avoid the false claim she otherwise seems to be making.
She might say many of the same things you did: “I choose not to identify myself by my sickness at all”; “I’ve decided not to give it any undue recognition in my daily affairs”; “I want to leave my ultimate health in the hands of God”; “The problem with the word ’sick’ is that it speaks to a condition… something that you ARE… but in Christ I have victory over the spirits of sickness and death.”
But none of that changes the fact that it is entirely irresponsible of her to travel around the country proclaiming, “I once was sick with cancer and now I am no longer sick!” when in fact what has changed is her self-label, not the state of her health.
Obviously, I do not believe that homosexuality is a bad thing or a sickness. You might disagree. But the point of the analogy, I hope, is clear. When ex-gays make public statements that, “I am no longer gay!”, it is reasonable for their audience to assume that they mean “I no longer have attractions to the same sex,” since the word “gay” in our culture means “attracted to the same sex,” and is the antonym of “straight,” meaning “attracted to the opposite sex.”
If, in fact, that is not the case, then it is the responsibility of the ex-gays and those publishing their stories to say something like, “I no longer identify myself with the word gay, although I still experience attractions to the same sex.” That makes the point clear. That is not, however, the message that is frequently preached, and it is precisely for that reason that so many of us have been accused so many times of a lack of faith when we did not experience a change in our attractions.
–Justin
Justin: Bravo and ditto.
Justin and Michael,
I “think” the point Eddy was making is that there is no need to have any kind of label if one doesn’t want to - their life and identity is much more than a sexuality identity/preference label. They chose to forego a label and instead live a life.
I do understand what you are referring to though - those that stand on a soap box or put themselves on a perch and claim they have made a 100% change and that others can and should too. That is not right nor accurate nor fair and should not be held as a standard.
All this talk about labels just makes my hair hurt.
Ann: Very well said. On on purely private, personal bssis, I have no problem with a person creating, redefining, using, or not using, any term they please. However, on a public level, I agree with Justin.
Particularly when one is promoting or touting the benefits of a particular “change” program, I believe the person has a ethical responsiblity to clearly explain what they do and do not mean by the terms they use.
Justin,
I also want to echo what Michael said about your post. It was a very good example.
I just don’t like any orientation label at all and don’t think they are necessary to define a whole person. The people I know who are no long in same gender relationships and are on a different path or now in opposite gender relationships have all done so quietly and in a measured way without any fanfare or need to publicize it. They just don’t care what others think and don’t want to be held up to scrutiny. I think that is very smart and sustainable.
Let’s talk about the positive for a sec. I gained much from my EXODUS experience. I learned a lot about the Bible, reading and re-reading it in several translations, studying it and discussing it with others. I enjoyed the music, the Bible stuides, the prayer meetings. I gained a deep and abiding faith in Jesus.
I had a place where I could be me — a young Christian man struggling with gay feelings. I finally met others like me. I have to say that ex-gays, by and large, are very intelligent folks of deep faith and with great senses of humor. I really enjoyed their company.
I had an opportunity to really explore what my sexuality and spirituality meant — in relationship to each other. I got to know myself better. And, I met Gary — the first person I really loved totally — body, mind and spirit. My love for him and with him made me feel whole for the first time. I will always be grateful for these things.
Michael,
Herein lies the issue - at least IMHO - I don’t think anything this personal should be promoted or touted. It is almost like those products advertised in late night television that people buy only to find out they don’t work. Well, ah, advertising only late at night is one clue
Anyway, anything as personal as our sexuality is private and whatever changes we make or don’t over a life time should not be held as a standard for anyone else. Whatever resources are used - organized religion, private ministries, counseling, therapy, etc. should be private or held within a family or close friends arena. Whenever a lot of fanfare is made out of private issues, the prevailing consensus is that any success is unsustainable. I also think our most epiphious moments come quietly and are so profound we want to keep them within our hearts and minds because to try and share them only diminishes what they were meant for in the first place.
Ok, brunch time
Justin, Michael, Ann
All good comments. (Look, Warren! We can agree once in awhile!)
I share the frustration that you have with those who purposely mislead with their words. When I was in active ministry I spent a lot of time undoing the damage done by such messages. All that God promised was that ’sin have no more dominion over you’; how that plays out is different for every individual. (including those who don’t see it as sin at all.)
i don’t think however, say in situations like this blog, that we have to define our words every time we use them. We recognize the two common definitions and the context would reveal which meaning we ascribe to. To make the disclaimers every single time to an audience who should know what we mean by now seems tedious.
If a person inquires if I’m gay, my answer depends on a few things. 1) Do I feel they have a right to know the answer? 2) If they’re demanding a yes or no, they get a no. (My thinking is that if they haven’t allowed for answers that qualify the yes or no, they really have no regard for me or my point of view.) 3) If they are genuine and appear ready to talk, I’ll give ‘em a ‘no but it’s not as simple as that…” A time or two I even answered “by psychology’s definition ‘yes’, by God’s ‘no’.
Ann
I agree with Michael on this one. While I can see what you’re saying about respecting the personal, if a person makes a misleading statement of a personal nature…it is appropriate, within reason, to flesh out that statement. Michael and Justin are responding to a number of very real situations where the intent of the speakers was to (get out your dictionaries) obfuscate. Technically not a lie but a clear attempt to mislead and a definite furthering of untruth. God does not need us to embellish the stories of our lives in an attempt to prove anything. I’ve just met Justin and have known Michael for some time. It seems Michael only asks those very personal quesit
In my personal quest for “hope for change”, I found the idea of a psychological versus a Biblical underpinning to be useless in my life as far as how I would be able to genuinely and completely live.
