According to Exodus President, Alan Chambers, you won’t be able to find this reference to PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) on the Exodus website much longer.
Within the last couple of weeks, PFOX gave up affiliation with Exodus. While Chambers declined to give reasons for the PFOX move, he indicated that Exodus would not seek any future relationship. He noted that PFOX is a public policy organization and their activities do not fit in with the mission and direction of Exodus. I have asked Regina Griggs, Executive Director at PFOX, for comment and will report the reason for their decision if disclosed.
PFOX seems to be alone among conservative groups in advocating for ex-gays using civil rights language. I recall thinking this was a strange framework for a group that really doesn’t believe homosexual orientation exists. In any event, PFOX and Exodus has not been a good fit on many levels so this separation is a good move.
To Ann:
Ann: I will only share those things that I think are important to share. I will not share details that are too painful or too personal. And I won’t keep apologizing. It’s in God’s hands. My point in sharing the “less-than-blissful” things that have happened since I left EXODUS was to counter Eddy’s assertions that:
(1) I try to make it all look fulfuilling and blissful — the “equal” of heterosexuality”,
(2) I have used by marriage and my child to prove it,
(3) I put up “no fishing” signs and am less-than-forthcoming when he tries to seek clarification of the less-than-blissful parts of my life.
So, I gave him the “short” list. I pointed out that it has not all been “happy, happy, joy, joy” – and that in this broken world of ours, gays and straights alike are both victims (and perpetrators) of suffering.
I included hurts from gays and straights alike. No one is immune. No one is unbroken. I get the feeling that Eddy thinks straights are somehow less broken. If so, he is simply wrong.
Gays and straights alike can be selfsih, hurtful, broken, sick, disordered and sinful. And they both can suffer the selfishness, hurtfulness, sickness, disorderliness and sinfulness that our “broken” world seems to have in such abundance.
Of course, Eddy, (showing his typically anti-gay bias) zeroed in on the hurt caused to me my some gay folk — minimizing the straight examples — as proof that gayness “screams” brokeness. Look around. Straights are just as broken and just as in need of a loving God to heal them.
Now, back to my ice pack for my jaw and perhaps some sleep. I tell ya, it’s the dentists…
I imagine Eddy knows this. But if gayness is a worldly thing, it is broken, along with all the rest of it. Isn’t it interesting that Solomon said what is crooked in the world can never be straightened? The world, then, will always be subject to the fall and original sin and all that grew out of that. There can never be peace, poverty will never be eradicated and senseless things will continue to happen until Christ returns.
People, however, can choose to receive God’s grace and whatever healing is subsequent to it. The Lord’s Prayer is a model Jesus gave us, and it includes “lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.” It includes asking for our daily bread. Daily. That’s this thing called Christianity. A daily dying to self, and receiving God’s grace for whatever comes our way. Some of it we volunteer for, some of it we don’t. Some of it we may understand, some of it we don’t. It is what it is.
Our story is Paradise, The Fall and Restoration. The Fall takes up nearly all of history to date. Restoration comes one soul at a time in the meantime.
Ex-gay males are still SSA, not straight. Female ex-gays seem more fluid.
Debbie: Can you explain where you disagree with this statement? I thought we had all pretty much agreed on those two things. WIll look forward to hearing it when I sign back on tomorrow.
BTW: The kum ba yah spirit is towards the people here as indiviudals. As you know, there are many things about EXODUS, as an orgization, that still trouble me very much.
I am aware as I am writing this that, to an outsider, this must seem like splitting hairs.
Dr. Throckmorton,
I felt like this for a long time until I decided to understand what you were saying. I am glad I did as it has given me a whole new perspective – one that I think is very sensible and realistic.
Michael,
I hope you feel better tomorrow – keep the ice on as long as you can and take some tylenol to ease the pain.
Please forgive me if I am ever out of line or cross any boundary. I just do not think it necessary to continue to explain yourself for something that you have already taken care of with your family. It is between you and them. Whatever happened with Exodus and the people who felt betrayed because of the choice you and Gary made is another story that you can continue to address and explain or not. I just think your family is off limits and you should feel no obligation to explain any further than what you already have.
