Family News in Focus reported Wednesday on Exodus International’s church network initiative. Exodus hopes to grow its network, launched in 2006, from its current membership of 70 churches to 10,000 by 2010. The network offers training and resources to churches seeking to provide a conservative evangelical approach to “reach[ing] out to those struggling with their sexual identity.”
According to Exodus’ website, churches must meet the following requirements to join the network:
1. The Church must express agreement with Exodus’ doctrinal and policy statements.
2. The Church must designate a contact person for this area of ministry, and that contact person and anyone else in the leadership of this ministry must be free from immoral sexual behavior for a minimum of three years.
3. The Church must have a governing body in place.
4. Exodus strongly recommends that a representative of the Church attend the annual Exodus conference at least once every three years.
5. Payment of an optional $50.00 annual membership fee.
Whether the $50 fee is truly optional or an actual requirement is not clarified.
Exodus’ material refers repeatedly to helping churches minister to those who “struggle with unwanted homosexuality,” and promises to “exhort the church at-large to stand confidently and boldly on the truth of scripture with regard to homosexuality.” From there it becomes clear that there is no room within Exodus-approved churches for those who do not regard their same-sex attractions as “unwanted” – quite possibly even for some of those committed to lifelong celibacy.
When asked how Exodus plans to reach its goal of adding 9,930 churches to its network over the next two years, Exodus VP Randy Thomas had no comment. Exodus President Alan Chambers is on an extended vacation and currently unavailable for interviews.
Given the increasingly negative image that evangelicals have among younger Americans (both Christian and non-), it comes as little surprise that conservative leaders would seek new ways of keeping their members inside the fold on this issue. Should the Exodus church network reach its membership goal, it could become a formidable force in both the theological and political arenas.
ummm… for a 30+ yr old organization with a public image problem to leap from 70 to 10,000 church affiliates in 2 years is… well… highly unrealistic to say the least.
The link includes a quote by Alan Chambers, President of Exodus, (bold mine):
So am I to understand that in order to get to heaven I have to hate sex, and love itself, for the rest of my life?
At the local highschool where I live Freshmen are required to read novels which contain subject matter as innapropriate as homosexual pedophilia (heterosexual pedophilia apparently isn’t educational enough). In the main hallway there’s a “Gay-Straight Alliance” banner (the only banner). It’s no mystery why statements like “Given the increasingly negative image that evangelicals have among younger Americans (both Christian and non-)” are valid. Kids who have the wisdom and will-power to withstand their surroundings are becoming rare.
Last night a coalition of churches in the Long Beach / LA/ Orange County area hosted a viewing of the film For the Bible Tells Me So. I highly recomend it and I also recomend churches in other cities to unite to have a public viewing of the film. I think it only costs around $300 to do so (at least it did for us). It was shown at the Unitarian Church in downtown Long Beach. It was great to see different denominations gather together.
for more info:
http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org
side note:
(I know that in my entries I come across as very Orthodox, and I will always defend my Orthodox beliefs, but I do believe God calls us to understand our faith according to our knowledge and understanding provided we are open to the truth of his/her teachings. I do not believe, however, that we are to take the Bible and use it as a weapon. It is for that reason I accuse those who do so as “Biblists” because they use only the Bible as their source, leaving out reason and love and compassion which are more powerful gifts God has given us than a written text. A Christian who only relies on the Bible as a source for beliefs – gay or straight – is not a Biblist per se in my definition so long as they use other sources for their understanding of God’s message – reason, love, and compassion among other gifts. A Biblist is one who uses the Bible in such a way as to demoralize and destroy others – as well as placing the Bible above God him/herself, making God chained and bound to what has been written in the sacred texts.)
I tend to think of Exodus as as rather totally immersed. I am sure that ‘10,000 churches’ looks good in the mirrors there, but it bespeaks a problematical relationship to historical reality. This kind of wishful pronouncement presumes that challenges will be preempted by the authority of the pronouncers’ patrons, even when the initiative does not satisfy the expectations it articulates.
Phillips needs to know that the bad rep that evangelicals and fundamentalists presently enjoy was identified by Barna’s survey as being largely of their own making. While each of us is aware of many ostensibly Christian folks who offer us insults and abuse as a way of keeping themselves on track, the news is that the experience is so common that payback has arrived. It is no small thing that these devotees manage to insult the reputation of Christianity itself.
It takes something we might call perversity to assert that the scandal of the gospel comes down to telling the rest of us to, “Kiss my butt!”, when most of the reported incidents of early martyrdom seem to involve a certain resistance to that kind of authoritarian assertion.