Let me explain: When I read ex-gay testimonies of men or women who were heterosexually married and having gay relations and yet claiming change or wholeness or whatever Biblical message they wanted to couch it in, all I could do was shake my head and say, “I hear Bill Clinton in the background echoing that he “did not have sex with that woman!” Because that is about as much credibility as that had with me.
Personally, I have a very difficult time believing that God is A-OK with a “same sex attracted” person who has several one night stands a year as long as he or she asks for forgiveness after each affair, and yet the Almighty is ready to express utter outrage at a committed, monogamous gay Christian couple. How bizarre is that!? Yet…testimonies seemed to abound of these “overcomers” who are one night or one year standers. These are supposed to give me hope?!
Perhaps I am not as Biblically advanced that I can disengage myself totally from my behaviours and claim “In Christ” without doing a little bit more soul searching about why I am leaning or heading in a certain direction.
Because perhaps I am biologically hard wired in a a certain direction which was fairly evident when I was a kid: I (and others) just didn’t want to acknowledge my gender atypicallness.
I simply don’t understand the sense of peace and comfort when one says, “that is not my identity”, and yet one regularly and genuinely pursues a certain course of action. This is where I couldn’t ride on the ex-gay train.
arrggh …it sent on it’s own. As I was saying…
It seems Michael only asks those very personal questions of those who have set themselves up as ‘evidence of change’. (There are others who seem to challenge everyone who identifies as ‘ex-gay’ but I haven’t seen Michael challenge them until they speak of being ‘changed’ or ‘free’…THEN he pursues the clarification that he’s entitled to.)
Thank you for the loving responses all around.
Like Michael, I too experienced positives from Exodus. I found it to be an organization of loving Christian people with good hearts who truly wanted to serve God. I enjoyed the worship and fellowship at the conferences, and Exodus was one of the first places I was able to openly admit to my SSA in a Christian environment without being judged for it.
The Gay Christian Network has a wing of our ministry we call “Side B,” in keeping with terminology developed by Bridges Across the Divide. It’s for our brothers and sisters who have SSA and believe God has called them not to act on it. We support them in living celibate lives and obeying their consciences on this matter.
To the extent that Exodus does the same (supporting SSA people and helping them to abstain from activity that would violate their beliefs), I am fully supportive of the ministry, and I think many other gay Christians would agree.
But I must disagree strongly with Exodus’ tactics when:
a) Exodus leaders, speakers, or materials suggest that anyone can go from “gay” (SSA) to “straight” (OSA) and/or imply that certain individuals have done so when in fact they have not; or
b) Exodus encourages folks with continuing SSA to marry a member of the opposite sex and/or glorifies those who have done so as “success stories.”
I have a problem with these things because I see the aftermath of them every day. I am constantly encountering people who have been led to believe that God would take away their SSA if they had faith, and who either subsequently lost faith in themselves or God when it didn’t happen, or else were badgered by others (outside of Exodus) who had gotten that message from Exodus and believed that the SSA individual simply wasn’t trying hard enough. I am also constantly encountering those who married with encouragement from Exodus, believing their SSA had been reduced to a mere temptation, only to discover down the road that they were still gay. This situation has no happy ending, no matter what happens, and so many lives are ruined this way.
In my view, Exodus is at its best when it avoids these traps, but I know from private conversations that there is still a great deal of disagreement within Exodus about both of these points.
I’ve heard some say that gay people oppose Exodus because we think that people “coming out of homosexuality” somehow invalidates our “lifestyle.” Speaking for myself, that couldn’t be further from the truth. As a Christian leader, my concern is for the lives and faith of those who are affected when claims are exaggerated (even if unintentionally).
–Justin
Eddy said : “I share the frustration that you have with those who purposely mislead with their words.”
It’s not just those who “purposely mislead” that bother me. “Spin”, “Christanese” and “hype” from ex-gay leaders and members, even if not intentionally misleading, has the same confusing effect. Alan Chambers, to his credit, seems to be one the first EXODUS presidents to begin to more transparently address the language issue — what Wendy Gritter of EXODUS has referred to as “the impression that we have lied.”.
Many people have gotten that same “impression”. So, I ask — especially when I hear words like “ex-gay” or “former homosexual” or phrases like “freedom from homosexuality.” That only seems fair, I ask for clarification, but some take this as an intrusive insult. Why can’t I ask, “Does that mean you no longer have gay feelings?” or “Does that mean you are are now heterosexual?” Eddy speaks of “psychology’s definition” versus “God’s definition”. Is it rude to ask how these differ?
Yes, it is their “right” to use language however they please, but don’t I also have the right to ask “what does that mean to you?” If not — if words mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean and the speaker has no obligation to clarify, real communication breaks down. They might as well be speaking some instinct Polynesian dialect. Without at least some clarification, we end up with the Humpty-Dumpty dilemna: http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm
I just re-read Justin’s post and really liked his “side B” idea: “It’s for our brothers and sisters who have SSA and believe God has called them not to act on it. We support them in living celibate lives and obeying their consciences on this matter.”
If EXODUS did that — if they explained their ministry in these terms, rather than implying that the EXODUS experience is about changing sexual orientation from gay to straight — I would have NO PROBLEM with EXODUS
Well, OK, just one: It’s ongoing involvement in rightwing, Republican politics, rather than sticking to its original purpose of pastoral outreach and ministry. OK, just two: Politics and its ongoing affilitation with NARTH. OK, maybe three…
We would agree on that, Michael.