I do not believe that Eddy is anti-gay.
Michael,
One more thing – think I have said it before but want to say it again. Your spirit here has been a great example of kindness and respect of others. Even in disagreement you do not try to shut down or control a discussion and it is this kind of grace that is commendable. I love a spirited discussion and you have shown us how to do it with emotional maturity and intelligence and respect for others.
Did I say it was? I hope I didn’t say it was or I’m crazy. The APA holds that deeply-held religious convictions are not to be construed as mental illness. I thought that I simply stated the only thing you would accomplish despite your best intentions.
Ann writes,
” Karen, You do not deserve some of the recent comments directed toward you – it is evident they are self serving and meant to control or shut down the conversation rather than work through it.”
Thanks. Really. I had a self-defense all prepared but your post has checked me. I probably would have gotten “testy” again as well. So I appreciate that you’re able to see through the personal attacks.
“Ex-gay males are still SSA, not straight. Female ex-gays seem more fluid. ”
Michael, I don’t exactly believe this either. Mainly because it mixes attraction and orientation. I think it would be more accurate to say “Some ex-gay males still experience SSA” or “Ex-gay males may still experience some SSA.” I’d eliminate the “not straight” part all together. The statement about females seems OK.
I haven’t had the chance today to look at your other statements. Busy with my god-daughter and her sister. The 2 year old showed sheer joy tonight in the gift of a package of sippy cups. How did we adults lose that simple gratitude?
.
Lynn, I may have taken too many liberties with the word “insanity.” No, you didn’t say prayer for the believer was a form of insanity, just that believing for you would be. I saw an analogy, that’s all.
But I do have to say that neither you nor I can know what prayer for the nonbeliever can accomplish. That is simply beyond you or me. I believe in the supernatural power of the one, true God and the Trinity, but you don’t. Your non-belief doesn’t not negate His existence.
It would be fruitless to debate this, of course. I just find the spiritual journeys of atheists to be interesting. I threw out the C.S. Lewis thing because he (and others) took such a journey back to faith. And I care about my fellow man (woman). Peace to you.
Hey, Michael. I hope the tooth pain is better today. It’s a major bummer. Hate it.
Sorry I didn’t clarify this earlier. I don’t agree that ALL ex-gay males are still necessarily SSA. I do believe those who have the longest road to travel back to wholeness (were always exclusively SSA) are the most likely to continue to have that as an issue to contend with. And women do seem more fluid in their sexuality, but they have the same emotions (expressed differently) and same spiritual battles as men. Physiological or biological differences are a slightly different matter, I believe. We’ve discussed that from all angles in other (sometimes R-rated) threads, of course.
I have to keep coming back to the big picture regarding sin and brokenness that covers us all. I still say Warren nailed it in a previous comment when he reminded us that we all, believers included, will struggle with sin in some form in our lives. Are we really ex-sinners? We ought to be growing in that direction daily. We are redeemed and reconciled back to God through Jesus’ blood, but still in the world.
The process of sanctification will gradually erode sin’s hold over us. “Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4b) is a wonderful thought to meditate on.
All sin is bondage to the enemy of our souls. Oswald Chambers was adept at reminding folks through his messages that we must give up our right to ourselves to know true freedom. I read “My Utmost for His Highest” a lot, along with my Bible. Somehow God has used Chambers as a catalyst in my life to help open my eyes to some deeper truths. He has used other great men and women of faith similarly.
LOL. I think I need another “cop of cuffee.”
Karen, I appreciate you. This is the toughest part of participating in these kinds of forums. We sometimes forget (moi included) we are supposed to be reflecting Christ in all we say and do, and begin wanting to defend ourselves. I refer us all back to Oswald Chamber’s view on the right to self above. That sobers us, or ought to.
Timothy’s lengthy ‘farewell to this discussion’ post also appears, pretty much intact, over on The Box Turtle Bulletin. There he does reveal the name of the pastor and the church…evidently it’s Carrie Prejean’s church.
