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

Better yet, I’ll do it for you:

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

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

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

Does that clear things up for you?

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

Absolutely Jag!!!

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

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

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

Warren –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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