–Justin
The question was raised earlier as to how best reach gay persons for Christ. I’m not sure I have an answer for that question, but I do know some things to avoid if one has any real genuine desire to reach gay people for Christ:
1. Don’t demand the impossible.
Telling gay people that they shouldn’t be gay is probably going to be about as successful a witness tool as telling Asians they shouldn’t be Asian.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in orientation. Or if you think the Bible talks about behavior not identity. Or if you can reference a whole list of folks who have “walked away from homosexuality”. Or even if you believe homosexuality is nothing but an addiction, or sin, or the result of some root cause, or a lack of paternal attention, or a demonic spirit.
If you want to reach gay people, it doesn’t matter what you believe at all.
Gay people generally believe that the direction of their attactions is innate and immutable. To ask them not to be gay is, to their way of thinking, preposterous.
This is not to say that you must give up your religious convictions. But rather that you should allow God to guide others to His will.
Remember, the reason for gay persons to come to Christ is not to become un-gay or even to avoid Hell. The reason for gay persons to come to Christ is to have a relationship with God.
In my opinion the smartest response to oreintation is to introduce God’s love and grace and simply say that God wants his children to grow into the life He has for them. And then let God direct them.
And if God leads some gay people to some direction other than the plan YOU have for them, well you can take it up with Him.
2. Don’t coerce conversion.
Jews today still resent the efforts of Christians to convert them in the Spanish Inquisition at the point of a sword. Gays don’t feel much different about current efforts to instill repressive and discriminatory laws. They believe that Christians only want to be kind and loving to Christian people and that they will punish you if you are not.
Lets talk some truth.
Behind every effort to treat gay people differently in this country is language about Sin and Abomination. Gay people observe Christianity to be a threat to their freedoms and sometimes to their very lives. (Yes, some “Christians” use death language).
You may “love the sinner, hate the sin”. You may think homosexuality is a dangerous lifestyle. You may have pity for the person trapped and not want to enable their destruction. You may think that homosexuality is a cancer that will destroy the culture and the nation. You may think that this is a sin that makes God nauseous and that God will rain judgment on the nation that doesn’t harshly punish such filth.
None of that matters.
At all.
Currently, gay people experience their interaction with Christianity as being full of hatred. And the fault lies entirely with the Church (yeah, it really does).
When you seek to harm the livelihood of someone, when you tax them more, when you take away their children, when you deny their ability to serve their country, when you “would never vote for” them, when you lie about their “lifestyle”, when you make entirely bogus claims about their mortality, when you support discrimination against them in business and housing, when you pass laws to remove their health insureance. When you just treat them with contempt.
These are all things that have been done in the name of Christianity. And they are all experienced as hateful.
If you really genuinely want to reach gays for Christ, you cannot do so in a manner that looks like hatred to the people you are trying to reach. You cannot be coercive.
If you care more about reaching gays for Christ than you do about the culture war, you will give up these efforts. Because you cannot reach gays while simultaneously harming them.
And if the culture is destroyed and the nation crumbles, take it up with God. After all, He didn’t call you to protect nations but to win souls.
Timothy: Very well said! Hope it helps to answer Eddy’s question (message # 113758) “Now if we could only concede that SOME gays are indeed likely on the path to hell and figure out how to reach them–and with what message…”
What message? In my own case, I was reached with the simple message of the Gospel. Not a word was said about my “SSA”. It wasn’t wrapped up in anti-gay jargon, promises of “change” or conservative politics. The person who led me to Christ just told the story.
It was all about who Jesus is, what He did and how I could have a personal relationship with Him (John 3:16). It was “Come to Jesus first, as you are, and then let the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13)
Most of all, it was that God loved me, that I was His child and that being His, nothing (not even me) could ever separate me from His love. (Romans 8:38)
Michael
it’s certainly not rude to ask how “psychology’s definition” and “God’ definition” differ. Exasperating, perhaps, but not rude. I truly am sorry. Between the thoughtful comments I tried to convey the first half dozen times this topic came up and the remarks I posted to Justin…I simply can’t think of a better way to convey it to you. It’s something I can see quite clearly and you can’t see at all. I honestly can’t say whether I’m seeing something that really isn’t there–so, of course, you can’t see it….or if I’m seeing something that is there–but you, for some reason, cannot. Either way, when I realized I had no better way of conveying it than I have in my multiple attempts here on the blog, I opted to ‘let it go’ in the hopes that I’ll get inspired with a new way of saying it. Nothing has come to me so far.
Michael–
It sounds like you heard and received a pure gospel, can you recall when the first person added ‘but you can’t be gay’ or how it was that you got that message?
(ALL–This is not a facetious question so please, I’m not looking for a diatribe against the conservatives, I’m curious about a true to life experience such as Michael’s, where someone added that condition to the gospel they’d already received..)
Thanks everybody for your comments. Seems a bit odd that there are no recent Exodus voices contributing …. though I’m guessing they have all been very busy with the current conference.
Timothy - would you mind if I took your comment about reaching gays for Christ and reposted it on my “Bridging the Gap” blog? Thanks.
Nice to see you here Justin - you’re always so smart
P.S. New Direction would be much more comfortable identifying ourselves as a Side B ministry than an ex-gay ministry…..
To Ann: P.S. New Direction would be much more comfortable identifying ourselves as a Side B ministry than an ex-gay ministry.
That’s why I love ya, Wendy.
To Eddy: I kinda always knew that message. You tend to pick it up from the culture. But it was at Melodyland (about 1974) where I was taught that becoming “ex-gay” was a condition of salvation, based on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 — “…those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. When I asked if others on this blog believed this, I could not get a straight answer (pardon the pun).