Phillip, please give more information about these “supposed” books that the students read (I have heard people say that Catcher in the Rye is homosexual pedophilia). I don’t buy it, and these things are almost always urban legend. As an instructor, I know that the materials are highly considered before actually being used, and that anything problematic is removed from the classroom–and I am in California.
In the 1980s in my area, people started saying that the textbooks in a nearby town were teaching the occult and all kinds of stuff. There was a massive move to ban the books, which had traditional fairy tales and young kid stories, and even my mother went out to protest the books. When I questioned her friends and her, they said they did not need to read the books to know they were evil. It polarized the community even though the books did not have the materials that were mentioned.
Also, who cares about the banner? It is a banner. However, you say it is the only banner–how do you know that since most adults (other than teachers and invited guests) are not allowed in to the school? Also, usually banners and posters are dated. A group applies for its banner to be presented. Theirs is taken down after a period until the new group’s date comes around.
Most of the stuff you are mentioning sound like faulty ideas that are pushed by ministers and interest groups for political reasons. This is happening right now in California where some interest groups are making fault statements to fearmonger. Unfortunately, the average person will take the ethos of a minister or other trusted groups and assume it to be true (Pat Robertson is an example of someone who is trusted even though he gives very faulty info).
So here is my challenge to you Phillip–provide some proof. The name of the books would help–but you need to show the school’s approved book list too.
They posting a list of what churches belong to this network?
I want to make sure no one in my church thinks this is a good idea.
“At the local highschool where I live Freshmen are required to read novels which contain subject matter as innapropriate as homosexual pedophilia (heterosexual pedophilia apparently isn’t educational enough).”
Pedophilia isn’t homosexual or heterosexual. It’s not about sex or sexual orientation, it’s assault, plain and simple. If you knew anything about pedophilia at all, the gender of the vicitm is rarely of any consequence to the perpetrator, it’s the ease of access to the child.
” In the main hallway there’s a “Gay-Straight Alliance” banner (the only banner).”
There are a number of reasons why it might be the only banner, the club could be new, you could have visited while other banners were being changed out, cleaned. If you go in every month, I’m sure there will be a different banner of some type or other.
“It’s no mystery why statements like “Given the increasingly negative image that evangelicals have among younger Americans (both Christian and non-)” are valid.”
Have to agree with the other posters that Evangelicals have, for the most part, created this bad image themselves. Reading about childhood assault and seeing a gay-straight banner has little to do with the image of evangelicals.
“Kids who have the wisdom and will-power to withstand their surroundings are becoming rare.”
In other words, kids who ignore the world and people around them. Probably a good thing they’re becoming rare.
I’m leaving his comment since there is a response to it, however “Phillips” was asked to stop commenting last June, and finally banned after continually ignoring that request.
Sadly words like (and I am truly sorry to say this) evangelical, born-again, and fundamentalists have become words that are repugnant to me when I now hear them. And as Jason has said above it is the evangelicals/fundamentalists that are to blame for the bad image they are perpetuating. Not all evangelicals are to blame of course. It is the most rigid and conservative evangelicals that have taken religion into politics where there should be none and demand that laws be passed or not depending on their beliefs.
They posting a list of what churches belong to this network?
Here you go: Church Network List
Thanks for the link!
Whoa! Little Orange Park, FL where I grew up has an affiliate. Luckily none where I now live.
Personally, I think this is mainly just a ploy to seek money and special offerings from the affiliate churches.
Follow the money!
Alan S,
This portion of your post:
has been quoted and ridiculed on the Charisma Forum “When preaching becomes a hate crime” thread.
If there are “Biblists,” you can find lots of them there. If you wish to respond, registration only requires an e-mail confirmation to show you are actually a person.
You and others may want to go there and make it clear that when Christ said “love your neighbors,” he didn’t make an exception for lesbians and gays.
The quote is referenced by way of DL Foster’s latest website. I wouldn’t even bother; he lives to argue and belittle. In my experience there has never been a more obvious example of someone who ignored the plank in their own eye to point out the speck in another’s.
He’s using a different shtick on the new site – I suspect he was chastised heavily by peers for his disgusting displays on the old one. We have all the old stuff archived for reference — it’s bad. He craves attention so I would avoid giving him any you don’t have to.