For the record, Karen did retract her request for Timothy to disappear and Warren also stepped in affirming that he is the only one with the authority to request someone to leave a discussion. If we all walked out on conversations where we ‘were not welcome’, there’d be no one left. Timothy, please feel free to stay on.
Karen suggests:
That’s not truthful. It’s not “some”. It’s all( or almost all) as far as I have seen. I have said it many times over. In 30 years, I have never met a male ex-gay who does not experience SSA. The SSA is still there. These guys are not heterosexual.
Karen, that’s not true either. “May” and “some” make it sound like ex-gays who are still SSA are the exception, when they are the rule.
Wasn’t it you who admitted that “healing from” strictly SSA to stirctly OSA is “very rare”, “seldom happens” and should not be expected by cleitns or loved ones?
I say it again. Ex-gay males (with very rare exceptions, if there are exceptions at all) are still same sex attracted to some degree or another.
They are not now heterosexual (or “straight”), in the sense of now only being opposite sex attracted. That’s a fact.
Michael,
What are you basing your own stats on? Do you have solid scientific research to back this up that includes all levels of SSA people or is this based on your experience with those you have been in contact with? If the later it seems to me that you may be dealing with a biased subset also. I suspect the NARTH and Exodus may be using a slightly different subset for their understanding of change. I also suspect the subset among gay activists is skewed in a very different direction.
My point is that you do not have a scientific basis to make the claims you are making either. Until you have interviewed all those who have experience some level of change in their live I would appreciate it if you discontinue the kinds of broad generalization that you so freely offer to us on this blog site.
I am not claiming any scientific basis. I am only saying that in 30 years of asking I have not met or talked to one ex-gay male who is completely hetereosexual and no longer SSA. Show me just one.
It was Karen who admitted, and who gave me permission to quote her, — that such a somplete “healing” is “rare”, that it “seldom” occurs and that it should not be expected by clients or loved ones.
If EXODUS has information to the contrary, I would love to see it. Bigfoot may exist. I want to see and touch him myself. I will not take it on faith.
Concerned: Perhaps you have met one?
I deplore Michael’s statement and have answered to it a number of times without adequate reply. I strongly object to his continuing to make his claim without addressing the confusions that it contains.
Michael’s statement is unfair because he uses a phrase ‘completely heterosexual’ that has not been defined anywhere!!! (Don’t we anecdotally say that most any man under the right circumstances might consider another man? So, is there anyone who is ‘completely heterosexual’?)
And ‘no longer SSA’ is an absolute in Michael’s book. As I’ve said on as many occasions as Michael has made his claim, it should be expected that if a person has ever found pleasure in a given area, they likely will experience temptation in that area again.
Michael may hold onto the question as long as he wishes but it has no value in this honest discussion where we are trying to move past being misleading.
Also, I’m not sure if it’s happened by accident but it is perplexing that we moved from productive discussion on real definitions of the change that Exodus offers and now are back at this point where the change that Michael is referring to is complete and absolute. I’m making no accusations of purposeful muddling. It’s my guess that other voices have joined in that weren’t particular mindful of the progress we made. But it sure feels frustrating to have returned to square one.
Michael–
If it’s your contention that you weren’t being as absolute as I think you were in your statement, please include Alan Chambers’ experience in your reply. The man sounds damn happy to me with his wife and kids…and his SSA thoughts are minimal.
Debbie wrote:
I am pretty sure, outsiders think of some of the materials Karen quoted as promising something which on the other hand other Exodus materials and statements does not promise. At risk of squelching hope, I will say a more accurate picture might be presented by going heavy on the fallible natures in the present and less on the potential future outcomes.
I am sure that is true.
OK, how’s this. A completely heteresexual male is one who reports that he experiences no sexual attractions towards other males. These guys may be lying, of course, but there are lots of them who say it. I have not met one ex-gay male who says it.
That is not misleading. I am telling the truth. I really want to meet one. Honest I do. Have you guys met one who is no longer same sex attracted?
When all is said and done, Warren, we must leave it in God’s hands. I don’t think you really want to squelch hope, but to paint a more realistic picture. I understand that. False hope is seen as cruel, and where do we draw the line?