About EXODUS history, whatever happend to these EXODUS old-timers? Greg Reid, Frank Worthen, Robbi Kenney, Ed Hursrt, Ron Dennis, Jim Kaspar. Michael Bussee, Gary Cooper, Perry Desomnd, etc. Where are they now? Except for Robbi (who was never gay) how many of these guys are still “ex-gay”?
Eddy: Just trying to provoke and vex you a bit.
When it comes to “God’s definition” and “psychology’s definition”, of course I know that Christians have a different world view, a different internal experience, a different “identity”, a differernt language for describing spiritual realities and their own transformational journey.
I know very well that when some people say “I am ex-gay”, they mean “in the eyes of God”, not “I am now heterosexual”. Just want everyone to get that — in case they don’t. There has been too much “hype”, too much “spin” and too much “Christianese” when it comes to this issue. Many have felt deliberately decieved. It’s time that Christians learned to speak secular.
Michael–
Your question about the whereabouts of the old timers puzzles me. If it was a genuine question, it’s odd that you placed yourself and Gary Cooper on the list. Gary is your deceased partner and you are here. And you certainly know that. More baffling was sticking my name in the middle of your list. LOL. We’ve been blogging somewhat intensely over the course of what? two years? Surely you knew that Ed and Eddy were one and the same. (I was Eddy as a kid and then Ed from 6th grade on–until the late 90’s when I worked in a nursing home. The hard of hearing never heard me when I said “Ed” but “Eddy” they’d hear…it wound up on my name tag and stuck. Meaningwise, it was a shift from “witness” to “whirlpool”.) —But back to the point, once more you seem to be incorporating me into Exodus memories and history before I ever was ‘notable’. I met you and shook your hand once; perhaps we talked for 2 to 3 minutes but I doubt it…there was always a line-up to talk to you. I didn’t even meet Robbi until February 1978 and i wasn’t part of any Exodus recognized entity until I went to Outpost in May 1978 immediately after graduation from bible school. Everyone else on your list predates me by a year or two. –I actually met Perry and Greg first, just a day before they convinced me to join them at the Oakland Conference. Greg flew. Perry, Steve, Frances, Ann and I drove cross-country. Perry died some time ago. You can find Greg by googling his name. He’s got an outreach in Texas somewhere. The others I barely knew. (I believe you’ve had contact with Frank more recently than I have…it’s been nearly 20 years for me.)
As to your second post, I agree that folks should stop misleading with their words but I disagree that the answer is that THEY start to use YOUR terminology. If we recognize that this divide in our definitions exists–and we truly do respect each other–then neither side ought to defraud and neither side ought to force the other into a definition that isn’t right for them. We’re grown-ups…we celebrate diversity…and yet we can’t seem to work away around the fact that our definitions vary. (’Vary’ and ‘diversity’ share a common root word.) Let’s get real. If a gay man calls another person ’sister’, do we conclude that the guy he’s talking to is a female to male transsexual…that the guy was actually his flesh and blood ’sister’? And, if a girl walked in, and he called her ’sister’…would we automatically assume she was his biological sister? No, we’d get our understanding from the context and, if it wasn’t clear, we could even ask for clarification. I’m convinced that if we WANTED to, we could communicate effectively despite our differences in definitions. LOL. Instead, our usual response to ‘What did you mean by that?’ is to feel accused and challenged. It’s as if we read italics when none are offered. (Try “What did you mean by that?” 6 different ways. One with no particular emphasis on any word, another with the emphasis on “What”…another with the stress on ‘did’…another on ‘you’…another on ‘mean’ and another on ‘by that’. The meaning shifts with each different inflection. So, we could help each other in two ways. 1) If we mean to stress a particular word, then bold it, caps it, put it in italics…do something to show the emphasis. 2) If someone has put stress on a particular word in their post, we need to receive it with that emphasis.) Anyway, if they’re simply asking ‘What did you mean by that?’, we really shouldn’t feel challenged or attacked. )
Michael-
I think I have the answer to your ‘where are they now’ question. There’s a link in this thread (see post 113588) that purports to be ‘hours of interviews with all of those who were most closely involved in the formative years’. Except for Gary, Perry and I, the rest of your list was the original board. Since “all…who were most closely involved” are interviewed in the video, you should find your updates there.
Eddy: “But back to the point, once more you seem to be incorporating me into Exodus memories and history before I ever was ‘notable’.”
I guess put you on the list because I have always thought of you as a very important and notable figure in the early, formative years of EXODUS. It was a compliment You have been referred to as “the seventh founder” (or was it sixth”?)
What has happened with you in the years that followed? Where are you now? What are you up to, besides our mutual enjoyment of karaoke? I wonder the same thing about some of the others, since they were once good friends and I have lost contact with most.
I put Gary and me on the list, just in case some readers might not be aware of what has happened in the years since EXODUS was formed. There is life after EXODUS. Just trying to start a walk down memory lane — and maybe get an update on some of the folks I have lost contact with.
I wonder what ever happened to Jim Kaspar? i have completely lost contact with him. Frank Worthen won’t speak to me. His wife told me “light has no fellowship with darkness”.
Greg Reid, who was at one time a very close friend, created E.A.G.L.E. ministry (Ex Active Gay Liberated Eternally) some time before EXODUS was formed and then started up a ministry for victims of ritual satanic abuse: http://www.gregoryreid.com/. We spoke many years ago and he told me he was “too busy” to think about his sexual orientation.
Robbi Kenney was never gay but was there from the beginning of EXODUS. I talke with her over a year ago and she was doing some sort of work producing films, I think. She doesn’t really like the term “ex-gay” from what I could tell and also thought EXODUS should drop the politics.