On the original comments, I realize that some terms are necessary to accurately convey thoughts, but I try to avoid using creations such as “Biblists.” It’s often hard for the casual reader to understand how they themselves differ from the intended target of the insult, and really why not just say “those who misuse scripture”?
Biblists, homosexulists, christianists – none of these really seem to do much more than allow someone to diminish an individual or group and sound clever in the process. My focus isn’t on anyone in particular, but to all of us.
David,
I respect your wanting to refrain from labels and I will try my best to refrain from using them. I also agree after seeing my quote on that other blog site how useless it would be to say anything. But more than because he craves attention, it’s more that my upbringing has a very different view on what the Sacred Scriptures are and how they are intended to be used. For some Christians I realize that if you took their Bible away from them they would be void of faith, but that is just not the case for me.
But back on topic:
I think the worse part of this Exodus Network concept is that it seems to take power away from the local churches. It appears to me that the local churches who join in this networking tend to loose some control over their way of doing things. For Catholics and Orthodoxs .. we’re used to that. Popes, bishops, and priests pull the strings, but Protestant churches are more inclined to assert independence at the local level … being a part of an Episcopal Church now I can see the need for more control on a local level. It allows the church to address its needs in a more direct way. It will be interesting to see how these churches are going to react once they get sucked into the Exodus world and have to abide by its rules.
From that other blog site:
To that gay christian, I say, “Really?”
2 Corinthians 10 v 4: The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.
is the response for that other blog site.
Can someone help me with this? Where does St. Paul say “The Bible” is the weapon? It says “weapons” (plural), not singular.
Can I get a Meep-meep?
Alan S, lets get back on track with the topic here. We don’t need to be commenting by proxy on a discussion from another blog, particularly when it has nothing directly to do with the topic here: Exodus’ plan to increase it’s network.
If you want to jump over there and get beat up while they preach to their own choir, go ahead. Just realize it’s going to be a rough ride and if DL is involved, a hateful one as well.
@ Timothy
Bad memories – ugh!
David,
sorry
Back on track:
On Exodus’s website, they boast to be the largest Christian ministry to the homosexual population (not an exact quote). I thought MCC was. Well, at any rate, what happened last week in Long Beach is a good sign of what churches that preach the Gospel and put it into practice need to do. Last week a group of churches and other LGBT organizations sponsored a viewing of the movie “For the Bible Tells Me So;” it is an excellen tool to help unite churches who preach the Gospel and put it into practice. I think all churches that understand Christ’s commission to love one another need to unite and find ways to help each other in dealing with LGBT issues and help build bridges. If churches unite, they wouldn’t have to join an organization that dictates their every move. On the contrary, if there was a coalition of churches for LGBT faiths, I think the requirements would be:
1. Instead of: the Church must express agreement with an organization’s doctrinal and policy statements…it would be: any church united to ban together for the rights of LGBT Christians is at liberty to express its own doctrines and faith and to be at liberty to agree and disagree with any or all policy statements, doctrinal statements, etc.
2. Instead of: the Church must designate a contact person for this area of ministry, and that contact person and anyone else in the leadership of this ministry must be free from immoral sexual behavior for a minimum of three years… it would be: the Church should designate a contact person for this area of ministry and the organization would trust that each individual church would have the wisdom to determine who that representative would be.
3. Instead of: The Church must have a governing body in place…it would be: the Church may or may not have a governing body in place.
4. Instead of: Exodus strongly recommends that a representative of the Church attend the annual Exodus conference at least once every three years … it would be: have churches host events that unite the communities together, learn and share from one another.
5. Instead of: Payment of an optional $50.00 annual membership fee … it would be: at the above mentioned functions, bring food for one of the church’s food pantries, or collect money for the homeless program, or anything else the churches there can think of.
Well, this seems rather obvious. Even “Side B” gay Christians (who do not actively seek to change their orientation but instead live celibately in accordance with traditional Biblical interpretations and Church doctrine) can consider their attractions “unwanted”. Because we are seeking to live chaste lives, those attractions can be seen as a hindrance, and it does take a community of believers to help manage and control them. This, of course, goes for straight men and their temptations as well.
I don’t believe Exodus’ apparent rejection of celibate gay Christians has much to do with our attractions being “wanted.” Like I said, that’s not necessarily the case. I think it has more to do with us being at relative peace with our attractions. We, in general, are not desperately seeking orientation change or the “Evangelical American Dream” of a wife and three kids. We also seem to have a bit more self-confidence, and I think that it’s threatening to them to see people living happily single and not constantly distressed over the fact that we prefer guys to gals (or vice versa), even though we live by the same Biblical guidelines that they claim to follow.
