The pennington book appears to have become rare. Amazon’s used-bookseller affiliates have 5 copies that range in price from $50.00 to $75.00. While that’s a lot of money for a paper-bound book, I’d suggest its something you should have in your library if you are interested in this history.

If you don’t want to pay that, I’ll be happy to PDF the relevant 31 pages and send it to you. Point me to your preferred email address where you can accept a large file, and I’ll see that you get it.

I cannot find the Pennington book in print and attempted to call the Lambda Christian Fellowship but the number was changed to some nutrition center.

I have said before that it doesn’t matter to me what happened to the founders, or if they were founders or not. Anecdotes (n=1) do not prove or disprove much beyond the experience of the person involved. Absolutistic statements can be addressed by these cases (e.g., change always happens, change never happens, change attempts are always harmful, change attempts are never harmful) but generalization to others cannot be made. I am interested in these stories out of old fashioned curiosity, because I am interested in the credibility of those making the claims, and because the issue of longevity can only be addressed by these stories since we have no longitudinal studies. I am currently undertaking such research and hope to have something to say about this in 5 years or so.

That about a “neutral” organization, one that didn’t affiliate with the extremist on either side?

The signs are clear. With respect to Exodus, “founder” has been deftly redefined as “founding boardmember,” with no consideration that boards are often put together so that one group–such as members of Exit, for instance–would not dominate a national association.

With respect to Love In Action, when you report your recent interview with Philpott, he’s described as someone everyone agrees started Love In Action, yet you are silent when I point out that Love In Action’s own website doesn’t even mention him in its history.

Perhaps that’s because today’s Love in Action is really Love In Action, International, which raises the question of how many ministries have come and gone under Exodus’ umbrella only to have an epiphiphany in the founders result in their closing up shop or changing direction.

So when the question is “trying to determine the accuracy of the claims that founders of various ex-gay groups reverted to being gay,” which you agree is your intention in a posting on ex-gay watch, one wonders how you will arrive at a “factual, respectful and careful” methodology to do so by throwing people out of the study universe rather than trying to find groups to include.

I don’t agree with Besen’s approach, though I understand it. I’m of the “enough rope” school; we give you the information and document we gave it, so you can’t claim later that you didn’t know.

He has not asked for contact information before. If he did, I would react by asking the contact first and then provide his information to the contact and let the person decide. But I have been very forthcoming about my views and answered questions about my speaking engagements to him. He has on at least two occasions I can remember asked me to clarify my position on issues which I have done.

In trying to advance ideas one is passionate about, I think it is fair to expect strong feelings. But personal attacks, demeaning assumptions about motives and namecalling seem out of place to me.

Disagreement is a given on this subject but I hope to carry out the discussion about that disagreement “factually, respectfully, and carefully” (thanks ck).

You obviously missed the point — Warren did get it.

Having taken a public stance on an issue, clearly at odds with the one taken by Wayne, Warren should not have been surprised by the refusal. I’m rather perplexed that he even asked, frankly. Warren is free to take whatever public stance he chooses, but having done so he may also anticipate a complete lack of cooperation from those he has spoken against.

Likewise, Wayne is free to have his own religious beliefs; be they whatever. If they happen to be not-Christian or even anti-Christian, so be it. This is called freedom of religion.

(This something I doubt actually, as a whole. However if you mean he’s spoken against a particular type of Christian organisation or thinking, then I’d agree.)

And why on earth do you think PFLAG et al should make supportive statements about the efforts of PFOX, Exodus etc? What middle ground would you propose? Bizarre.

This is an utterly moronic thing to say.

Has groups like PFLAG or GLSEN or any other gay advocacy group, supported NARTH, PFOX, or those who believe differently? Have they even bothered to try come to a middle ground without resorting to tired straw man arguments? Have they tried to UNDERSTAND where these supposed “charlatans” are coming from, beyond resorting to disrespectful, hackneyed stereotypes of bible thumping, toothless, red-neck fundamentalist freaks? Notice the emphasis on the word “understand.” There seems to be an aversion and hostility to it. Why do you insist that he support those that he disagrees with?

Further, Wayne shows nothing but disdain for all things Christianity. I’ve heard of some openly gay Christians being put off by his work.

Wayne’s response was characteristic of his personality, as well as his book: all flair, no substance.

You ought to ask him, as you asked Warren: “Why the negativity?”

Nathan

I was not asking anyone to support my work. I know we do not agree on much but a simple “no” would have been appropriate.