Perry Desmond (what a character!) attended the very first EXODUS conference. He was a former drag queen, former post-operative transexual of very large size and personality — and very big sense of humor. Referring to his sex-change surgery, he referred to himself as “the mutilated man”. Sadly, I had also heard that he had passed away. I found this about him: http://www.leaderu.com/stonewall/pages/perry_d.html
I have no information about some of the others, but would love to fill in the gaps. Any info would be appreciated.
Regarding terminology, I don’t want people to use MY definitions. I just want to understand theirs. Nuff said bout that.
Well, maybe not nuff said. EXODUS may have lots of trouble explaining what “ex-gay” and “former homosexual” actually mean (or whether or not to even use these terms), but they have no trouble at all describing what they believe homosexuality is.
Alan Chambers says it is “evil” — “One of the many evils this world has to offer…” At the recent conference, EXODUS keynote speaker, Andrew Comiiskey, calls it “spiritual disfigurement”, says that it is “wicked” and calls EXODUS members to join the “war” against it:
From Mr. Comiskey: “Wickedness is a reality, and those with same-sex attraction that succumb to the spirit of the age, can become agents of that wickedness…When you claim healing for the homosexual, you have declared war. And people, it is only going to get worse; it is only going to get worse in the changing cultural climate in which we live. Ours is not a benign healing path, it is a call to battle.”
That’s not how EXODUS started or what it was intended to be. A “healing path” is exactly what we had in mind…
Just read the material on Greg Reid’s site. When I last spoke to him, he wasn’t using the term ex-gay at all and was really vague about where he stood on that issue. He had changed his minisry focus dramatically.
On his site, he makes no mention of his “ex-gay” past or his part in creating EXODUS. Curious,,, I know that Robbi Kenney also prefers not to publicize her involvement and that she shares some of Wendy Gritter’s concerns about EXODUS’s current focus and direction.
I mention this only because I have run across article form supporters of the ex-gay movement, including Dr. Throckmorton, who claim that apart from Gary and me, “none of the original founders returned to the gay lifestyle.” http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2005/01/subjective-view/
I have personal knowledge to the contrary. Let’s be clear. Robbi was never gay to begin with and I know from direct, personal experience that at least two more of the “old-timers” never really left it — and were still “falling” while they were leading. That fact is one more reason that Gary and I decided to leave — the movement was not delivering what it claimed,
Michael - Who are you referring to? I talked to all of those who were on the first board and they all indicated to me that they still had the ex-gay perspective. Perhaps you are thinking of the founders more broadly than me…
Preface: I just reviewed this and it’s incredibly long but I couldn’t figure out what to leave out. and figured ‘you can skip over it if you want to’…except Michael, you’re not allowed to skip since it’s in answer to your question. I did realize though that parts of it speak back to or embellish other parts. (How it’s been a somewhat rewarding journey and how–parts of me that I once despised were turned into assets.) I also wanted to reward the tone of Michael’s post to me. When it turns personal, please know that I’m not prescribing this as THE way. It’s the path I’ve chosen/stumbled upon. LOL! “I did it my way!” would be a strange epitaph for a conservative Christian. I WILL have to consider that…. (Not planning on departing any time soon, though.)
Michael,
LOL. I never heard the reference to me as ‘the seventh founder’…while it is flattering, it simply isn’t true. I joined up with Robbi at Outpost in May of 1978. Because she already served on the Exodus board, I could not. (They didn’t want any one ministry to dominate…or appear to.) Perhaps she came to those board meetings with enough “Ed said” or “Ed thinks” statements that people got the impression I was there. I believe I taught my first session at an Exodus conference in 1979. I’m thinking it was most likely “Lessons for the Battlefield”–where I said pretty much what I’ve been saying here–that to me ‘ex’ simply means ‘out of’…that most, if not all, of us should expect a wilderness experience…and that I really didn’t know how long that might be. I did think that heterosexual marriage was likely in store for me one day but I had prayerfully decided that it would not be until after I left the ministry. I remember two principal reasons: 1) I didn’t want my wife to be subject to the kinds of invasive personal questions people were asking…simply because she had hooked up with me. (There is no wife…I was thinking ahead.) 2) I really couldn’t see God putting me under the stress of the public scrutiny of ministry at the same time He was asking me to make the big leap into the foreign waters of heterosexuality.
I remember telling the class that anyone who claimed to go directly from gay to straight ‘concerned’ me. I majored on PROCESS. So much so, that some people complained to the board that I was too negative. The usual retort to that was “you mean he’s too REAL.”
As to those people, Robbi always kept better tabs on people than I did. When I took a hiatus from Outpost and returned to Dallas in 1980, it turned out that Perry lived just 3 blocks from me. We got together a few times but I swear he always had an entourage…always a few friends coming and going…I much preferred my quiet apartment. I was all ‘peopled out’.
Regarding Greg and Robbi’s silence about their previous history, there’s really no mystery. I’ve said before that this is the only place where I’ve re-emerged associated with this topic. I can’t speak for Greg but I can speak, in part, for Robbi since she and I are in regular contact. We KNOW how polarizing this issue can be; we KNOW there are many presuppositions attached to our Exodus roots…we don’t choose to meet people that way. When in the ministry, the issue consumed 90 to 100% of our focus and attention; there is so much more to life…we have so many more energies…than just our sexuality. From our talks, I know that Robbi’s still has the same heart of love and concern that she always had but I’ve found that she’s also found others who are oppressed to care about as well. She’s still pursuing the producing dream but I have a hard time grasping that whole business. LOL. I understand create and perform; I don’t understand buy, option, bid, broker, deal, talent, negotiations, facilities, crews, locations, backdrops…Holy Buckets. Just the list is wearing!