I probably love testimonies — real stories from real people — of the change in their lives most of all. They don’t promise that kind of change for everyone hearing them, but they do offer hope. Like the crippled man, seen after his healing by Jesus, jumping around. Or the blind man clearly regaining sight. That power still exists, even if it is on less-dramatic display and its effects take place over time.
It is also seen as cruel to remove that hope from people because science or statistics want to render it invalid. Two sides to the same coin.
Eddy: I am getting frustrated, not angry. What is it that you want me to say? That I have met an ex-gay male who is no longer SSA? I can’t say it. That would not be true. What could I say about this ex-gay issue that would satisfy you?
I have said they have the right to call themselves whatever they want, to live in accordance with their beliefs and to pursue and live out whatever “wholeness” means to them. Everyone has that right.
When I point out the fact that they are not heterosexual, you jump on me. Are you heterosexual now? What do want me to say. How about, “Although ex-gays report significant changes in behavior and identity, they typically report that they still have same sex temptations to some degree or another.” — would that be better?
Michael–
I very clearly told you how you could answer me in a way I’d understand. You ignore the point about the ongoing nature of temptation EVERY time this comes up. Was my request for you to restate your claim/challenge while showing how Alan Chambers didn’t qualify objectionable for some reason?
So I will revise it:
Better?
Eddy,
I had a boyfriend who was all hetero and he admitted to getting oral sex from a guy because it was convienent – or maybe just too exciting. Would you call him bi-sexual? I wouldn’t.
Michael’s inquiry for just one guy who has changed from all SSA to all OSA is unrealistic. No one can meet that. No one. We never forget. We will always remember our past and that is the way it is.
He is being unfair and unreasonable when one xonsiders the human sexual experience. And very narrowly defining other people.
Haven’t I been saying that? I
No. By saying I have never met a male ex-gay who is no longer same sex tempted, I am not “defining” people. I am simply stating FACTS. I am repeating what they have told me. Typically, even they don’t define themselves as straight. Why get upset with me when I state what they say about themselves?
Michael–
I’m afraid the kumbaya is over. You can phrase and rephrase all you want. I told you twice of the context where it would translate truthfully (i.e. using Alan’s story as your base so that people could see what your terms really mean) but you continued to gloss right by it.
I thought you were done playing word and label games. You pretend that you are. But I’ve made a very reasonable request…you’ve glossed right over it…and yet you expect me to ‘approve’ your new wordings. Why on earth would I cooperate with you when you purposely stymied my attempt to converse with you…to have you define, using a real human ex-gay example, your word meanings in your claim. You want ‘spin’ not truth and I’m tired of making simple requests that you decide to simply ignore while you then continue to make requests of me. It’s not respect and I simply don’t want to engage with you anymore.
Goodbye.
You narrowly define how men with SSA can define themselves. I’m not upset. I’m just staing a fact, also.
If there is a smidgeon of SSA in someone you jump and call them bisexual or not OSA. I doubt you will find very many people that are all OSA.
Let me put it in bold letters:
Men with SSA have every right to define themselve any way they please.
If they have SSA they have SSA. Lots of people claim to be only OSA. LOTS. Of course, they could be lying…
Debbie,
My answer would be to do first things first – the focus should be on separating an individual from a life that they acknowledge is not congruent with their personal values and/or faith. What happens after that is a whole other issue and one that will be personal for each person – there should be no standard or expectation from others as to how their life will unfold and more often than not, it is an ongoing journey.
Debbie, this is one of my favorite Bible verses – it talks about a hope and a future. I do not believe hope has to be defined as I think God wants us to trust Him for it and how it will work for His glory in our lives.
For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. Jeremiah 29:11-12
Eddy:
OK, if that’s what you really want, I want you address you. If you prefer not to talk with me, I will talk to the others here. The “kum ba yah” was not a promise not to seek further clarification or to discuss the meanings of words and phrases.
It was a promise to be less confrontational, to treat others with more repsect — and to try to understand what they were saying. I am still trying to understand. You accuse me of “playing games” and “pretending”.