Just don’t ask me why they think that. It’s simply an attitude I’ve picked up on and I can’t find a real reason for it.
Now, if the intent of that line was to ask whether Exodus would welcome those whose attractions were not “unwanted” due to them being open to future sexual relationships (and thus, in my view, not conforming to Biblical doctrine), I would say that the answer is also fairly obvious. There are plenty of liberal Christian organizations that can provide support for such individuals. If that was the intent of the line, I would also apologize for taking up so many lines talking about nothing in particular. Have a great day, guys!
Didn’t mean to distract with my Charisma link, just to advise that someone was quoting commenters here. So gcm watch is DL Foster? Well, well, well!
(2 years from now, at the Exodus International Annual Conference, after Exodus ended up with a 100 strong church affiliation) Alan Chambers: We tell you now, tens of thousands of churches have joined hands in our network…
Concerning the doctrines of ‘celibacy’, ‘homosexual celibacy’, and similar, I think it is easy to have an ‘error of simplicity’.
I think that a Christian needs to see the interaction of differing principles: (1) Individual Conscience must dominate Corporate Conscience, (2) Lesser sin must dominate Greater Sin; and (3) Internal purity must dominate External Purity. Hang with me on this one, because it is a good tool that seems more complex than it is.
Draw three circles that intersect. Label each one with (1), (2), and (3). Really, try it.
[If the term ‘lesser sin’ bothers you, then use ‘highest path’, k?]
The most correct doctrine is in the area of highest overlap (where all three circles overlap). The most incorrect doctrine is in the area of no overlap.
Thus, the doctrine that ‘homosexual celibacy is sin’ is a doctrinal error. It is true only within circle (3). It is not “heresy” or “false doctrine”, but it is an error of simplicity. After all, hateful celibacy is a sin; idolatrous celibacy is a sin; and revengeful celibacy is a sin.
A more complete doctrinal statement would be something like this:
– In consideration of my individual conscience (my sense of peace vs. conflict; my faith’s strengths and weaknesses);
—- In consideration of my decision to choose the lesser ‘sin’;
——– In consideration of keeping my internal person as pure as possible:
– My conscience allows me to live as a transsexual (born male, live as female); the lesser sin is to stay married with my current spouse; and I keep as pure as possible by walking with Christ in His mercy.
A Christian can work the same exercise, and make very personalized and very good decisions. Here are some ‘final statements’ I just created:
– My conscience allows me to live as a Christian with SSA and not identify as ‘gay’; I believe the lesser sin is to stay married with my female heterosexual wife; and I keep as pure as possible by walking with Christ surrounded by supportive friends and strategies.
– My conscience allows me to live with homosexual identity; I believe the lesser sin is to stay celibate; and I keep my heart as pure as possible by walking with Christ and attending a gay-affirming church.
– My conscience allows me to live with a complicated sexuality; I believe the ‘highest path’ possible for me is to commit in marriage to my same sex partner; and I keep as pure as possible by seeking God in prayer and worship.
I’ll post a second letter shortly with the scriptural basis for the above three-circle tool.
This second post shows the scriptural reasoning behind the three-circle tool posted earlier.
Very briefly:
Here are the scriptural rationales for each of the three circles:
(1) Individual Conscience must dominate Corporate Conscience.
Jesus said to Peter the apostle, “”If I want him [John the apostle] to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” [John 21:22] Thus, Christ established that the individual conscience (in intercourse with Him) was dominant over the consciences of others (and/or their corporate intercourse with Him). Given that Paul the apostle adds depth to Jesus’ teaching eloquently with “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” [Romans 14:4], then it follows that the Individual Conscience must dominate the Corporate Conscience.
(2) Lesser Sin must dominate Greater Sin.
First, “All have sinned” [Romans 3:23] and “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” [I John 1:8]. Therefore, our past and present have sin. Jesus said to Pilate, “…the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” [John 19:11] Given that Jesus uses the term “greater sin”, it follows that there are also “lesser sins”. Given that we are to “become mature” [Ephesians 4], then we should select the Lesser Sin over the Greater Sin. [Use the phrase ‘select Highest Path over the Lesser Path’ if the term ‘sin’ bothers you.]
(3) Internal Purity must dominate External Purity.
Jesus said to His disciples, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” [Matthew 5:27-28]. Therefore Jesus established that thoughts of the ‘heart’ were equally as condemning as actions of the ‘body’. Given that Jesus said to the Pharisees, “First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.” [Matthew 23:26], then we conclude that the actions of the heart take dominance over actions of the body.