Me, I’ve spent my entire life rediscovering myself. I mentioned in several previous posts about my adolescent bouts with depression, self-mutilation and thoughts of suicide. (razor cuts to forearms intended to cause pain not bleeding) Well, I needed to come to peace with that self. LOL. For years after I became a Christian, I loved myself simply because it was right to agree with God…if He loves me, it’s pretty audacious of me to overrule His opinion. But I remember saying to my counselor from church, and this while I was working at Outpost, “so what, God loves me…He loves EVERYbody…He’s got no taste…that statement says more about Him than it does about me.” It started me on a journey of examining, sometimes purging, but, more often, embracing parts of myself that I had learned to hate or at least dislike. My intensely analytical nature, my compulsive awareness of my surroundings…and the people in them, my height, my stocky frame, my looks, my quirky, bizarre and irreverent humor, my tenacity and/or stubbornesss, my fear of new things, my tendency towards ritual (just two weeks ago, I forced myself to switch my lunch place for 2 days each week. Now I go to the same new place on Tuesdays and another same new place on Thursdays.) LOL. So, you see, my life is full of exciting growth challenges to keep me occupied.
It took a long time for me to find the right fit for my creative hunger. One of my favorite tasks at Outpost was the writing. LOL. It’ve dabbled at writing over the years but simply haven’t found a topic yet that I could pour myself into. But I found out that I’m a pretty good nature photographer…a good sense of centering and cropping and an eye for things people would pass by. With or without a camera, I need to be ‘in nature’ more than most people. I have favoritte trees, favorite paths, favorite destinations, favorite sitting spots, favorite thinking spots… (I think I’d been in Minneapolis about a week before I confided in my mom, “Sorry, but I don’t think I’ll ever be moving back home; lakes, rivers, creeks, parks, woods, waterfalls…and it’s all right here IN the city.) LOL. I like to bike but I don’t like to pass by the nature that fast…I really like to drink it in.
Blogging here takes up a lot of my time. As does emailing a gang of 3 others from my early Exodus days. And my family. Now that mom has passed, I’ve informally assumed her ‘occasion reminder’ role…tipping family members off that another family member is having a special anniversary or birthday. (We’re brothers, so annual remembrances just don’t cut it but we’ll all make a point to acknowledge a 25th, 30th, etc. And, besides, I have the gift of nag.)
My strangest obsession is that I watch ‘junk tv’ critically. I learn of a show that is stupid beyond belief and then find out that it’s on the ‘most watched’ list. Then I watch the show wondering ‘what appeals to people’, ‘what is it about this that draws them in’ and, much worse, ‘ohmigod, there are people out there, in my world, who think this is (pick one: real, entertaining, educational, worthwhile, exciting)…lol…then you wait for the commercials to see what category of people they’re geared to. (My obsession about media messages pops up now and again in my comments.)
Karaoke has been the biggest breakthrough for me though. I was pulled out a class production in the 3rd or 4th grade because the nun said I was the one who was off-key. I never sang in front of people again (except ‘Happy Birthday to You). After my conversion, of course, I sang in church and I even joined the choir–but Joe, my choirloft neighbor, would always direct his voice towards me so I could match.) When I first started, I’d run to the hallway just before I got up…to shake the previous singer’s voice out of my head and put the original singer’s voice from my song in my head. If I couldn’t hear it in my head, I’d go miserably offkey. And (from all reports) I often did! But I had challenged myself that I had to try something new and that I couldn’t give up until I’d given it a fair shot. LOL. It’s been a fascinating ride of challenge and self-discovery—and many trips to YouTube–a few hours a week just singing, practicing, searching at home. (Often between blog comments.)
Oh, and I can’t leave out the ’social butterfly’. Terry, my gay friend and neighbor from across the hall, thinks I’m a social butterfly because I seem to know everyone. But I’ve lived in this neighborhood for the past 15 years and, in all my years in Minneapolis, never lived further than 5 miles from here. I have about 10 people locally that I’d call ‘friends’–we make it a point to get together and do things together occasionally. I have hundreds of ‘hello, neighbors’, acquaintances and close acquaintances. (You tend to get beyond the basic pleasantries and actually know and care a bit about each other’s lives.)
LOL…and my job is just a job. I’m good at it; it doesn’t bore me to tears (mostly because, I can wear headphones all day when I’m keying…I lip sync along to karaoke discs all day on Thursdays and Fridays)..and it pays the bills.
I’ve developed a word game for use both in schools and nursing homes (could also be a parlor game) but it’s all on paper…not on disc, yet…LOL. I have zero business sense. I excel at efficiency…finding a way to lower production costs (the goods not the laborers)…but I don’t manage, supervise, do accounting, marketing… so that’s on semi-hold. Meaning, I can start setting up a database and keying all the handwritten info. (Over 500 word puzzles and their solutions.)
Am I straight? No. I can appreciate the physicality of a woman but I’ve only felt feelings beyond that for 4 or 5 women in real life that I recall and only two onscreen. (Jane Fonda in “Coming Home” and Olivia Newton-John in “Grease”). I can see aspects of Olivia in 2 of the real life women and Jane in none. And I’ve tried not to analyze it to death. Am I gay? No. I can appreciate the physicality of a man and there are times when I feel attractions but I don’t pursue them and the attractions don’t drive me. Often, being analytical, when I feel an attraction, I’ll start ‘looking for the hook’…what is it about this guy that’s drawing me? And I find myself chewing on whatever it is that I just learned rather than pursuing the attraction. A few times I found that my attraction was more of an admiration and, recognizing that as a healthy motive, actually struck up a friendshp. LOL. The attractions are kinda like mosquitos…a bit bothersome but easy to deal with (unless they come in hordes)…seasonal…don’t purposely draw them to you…and, when all else fails, try some repellant.
