Exodus President Alan Chambers will speak at the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. The theme of the February 12th conference is “Consequences of Same-Gender Attraction.” The description sounds familiar, with tired jargon and old assumptions:

Those struggling with same-sex attractions need understanding and hope for a life without conflict, so it is imperative to understand the implications of same-sex attraction and the broader homosexual agenda. The broader homosexual agenda has politicized radicalism of homosexuality that is aggressive and intent on trampling upon the fundamental freedoms of anyone who may disapprove.

This conference is vitally important because the conference will focus on the issues underlying same-sex attractions as well as the legal implications of same-sex relationships.

The second day will focus on the legal implications arising from the clash between the quest for homosexual rights and freedom of speech, religion and association.

The topic of “underlying issues” suggests ex-gay theories of causation, where one’s life story is contorted to fit a pseudo-Freudian reparative framework, allowing the confused and shamed to point and say, “There, that’s what caused all this,” while for years their testimonies will be honed on stages, in pulpits and on conference room floors. Chambers, gay-free and with a wife and two children, is usually brought out as a sort of proof, an ex-gay success story.

But although this is troubling, it is expected – that’s what the show is about. Chambers is not expected to stop doing that; at least I do not expect him to. But as is often the case, there is more sinister stuff here, and an almost unbelievable poor judgment by the Exodus chief, on a level not seen since last year’s Uganda Homosexuality Conference.

Readers may recall that, after intolerable delays, Exodus seemed to finally get the issue with Uganda. They issued a statement that was pretty clear (after a false start) and wrote a letter directly to the Ugandan President expressing strong disagreement with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, legislation which we continue to believe was at least partly fueled by the March 5th, 2009 conference. Some things have happened since then, and the world has been nearly unanimous in opposition to this bill, but some have taken the opportunity to become even more shrill, even daring to claim that the Ugandans have the right idea.

Another conference contributor, Robert Knight, sounds like such a person. He recently defended Scott Lively from criticism in an earlier NYT article, saying:

I don’t know Mr. [Caleb Lee] Brundidge, but I do know Mr. Lively and Mr. Schmierer. Both are honest and courageous men who, out of Christian compassion, dare to tell the truth about homosexuality. For this, the Times brands them as hatemongers.

While Mr. Lively has written perceptively and passionately about countering the homosexual activists’ political and cultural agenda, there is no evidence of “hate.” Trying to steer someone away from destructive, immoral, changeable behavior is an act of love, not hate.

For those few who may not yet have read about him, Lively has made a life’s work of falsely denigrating GLBTs and recklessly inflaming the hatred and bigotry already present in some non-western regions of the world. He boasts that he knows more about homosexuality than almost any other person. Fancying himself a researcher and historian, he published a book called The Pink Swastika which purports to offer historical evidence that the Nazis were really radical gays and that the modern gay rights movement is an outgrowth of them.

Lively met with government leaders in Uganda just before the Anti-Homosexuality Bill there was offered up, death penalty and all. He is a major figure in this, and he has earned his hate group standing with the SPLC. For Knight to offer the passionate defense quoted above is almost unconscionable. And yet Chambers will participate in a conference where such attitudes are apparently welcome and part of the mix. This is a colossal slap in the face to those in Uganda, and here, who might actually have put some trust in his earlier actions.

Adding insult to injury, also participating is Liberty Counsel Dean Matt Barber. Barber does his best to “re-stigmatize” homosexuality (a la Peter LaBarbera). One of his recent utterances even managed to draw fire from Exodus VP Randy Thomas. A Google search will give a clear picture of Barber, but here we have a recent, personal conflict between Barber and Exodus, one that Chambers must know about.

When called out in such situations, Chambers usually has one of two reactions. He will either claim to be going to represent “the moderate voice,” a defense of “gay- identified” people if you will. Or he will appear clueless. The latter would be hard to claim here, at least credibly.

This is just another occasion when the right thing to do should be screaming out to Chambers, and yet he doesn’t do it. This is what got Exodus so deep on the wrong side of the Uganda issue, and it’s what leads others to distrust most anything Exodus says. Again, they’ve earned it, and they keep on earning it.

H/T: TWO

3 Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized

As a former charismatic, the type of religious experience shown in this video is very familiar to me. In this kind of heady, charged atmosphere, it is very easy to suppress one’s “sin” issues and live on a “victorious” spiritual plane – that is until the trappings of revivalist, Pentecostal worship aren’t there or just don’t work any more, and the subject is brought down to earth with a bump.