What Am I glossing over. I have acknowledged that Alan is happy, that he still has SSA but is living beyond that. What am I glossing over? What do you want me to say? I honestly don’t get it.
This is really unfair, Eddy. I am not playing games. I am trying to reach some sort of mututal understanding. Why belittle me by accusing me of “games” and “pretending”? I am doing neither. Were the four statements I made fair or not? I thought they were a good restatement of what you are saying.
Alan is a good example of a person who has made profound and significant changes in his identity and lifestyle — in spite of his ongoing same sex temptations. He is living in accordance with his beliefs and I applaud him for that.
Several times today you have bypassed my actual words and respectful requests to you. I gather that is because they didn’t fit your ‘spin’.
Several times, you’ve missed the essence of what I said only to launch off into your own little personal opinion detour. (The fact that you don’t view all homosexual behavior as sin has no bearing whatsoever on the distinction I labored to portray between orientation and temptation. That was a pretty important point…in fact, I thought I might have expressed it more clearly that time than ever…but that doesn’t concern you…that point will be lost because you want to make it clear that you don’t think that all homosexual behavior is sin. Didn’t we know that already? Did it have any bearing on the distinction between orientation and temptation? If the distinction still wasn’t clear, did your response attempt to seek clarity on the point? NO. You are Michael, and your bias will be spoken everywhere and in every situation.)
Well, I’m tired–very tired–of investing so much energy into conversation only to be at the mercy of your whims. I’m tired of making simple requests to have them ignored as if they weren’t even spoken; I’m tired of saying things quite plainly only to have you rephrase them in “Michaelese” and then seeking approval for your rewrites; and I’m tired of laboring to communicate only to trip one of your buttons and launching us off into a detour instead. And I’m oh so very tired of taking one step forward, two steps back. (If we’ve actually established that Exodus isn’t defining change as a change in orientation, what, praytell, is even the purpose of your “In 30 years I’ve never met…” statement? If it doesn’t presume that Exodus is promising a change in orientation, at the very least, it’s YOU suggesting that that is the goal and no one’s making it. So, it’s YOU muddying the waters…AGAIN…right after we worked very hard to clean them up a little.)
Sometimes I think you’re a yo-yo, bro. Keeps coming around again…and again…and again. Spinning, spinning, spinning…but nothing to show for it but the spin.
They could be lying.
A recess might be in order. I am taking one as I have been participating here far more than I had originally planned. We do have other lives, I hope.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have these discussions, and do find fruit in them under some of the manure.
Debbie–
I think I’m in agreement on that one. I believe I’m overdue for a ‘time out’ myself.
Re: words/meaings dispute involving Michael & Eddy
What happened to the basic agreement?
This was what Eddy wrote on July 17:
This was Michael’s response:
Sorry I misunderstood it. It does concern me. I was trying to use your language, not the psychological “orientation” lingo.I deliberately included “temptation” because I know if fits better in the context you understand homosexual behavior to be sin. It does concern me. DId I mis-state something about the relationship between sin and temptation?
I thought it did. That’s why I referred to it as “temptation” not orientation.
YES, I did. And you got all huffy and walked off.
I mist have missed the simple request. I did not intend to? What was it? I thought you wanted me to acknowledge that Alan was a good example of someone who had changed even though he still had SSA temptations. And I did that. What simple request are you referring to?
I was referring to Karen’s statement that “some ex-gays experience some SSA”, when is seems more straightforward to say that all or most do. I haven’t met one who doesn’t — it seems to be all. Even EXODUS seems to be making it clear that It’s an ongoing struggle for all — or nearly all.
I am not suggesting that it is EXODUS’s goal. I thought I made that clear. I have said that it is holiness, not heterosexuality that is the goal. I am not muddying the waters. I am not saying that “no one’s making it”. I just said they are still SSA — and even you guys say that.
Why does it upset you when I say it — and not when pro-ex-gays say it?
Is there anything in my four statements above that is unfair, “spinning” or inaccurate? I was trying to sum up what you guys were telling me about all of this. I was not spinning. I
asked, “did I get it right?” — seeking clarification if I was off-the-mark — and you accused me of insincere game-playing and pretending and said “good-bye”. I have generalized and used Michaelese in the past. Now, I am trying to come up with something I can say that will be respectful and fair, that will not “spin”, that will use esaily understood language and that EXODUS can agree with.