Regrets? I’ve got a few. But, then again, too few to mention.
LOL—and then, after writing the preface, did one more review and realized that I forgot to mention that I actually got good at karaoke. People actually invite me to sing for events. I’ve learned my range…the songs I can try, the songs I should avoid, the songs I know I’ll do well and the songs that are guaranteed to ‘bowl ‘em over’ every time. “My Way” is the most recent addition to the hot list.
LOL. And please don’t ask me analyze the ‘attraction levels’ further…even I don’t know if they’re diminishing due to personal growth or age. I’m human enough that I get worried in the spring if I don’t have a brief surge of attractions. Proof that I’m still alive. (It’s been a struggle ever since my first AARP mailing arrived.)
Michael writes … About EXODUS history, whatever happend to these EXODUS old-timers? Greg Reid, Frank Worthen, Robbi Kenney, Ed Hursrt, Ron Dennis, Jim Kaspar. Michael Bussee, Gary Cooper, Perry Desomnd, etc. Where are they now? Except for Robbi (who was never gay) how many of these guys are still “ex-gay”?
Ron Dennis is the President of my Board of Directors (Transforming Congregations), and for many years during the 80s served as one of our regional Executive Directors. (His personal testimony can be found on our website under the “Find Help” section. He was married for several years until his wife died of cancer, but I don’t know if he embraces the label “ex-gay.” He currently lives in Pahrump, Nevada.
Karen,
Thanks for the update. I’ve wondered for years myself where Ron was and what he was up to. I’m sorry for the loss of his wife. The next time your paths cross, try to let him know we’re hanging out over here. Perhaps he could stop in for a spell.
Eddy: Thanks for filling me in. I find it interesting that your urges come in surges - and that they tend to se seasonal. It reminds me of what Frank Worthen once said about the matter in one of his old newsletters:
“When the sun [comes out] and the clothes[come] off, ['ex-gays' have] a full blown problem.” He admits that even “during the winter months,” the “ex-gays” have only “a measure of victory.”
This was (and probably still is) a “full blown” problem among many other EXODUS leaders — at least in those early years. They may not have acutally been having sex with another person (I know that some did) but when we got together as a group, we all admitted privately to each other that masturbation to gay fantasies was an ongoing problem.
I believe the “masturbation problem” was even discussed at a couple of EXODUS conferences — so no one was really ex-gay in the sense of now being heterosexual. I was the only one that made it very public. I told the truth and they got credit for “not returning to the gay lifestyle”. Question: Is repetitive “falling” into gay masturbation somehow morally better?
While they were “falling” and being hailed as somehow holier than me, I was being vilified and demonized for telling the truth — that “ex-gays” were still gay. I have been told that I am not saved and was never saved. I have been told that my father is “Satan” and that I am his “seed”.
I have been accused of lying, spinning and distorting the truth. Frank Worthen even sent me graphic descriptions of the flames of Hell that await me and now refuses to speak to me. And even though I apologized to my wife and family for my infdelity, I have been told that I owe EXODUS an apology. If only the WHOLE story of EXODUS’s early days were told, other people (a lot of people) would need to offer an “apology”, not just me.
One “ex-gay” back then had an addiction to gay porn. Another took nude showers with another ex-gay leader. That saddest stoy of all is of one “old-timer” who told me that he was “going to bars looking for guys to beat him up” over the guilt he felt for “falling”.
I am not saying these things to discredit them. These people were brothers in Christ and good friends — I am just tired of being singled out as the bad seed who did not repent — while they continued to mislead their audiences.
Thanks, Michael, for putting into words that which was at the forefront of my mind and heart as I tried to talk with ex-gay leaders and participants. Occasionally, one of these concerns which you so eloquently state would rise to the surface and be expressed but would be met with the deafening silence I alluded to, earlier.
So, *which* is better: having a heterosexual mate and “falling” sporadically, being in a committed gay relationship, or going “solo” (masturbation) for a lifetime?
How about just checking out of life nearly entirely, keeping people and opportunities at a distance?
Of course the answer I would get (typically) was, “None of the above; God wants you healed.”
Still wondering where more than a scant few of these folks reside.
Ann: I was actually told (by quite a number of EXODUS people) that what made my situation particularly sinful was that I was “living” it (staying committed to one partner) as opposed to repenting and falling, repenting and falling, repenting and falling…
You are OK as you repent and really mean it — even you can only keep that promise for a couple of days. At least they are being obedient and I am being rebellious. To their way of thinking, promiscuity with repentance was better — you could still call yourself ex-gay.
Michael,
Was that for me for AM?
AM,
Of the three scenarios, which one do you feel more aligned to? Is there another one not mentioned that would be personally better for you? People are always going to have opinions about what others should or should not do with whatever set of circumstances they are dealing with, but ultimately, it is a personal choice what we decide and we can always change our perspectives over the course of a life. I certainly have. Also, if you do not feel a sense of conviction in any of the choices currently available, then I don’t think you have to choose anything yet. Be careful who you listen to, and if a person is really interested in your well being, they will be listening to you.
I am sorry. It was for AM. With my visual problems, it looked like Ann.
AM,
Why would you ask another person’s opinion on that? Sin is sin - none is greater or lesser than the other.
(BTW, I believe SSS is a sin for me and do not make that call for other people)
Why wouldn’t I have the right to ask another person’s opinion on anything? Is homosexuality and how it is dealt with or lived out off limits or taboo? We can discuss other issues — alcohol, divorce and remarriage of which many opinions and yes Scriptural opinions abound and yet homosexuality is cut and dried with no discussion necessary?