In this video from IHOP (International House of Prayer, not to be confused with the restaurant chain International House of Pancakes), a young man claims to have been delivered from homosexual attractions he has experienced since childhood. The odd behaviour and spasmodic movements (as well as the wailing, sobbing, shouting and laughter from the congregation) have been especially common in Pentecostal and charismatic churches since the mid-1990s, and are usually attributed directly to the Holy Spirit.

HT: Truth Wins Out

29 Comments »
Filed under: Religion

Peter Sprigg, the family values activist, has said that homosexuality should be criminalized.

From The Advocate:

Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the antigay [Family Research Council (FRC)], appeared on the program [Chris Matthews' Hardball] to debate the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy with Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

As Sprigg mounted an increasingly illogical defense of the policy based on discrimination, Matthews pressed him on the question: “Do you think we should outlaw gay behavior?”

“I think that the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas which overturned the sodomy laws in this country was wrongly decided,” said Sprigg. “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions against homosexual behavior.”

“So we should outlaw gay behavior?” asked Matthews again.

Yes,” said Sprigg.

In 2008, he said in an interview that the United States should export homosexuals.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (AFA) is another US Christian who revealed the depth of his intolerance for gays this week:

[We should] impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. I’d be curious to know what you think should be done with IV drug abusers, because whatever it is, I think the same response should be made to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program.

Fischer felt unjustly accused by “the leftwing blogosphere” of wanting to imprison gays, so issued this clarification:

My position is that homosexual behavior represents a severe threat to public health, and is even more dangerous to human health than intravenous drug abuse. Because of the health risks involved, curtailing homosexual behavior should be as much a public policy concern as curtailing intravenous drug abuse.

Fischer doesn’t want to lock up homosexuals (necessarily). He just wants to force us into reparative ex-gay therapy.

And then there’s Colorado-based Andrew Wommack Ministries, whose Uganda representative defended the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill by promoting the myth that its measures are aimed solely at protecting the young and vulnerable:

If you will read CAREFULLY you will see that this bill is aimed the ACTIONS of people that are endangering the lives of innocent people.  This bill proposes accountability for actions that cause harm, especially to children and minors, and the spread of HIV/AIDS. In addition, I believe it is clear that the main aim of this bill is to protect children and minors (with an emphasis on males) that have no protection against sexual crimes under the current laws.  Further, it is aimed at upholding the moral and ethical fiber of family-rights in THIS country.  Finally, this Bill is dealing with the issues that are related to a Third-World Community. These issues are so very different from the Globalized mold Western activists and the press are trying to suggest that Uganda squeeze into.

Many US conservative Christians may appear moderate compared to the overtly violent, institutionalized homophobia of Uganda, but when the surface is scratched away, the truth shows.

15 Comments »
Filed under: AFA, Discrimination, Family Values, Hate Crimes/Free Speech, Religion

An excellent piece by Patrick Strudwick in today’s Independent (London) details the author’s strange and disturbing experiences in ex-gay therapy in the UK.

It’s a refreshing article in that it focuses exclusively on reparative therapy, and tends not to dilute it with other aspects of the ex-gay movement. Strudwick begins his undercover investigation by attending a conference by Dr Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH. (We covered that conference here.) There he heard the usual Nicolosi myths, including the oft-repeated claim that “If you don’t hug your son, some other man will.”

Strudwick met two reparative therapists at the conference, and later consulted with them privately. His experience was shocking:

“Any Freemasonry in the family?” No, I say, again asking her to elaborate. “Because that often encourages it as well. It has a spiritual effect on males and it often comes out as SSA [same-sex attraction].”

Next, she looks for self-esteem wounds. “I think you have some unhelpful thoughts about yourself, about who you are,” she says. “What do you think about yourself? In the deepest part of you, in your stomach.”

“I think I’m a good person,” I reply. She wants more. “I think I am a determined person.” Still not enough. “I think I’ve a lot to give.”

“But do you like yourself?” she asks, becoming impatient.

“I think I’m a good person,” I repeat.

“Yes that’s different though from ‘do you like yourself?’ Deep underneath this there’s other stuff we need to get to. I think you must have had quite a lot of bullying.” No, I say. “There was no sexual abuse?” she asks, leaning in and squinting again. No, I repeat. “I think it will be there,” she replies, dropping her voice to a concerned tone. “It does need to come to the surface.”