And Carole: I still think Eddy did a very job. I was trying to sum it up in fewer words, that’s all.
Goodnight all. Salvage what you can.
Goodnight Eddy. I do seem to upset that guy! I think he is being sincere and he thinks I am spinning, misleading, playing games, glossing over, being “glib” and sarcastic. That is not my intent. Honestly. Well, maybe the sarcasm sometimes.
Well, there have been some scientific debates on prayer for those who are ill and the conclusions have been that prayer doesn’t work. And so I have come to a reasonable conclusion…. peace!
Eh…. I had your word debate on the mind. I meant: there have been some scientific research studies on prayer….
Ah! But that depends on what you mean by “works”. It may not heal the disease, but it may heal the fear. Prayer always works. Sometimes, the answer is yes. Sometimes no. Sometimes not yet.
ITo Debbie: I
LOL. Thanks for taking part. And hey, sometimes the manure helps the fruit grow…
Michael B.,
The comments that I posted about “rare” were quotes from Mike Goeke writing in God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door. See the post above – Jul 23, 2009 at 8:37 pm.
I’ve had a long day with my little girl visitors, and haven’t had the chance to check out the thread before this evening. I’m kind of sorry to see everyone saying “goodbye” and checking out, but I had been thinking too that it had almost run its course.
I read back through Warren’s posts and I think I missed some of them in cross-posting.
Warren, I think you and I are actually close to thinking and saying the same things – if that means that not any outcome to sexual sanctification is OK, but only the two outcomes of chaste singleness or heterosexual marriage.
I really didn’t understand the distinction you were making between your SIT model and ministry. Or, I understood the difference but thought you still wanted Exodus to do the former – adopt a more therapeutic model.
I really misunderstood you and I apologize for that. And for being frustrated and testy. I still think you want Exodus to downplay change more than I do, but I can live with that.
I also apologize for sharing what I did about how you and this blog are perceived by some leaders in the ex-gay/post-gay movement. I didn’t do it to be mean, but I should have shared it with you privately. I’m sorry I didn’t.
So, I say goodbye to this thread, too, and a special thankyou to Warren, Eddy, Michel B. Debbie T., Ann and Mary for one of the best online conversations I’ve ever had. It really helped me to think through my beliefs in a systematic way. It was a great gift to me.
Before you go, Karen. Could you address whether ot not you think that solo masturbation might be OK sometimes? David Blakesless has said that he think it’s morally neutral — like a nice meal or a good book.
What is your take? Could I, as a single “SSA only” guy ever express or release sexual feelings in this way, in private, and still be morally OK? Could it ever be part of “chaste singleness” or am I to have no sexual release whatever until I die?
Yep, that’s the point. We need to remember it (the manure) is a means to something productive and not get distracted by it.
Amen. And studies I am aware of, even on blind, intercessory prayer, have yielded different results than what Lynn indicates.
I still wish we could step back and take a look at the whole change thing through a slightly different lens. Warren tried to refocus this debate, but it didn’t take. I thank him for trying.
Why are so many of us married to our singular either-or opinion on change? It’s really not the degree of change that is the real point. It’s viewing SSA like any other brokenness resulting in temptation that may lead to sin. We’ve got science/psychology pitted against ministry/discipleship (the ministry of reconciliation).
Where on earth is there more of an all-out war of terminology, precept and conscience — accept in the realm of abortion? Look at both those issues. Sexually driven and self-centered (for the most part) with a potentially devastating impact on lives. Abortion takes out a large segment of society that never sees the light of day. Gay affirmation, without even knowing what the struggle of self-denial might yield in one’s spiritual life, is also a travesty, IMHO.
Alan Chambers tried to accomplish this refocusing in his book, I think. He may have partially succeeded.
Ah, yes, Ann. Thanks for your comments on hope. Well said.
Michael B., do you really want this thread to end on a masturbatory note? (LOL) That’s a subject for another thread.