Hmm….maybe Warren should shut down this blog if all questions are answered, all dilemmas solved.
Come to think of it, I would like to hear his thoughts on what we have been discussing.
I loved those early EXODUS days. Loved Greg, Mike and Kaspar. Felt energized by being a part of something larger than myself. I think a lot of us, completely apart from the sexuality issues, longed for camaraderie and a sense of belonging. I wasn’t coming from a gay background of course (and that’s the phrase I coined for OUTPOST when ex-gay became completely untenable very early on), but I was single, celibate, sexually interested. (In Kaspar, poor guy, and Greg until a mighty blow-out at the Johnstown conference in, uh, I want to say 1979). So I could identify with the sexual temptation issues that we all talked about.
I am greatly encouraged by the leadership of EXODUS agreeing to withdraw from Republican etc politics and re-forming its stance on “change.” That was, what, Ed, a year or so ago? Of course I don’t know what happens at the local level. But Alan Chambers drops us notes occasionally, as does Dan Puumula at OUTPOST, as to what’s going on. Dan’s take on change isn’t much different than Ed’s and mine (and Jeff Ford’s when he took over). We weren’t interested in teaching that heterosexuality was the goal and made that statement in our literature more than once.
We’ve lost so many of those very early EXODUS, and for a few months pre-EXODUS participants. Guy Charles was the first to pass away. Heart condition. He went back to the gay life not long after that very first Melodyland meeting where EXODUS was named.
I saw him again in Chicago about 1978. Ed (Eddy) had crashed the OUTPOST station wagon on the way home to Mpls from Harrisburg. He rolled over into a ditch near Angola, Indiana. A wonderfully frank guy named Marty Hanson, who stated bluntly at that year’s EXODUS conference that he didn’t believe in change, drove out to pick him up and put him on a Greyhound bus. Somewhere in there I spent a weekend with Marty and we tracked down Guy who gave me a box of ministry memorabilia that I eventually passed along to Bob Davies when he was still running EXODUS.
The interesting thing about Guy’s views on things at that point in his life (in his early 70’s I think) is that he’d simply given up the fight to stay celibate. He was in a long-term relationship with a partner at that point, but was adamant that he would never “cross over” to Ralph whatsinames take on gay theology. Ralph. Evangelicals Concerned Ralph. Man, menopause. Mind like a sieve now. I loved his being able to tell me this stuff, and how glad I was that he was comfortable with himself and with me to do it. Plus I got to use his bathroom, papered over with hunky naked men from magazines doing whatever. THAT he was a litlte embarrassed about. I think he told me to close my eyes and pee.
Barbara Johnson of Spatula Club fame, who was also an important participant at the Melodyland meeting, died of brain cancer a year or so ago. I lost track of her years ago, and it was interesting to me that after the success of her first couple books about being the parent of a gay son, she took her sense of humor out to the masses, not speaking of homosexuality in the last few of her books.
Perry Desmond. That was one my saddest moments when I’d heard he’d passed away. I”m thinking we heard during the Las Vegas conference in … 1981? The stress his body went through - with the surgeries, breast implants and removals, all that — plus his weight issues. God. He never forgot me. He always dropped me the happiest little lines NEVER mentioning his illnesses. If email had been around in his day, Perry would’ve been a one-person viral campaign for WHATEVER he was into. The man WAS the smiley face in those days.
I had breakfast with a good friend this morning. Patricia Nell Warren, author of the classic gay lovestory The Front Runner. She knows about my background. I came out to her very early in our relationship. I think producing The Front Runner would be a nice counterpoint to all those years in ex-gay ministry.
So let’s recap. No one seems to know where Jim Kaspar is — but I have reason to believe that he was never really “ex-gay” when I knew him and probably is not now.. Greg Reid was questionably “ex-gay” when I knew him, is no longer involved in ex-gay ministry and no one knows what kind of ex-gay lifesytle he is living now — if any.
Robbi Kenney was never gay and is producing a “classic gay love story”. Gary Cooper is dead. Perry Desmond is dead. Guy Charles is dead. The last time I talked with Ron Dennis, we was going to bars to look for straight guys to beat him up because he felt guilty about his gayness.
Frank Worthen is married and still likes the term “ex-gay”, Eddy was not one of the founders, so you can’t count him. I am openly gay So how can Thockmorton most of the founders never returned to the gay lifestlye?.
The last time I talked with Ron Dennis, we was going to bars to look for straight guys to beat him up because he felt guilty about his gayness.
Michael,
I don’t know who Ron Dennis is but would this be considered a hate crime in reverse if he was targeting straight guys to beat up?
Michael,
I am so sorry - just read your post again and see that he wanted straight men to beat HIM up. I knew something was amiss and now I see it.
He told me he was going to bars to try to provoke fights — looking for straight guys to beat him up as a sort of punushment for still being gay.
I interviewed both Kaspar and Reid for an article i did a couple of years ago. They both said they had not come to believe living as gay was right for them. Reid was more emphatic about it than Kaspar. But Kaspar was not involved in ministry and did not want to comment any further or have anyone contact him. I only interviewed those who were on that first board, except you Michael, because everyone knew where you were
- I now regret that I did not contact you directly sooner. Ron Dennis appears to have survived whatever beatings he sustained and is still in ex-gay ministry in NE.
Lots of twists and turns, most of which are complicated.
Here’s where I struggle. I feel like so often we (the pro-gay folks) come across as almost taking joy in pointing out the failu