And so, she prays for me again. “Father, we give you permission to bring to the surface some of the things that have happened over the years. Father, enable your love to pour into that place of isolation in that little boy, whatever age, we give you permission to go there, with your healing power and your light, go into those parts, open all the doors, and access each one with your light.”

She looks up. I ask her again about this abuse. “I think there is something there,” she says. “You’ve allowed things to be done to you.” In the next session I ask if she thinks the abuse would have taken place within my family, because I can’t remember it. “Yes, very likely,” she replies.

This session with an accredited psychotherapist and counsellor is a strange mixture of psychological mumbo-jumbo, Christian fundamentalist myths and a bizarre guessing game bearing more resemblance to a psychic reading than professional therapy.

Strudwick’s next session is with a married ex-gay psychiatrist, a follower of Richard Cohen. He says he can help men to “reach their full heterosexual potential.” Here things become even more bizarre. The psychiatrist admits he hasn’t entirely escaped same-sex attraction, and still experiences “unhealthy patterns of porn and masturbation, if I’m feeling a bit flat.” As therapy, he encourages Strudwick to experience sexual arousal:

I say that when men compliment me on my appearance it triggers sexual feelings. He probes again, asking me how I’m feeling as he talks about my body. Aroused, I repeat. But rather than moving away from this apparent sexual trigger, he asks if we can do an “exercise” around it. I agree.

“Close your eyes and focus on that arousal you’re feeling down in your genitals,” he says. “I want you to hear, as a man, as I look at your body, I see strong shoulders and a strong chest, I see a man who has an attractive body and I want you just to notice the arousal you feel as you hear me talking about that. Imagine an energy and picture that energy as a colour, and make the brightness of the colour relate to the intensity of the sexual feeling, so you might be starting to get a bit of a hard on, you might be starting to feel an erection and that sexual energy, but I want you to just picture that as a coloured light. What colour would it be?”

Red, I say.

“I want you to imagine that red colour, that energy and listen to the affirmations that I see you as a strong, confident man, and I want you to move that red light from your genitals up into your chest to join that feeling of affirmation as a man, and as you breathe in that affirmation do you notice now what happens to the arousal?”

I tell him it’s still there.

The piece is very revealing. It can be read in its entirety here.

27 Comments »
Filed under: NARTH, Religion, Richard Cohen, Science, Therapy

The co-author of a major ex-gay study is a key figure in the controversy over the direction of Wheaton College, Illinois.

In the article Whither Wheaton?, appearing in the SOMA Review, Andrew Chignell names Dr Stanton L Jones, Provost of Wheaton College, as a force in the increasingly authoritarian approach to doctrine at the flagship evangelical school:

Still, when one spends time talking with Wheaton faculty, students, and supporters, alongside real appreciation one is also likely to hear expressions of deep concern about the unusually pro-active roles that [President] Litfin and his provost, Stanton Jones, have assumed as the definers and defenders of orthodoxy across the college.

Chignell notes how under Liftin the school has come to adopt a “magisterial” model, where firm doctrinal positions are imposed from the top down. So, for example, any member of faculty who took a less-than-literal view of Adam and Eve was deemed unfit for employment. Those who were not sure would be given a year to bring their doctrine in line or leave. The President eventually softened, allowing those in the second category to remain.

It appears that Stanton Jones, with responsibility for all undergraduate and postgraduate studies, was Liftin’s second-in-command when it came to implementing these changes. Chignell recounts the following episode involving Jones:

A few years later, Alex Bolyanatz, a tenure-track anthropologist who taught about human origins, decided that it might be wise to invite the new provost to sit in on his lectures: “I had no doubt that hearing my version of a Christian view of integrating the evolutionary model with a faith perspective would make anyone say, ‘This guy is just fine; does exactly what we want here.’ I now know, of course, that this was somewhere between stupid and naïve. I invited Provost Stan Jones to attend my class and he did for six sessions. I believed that I was ensuring that I would spend a long and satisfying career there. Wrong! I was, in fact, digging my own professional grave at Wheaton.”

He also relates the story of Christina Van Dyke, now a member of the philosophy faculty at Calvin College, whose appointment process was abruptly halted because of her hardly remarkable views on homosexuality and Scripture. Van Dyke signed the Wheaton Statement of Faith and its “Community Covenant,” but added the proviso that “it isn’t clear to me that the Bible unambiguously condemns monogamous same-sex relationships.”