Why overlay the scriptures that seem to be relevant, whether two ‘circles’, three ‘circles’ or even more?
Because all the holy scriptures teach truth, not just part. As Paul the apostle writes to Timothy “…you have known the holy Scriptures…. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” [I Timothy 3:15-17]
‘All scripture’ – not just part, but all scripture is useful for ‘righteousness’. Therefore I encourage others to study the intersection of the scriptures to determine the most correct doctrine.
Why even bother with scriptural study? For Bible-based Christians (such as myself), it is very important to walk in the light of His words. This is especially true when the complexities of real life provide no quick-and-easy answer and also when we simply cannot walk in the ‘highest path’. John the apostle puts it this way: “This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” [I John 1:5-7]
Every believer in Christ has the right to thoroughly examine the words of God and walk in that light. Their conclusions may be different than mine, and I can study their reasoning, but I cannot condemn their solutions nor them for ‘to their own Master they will stand or fall… and He shall make them to stand.”
Caryn,
Basically what you are doing is what the Church Fathers did in the early days of the Church. They used REASON. If A then B, etc. They did this mainly to explain Christ’s divinity, to justify his death and resurrection, and they, at the time, had only the Greek Old Testament as their source. Unfortunately, this tradition has been lost in many Christian communities, but it is good to see that you have acquired it.
It is only when ALL of God’s revelation is taken as a whole can one see the individual pieces and how they play into the revelation of God. So while “Love thy neighbor” is a common thread in the revelation before Christ, during Christ’s time, and after, something like selling one’s daughter into slavery or to be a wife is not. So too with the understanding of same-sex relationships as understood as a monogomous relationship. The thread is not there.
The thread is not there in condemning that type of relationship. One can pick and pull out a verse here or a verse there, but much like taking out a few verses from a song, it is easy to get the message of the song distorted. So too, unfortunately, do our Bible literalists who pick and choose a verse here and a verse there to change the beautiful love song God is singing for us, his revelation, written and unwritten.
Alan S,
Fortunately, several churches in my area are screening “For The Bible Tells Me So.” I missed it at OutFest last summer and I’m please to have the opportunity to see it on Jan 27 in Glendale/Burbank.
Jason, something I’ve learned that Alan Chambers and a good many of Exodus reaching out to youth are forgetting.
You CANNOT, absolutely cannot LIE to young people. You cannot sell something wrapped up in rock music, youthful, dewey faces or peer pressure that won’t eventually blow up in their faces.
Homosexuality isn’t at all what they say it is. Of all the things a human being can do that ARE unhealthy or dangerous or threatening, you don’t have to teach a young person how to react to them.
Homosexuality isn’t incompatible with Christian teaching, or any other religious teaching. It’s compatible with the lies told about it and the expectations and results fostered by religion. And children are bewildered by the fact that what they’ve been taught is’n’t what they are experiencing in real life.
And I don’t have to tell the gay folks here, you can spend your whole life trying to tell someone you are absolutely NOT like what the Good Book says, nor are your intentions and feelings or actions like it says either.
The Bible’s mentions is short and to the point and doesn’t cover ANY real world issues around being gay. And it’s not that simple, nothing about one’s feelings and self esteem and conduct ever are.
Lying to young people and editorializing on religious teaching can, will and does get folks in trouble who don’t define RATIONALIZING from JUSTIFICATION-nor define what low expectations and yoking a young person with stigma are in the real world.
And those who insist they have all the answers, know the truth and can help you with all of it, have to come with more than just THEIR word for it.
But RESULTS, which they don’t have and ultimately can’t blame gay people for either.
This isn’t funny. Lives, safety and potential are at stake. Children trust us adults. And the lies eventually will out themselves.
Exodus and the like refuse to acknowlege that’s what’s happening and go and assert it with MORE lying.
The layers must come off. Peel that onion folks!
Oops, tyop!
I meant ‘it’s INCOMPATIBLE, with the lies told about it.’
Regan DuCasse –
It is definitely worth seeing. I hear it will be out on DVD soon. We had a great showing in Long Beach. The church that hosted it had planned on only having 200 people, but the night of the viewing there were over 1,000 people in attendance.
It was nice to see represented various church communities from different walks of faith there. It gave us a chance to unite despite our differences in doctrine and worship.
I highly recomend everyone to see this film and to get it on DVD when it comes out.