She did not deny the traditional teaching, but expressed a view about interpretation of Scripture a little more nuanced than that of many evangelicals. Again, Jones intervened. Van Dyke recalls:

I got a call from Stan Jones, asking me a number of questions about my reservations. I kept saying that I was not claiming to have figured this out, but that it was not at all clear to me from my own research and study that the Bible’s position on homosexual behavior was unambiguous. We talked about how I would handle students who came to me to talk about questioning their own sexuality, and I said I would be willing to send them elsewhere. He sent me a whole stack of reading material (much of which he’d written) arguing that the Bible’s position on homosexual behavior was, in fact, clear. I read it all. . . . I didn’t change my mind. … [At] about 5 pm the day before my interview was scheduled, [the chair] called in tears to tell me that he’d just finished talking to the provost, and that I was no longer a candidate for their position.

Stanton Jones and the Jones-Yarhouse Study

It is unsurprising to find Jones coming in for criticism for toeing such a hard line on conservative evangelical doctrine, especially homosexuality. With Dr Mark Yarhouse of Regents University, Virginia, he authored the 2007 study Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. The study was severely limited, with questionable methodology and negligible results – even when judged generously. Dr Patrick Chapman critiqued Jones-Yarhouse for Ex-Gay Watch here.

Ironically, it has been observed that Jones was the more outspoken of the two in trumpeting the results of the study, despite Yarhouse coming from a traditionally more conservative college. For an essentially academic work, the book is notable for its evangelistic flavour. Chignell’s revelations about Wheaton College confirm that Jones in particular has a partisan interest in the homosexuality debate.

Someone didn’t want the Wheaton story published

This website is the author’s own account of his difficult battle to get the piece published. It was written to coincide with the eve of the appointment of a new president for Wheaton College, and was originally commissioned by John Wilson, editor of Books & Culture, an often-thoughtful evangelical publication under the Christianity Today banner. It was accepted “enthusiastically,” Chignell says, in mid-September 2009.

It was due to be published last year, but was unexpectedly pulled by Harold Smith, CEO of Christianity Today International, a day or two before it was to go to press. Wilson told Chignall that “this sort of editorial control had never been exercised in the fourteen-year history of Books and Culture.”

Smith insisted that several issues with the article be addressed before it could be published. It was taken away and revised, and a few meetings later it was again scheduled to run. Just a few days after this confirmation, however, the piece was pulled for a last time. Chignell writes:

The following Monday, Smith called Wilson in and told him that the piece was irrevocably dead. In a note to me, Smith expressed sympathy but gave no explanation, except to say that “new hurdles” had arisen. He did promise that no one from Wheaton College had directly intervened.

Evangelicalism’s battle of the generations

At the heart of Chignell’s piece is a conflict between generations of evangelicals. He graduated from Wheaton himself, and recalls the effect on the school of Bill Clinton’s election as US President in 1992:

At Wheaton in the fall of 1992 (my freshman year), there was intense soul-searching about why God had denied the victory just as change on key issues like abortion seemed within reach. The night after the election, students held a massive vigil, heads bowed and leaders speaking anxiously about the coming liberal onslaught.

He compares that to the reaction to Obama in 2008:

At Wheaton in the fall of 2008, by contrast, the predominantly African American Gospel Choir took the chapel stage the morning after Obama’s election and gave a rousing performance of “God Bless America.” That night there was a panel discussion in which Litfin, too, emphasized that future evangelicals “cannot afford to be seen as in the hip pocket of any particular polity or political entity.”

These are changing times. Many younger evangelicals identify with the political progressives and liberals of the Democratic Party, rather than the social and moral conservatives of the Republicans and their evangelical forebears. In 1993, Wheaton was a place where “the culture wars were hot, with many students (presciently) advocating a hard-right turn as the path to Republican recovery,” Chignell tells us. At Wheaton in 2010, party politics has waned, with students “far more concerned with the relationship between their faith and social justice than with political affiliation,” according to Juliana Wilhoit, the head of what she calls “the most anemic College Democrats organization north of Bob Jones.”

The Jones-Yarhouse study was a valiant attempt to rescue an ex-gay movement whose once-popular claims are fading.  Likewise, the attempts of the outgoing Wheaton President Duane Liftin and his number two to instill by force on Wheaton a hardline “orthodoxy” seem to be last-ditch efforts to salvage the remnants of an increasingly threatened socially conservative evangelicalism.

21 Comments »
Filed under: Exgay Activists, Key Studies, Media, Religion, Science