A Few Good Links

A few recent items from my reading (and viewing) list that were worth sharing:

-Justin Snow's Decline and Fall of the Ex-Gay Movement provides an accurate and fairly comprehensive history of the movement.  While it still feels premature to announce its fall, I certainly pray that its decline is terminal as people continue to wake up to the fact that gay people are no more broken and no less valuable than everyone else.

-Nakedpastor's version of the blind men and the elephant nicely sums up how foolish we make ourselves look when we claim to have God all figured out.

-Momastery's Glennon responds to her critics, some of whom sound a lot like those blind men arguing over the nature of their elephant.

-Finally, on a lighter note, here at last is a horror movie that doesn't insult my intelligence.

Unfundamentalism

Lately I've been coming across a lot of good reading material at Unfundamentalist Christians (which I keep up with through their Facebook page.  Here are a few of those items of interest:

1. A post with a few thoughts on the doctrine of "Biblical" Inerrancy.  A watershed moment in my own journey was coming to the realization that this doctrine was neither biblical nor helpful.

2. This is the second time I've come across the blog Sacred Tension.  This post on the tragically high cost of forcing celibacy on gay people nails the problem on the head, through individual stories that deserve to be given a fair hearing by those who make that demand.  One of these days I hope to get around to writing about the compartmentalization I did in (and prior to) my ex-gay days and the ways that continues to impact my own life.

3. Finally, a quote:

For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error…

- Benjamin Franklin, Speech before the Constitutional Convention, Sept. 17, 1787, recorded by James Madison

Blogosphere Roundup

It's been a very long time since I posted three times in the course of a week.  Don't count on that pace continuing, but it does feel good to be back in the saddle (with shoulders that are feeling better than they have for the last two and a half years - whatever my physical therapist earns, it's probably less than he's worth).

There's more than enough commentary being posted already over the Supreme Court's big gay rights decisions yesterday, and I don't feel like I have much to add to that.  But here are a few links related to various things that are worth not missing:

1. Christine is back in the blogosphere, at least for the moment, and she has a thoughtful take on the closure of Exodus International that I haven't read elsewhere.

2. This wonderful post from a straight ally is not to be missed.  If we had more people like her in our churches, we might not have the problems highlighted in #3:

3. Since it apparently still needs saying, here is a quick recap of the religious right's legacy to American Christianity.

4. Finally, a quote shared by a friend of mine on Facebook.  It's a timely reminder that our current situation is not so different from the conflicts faced by previous generations.

"The tree of abolitionism is evil and only evil - root and branch, flower and leaf, and fruit; that it springs from, and is nourished by an utter rejection of the Scriptures. When the Abolitionist tells me that slaveholding is sin, in the simplicity of my faith in the Holy Scriptures, I point him to this sacred record, and tell him, in all candor, as my text does, that his teaching blasphemes the name of God and His doctrine.”

-Rev. Henry van Dyke, Princeton-trained theologian and minister, 1860

The more things change, the more they remain the same...

(A shorter version of this statement was quoted by Rachel Held Evans a few months back.)

What Comes Next

The impending closure of Exodus changes many things - but it another sense it changes nothing.  It does symbolize the sea change in American opinion on the issue of gay rights.  A mere decade ago, the religious right was still parading its handful of "successful" ex-gays before an anti-gay majority to prove that LGBT individuals didn't need rights because they were just repressed heterosexuals.  Today, even many evangelicals who still oppose gay rights recognize that the sort of change Exodus once promoted (at least implicitly) isn't, in fact, possible for the vast majority.

At the same time, the ex-gay movement lives on through the Restored Hope Network, PFOX, NARTH and other smaller organizations.  And the leaders of Exodus themselves are merely changing how they do business; they still hold strongly to a Side B viewpoint theologically, even if they have largely pulled back from the political side of the culture war.

Wendy Gritter, who moved her ministry away from the ex-gay realm several years back, offers some valuable insights on the process of building the sorts of bridges that Alan Chambers seems interested in.  One of the largest questions Chambers will have to confront is whether one can truly build those bridges while still holding to a Side B stance.

The idea that gay people are "broken" may seem pretty basic from a conservative perspective (everyone is "broken" in one way or another, and all have sinned), but I have yet to hear an articulation of that belief that doesn't sound condescending and belittling to any gay person who doesn't hold Side B beliefs.  So while I don't question the sincerity of Chambers' apology (both because I understand where he's coming from, and because of how he has reached out to Jeremy Hooper and others), I do think it's valid to question whether his apology is adequate to build any bridges or initiate any sort of healing process.

And in the meantime, the religious right shows no sign of repentance.  The threats they've been issuing over the advance of marriage equality may well be bluster, as Fred Clark theorizes, but in any case we can still count on them to do their best to burn down any bridges that do start to go up between the two sides in this conflict.

Turning Points

Exodus International Closes Its Doors

When the news first broke last night I was stunned, but in reality the writing had been on the wall ever since Alan Chambers admitted that orientation change almost never happens at the 2012 GCN conference.  Of course, Exodus isn't really going away completely, but it is morphing into something that appears at first glimpse to be considerably more honest.

It's not the end of the ex-gay movement by any means, but it is a crossroads - a parting of the ways between the ideologues (who have already formed their own splinter group, the ironically named Restored Hope Network) and those who genuinely value people ahead of dogma.  Exodus is going away because Alan Chambers and some of his colleagues cared enough to listen to the people they were trying to serve - and for that they have my appreciation, even if we still disagree on some important things.

So today we have something to celebrate, though I still find it to be a bittersweet occasion.  I'm happy for the progress that this represents, but sad that it took so long to get even this far, and more than a little frustrated that so many of us had to spend so many years trapped in a wilderness of false expectations and self-hatred before the evangelical church could begin to awaken to its error.  For me, those lost years lie largely in the past; for others, the damage runs deeper.  For a few, the wounds ran so deep that it cost them their lives - human sacrifices on the altar of doctrinal purity.

And the struggle isn't over.  While it's unlikely that RHN will ever be as large or as influential as Exodus once was, it still wields enough power to cause harm to thousands before history finally reduces it to a footnote.  Numerous conservative Christian groups continue to fight hard against equality and would still take away the right of LGBT people to even exist, if they could.  And in many parts of the globe, religiously motivated governments still do deny our right to exist.

Today we celebrate, but there's still much work to be done.

Links

It's been a busy week in the blogosphere - not here, perhaps, but elsewhere. Here are a few pieces that resonated with me...

1. Rachel Held Evans slides down the slippery slope, and discovers a far different destination than the one she'd been told she was headed toward.

2. Speaking of different destinations, a former Exodus leader finds change and freedom - just not the change and freedom Exodus likes to proclaim.

3. Tired of people who use the world "biblical" to shut down debate over their agendas? So am I, and so is this guy. (Hat tip to Craig)

4. Finally, if this post describes your evangelism style, please reconsider...

Links

A few items of interest from around the blogosphere:

1. Jim Burroway's detailed investigation into one of reparative therapy's most famous case studies. Unsurprisingly (and tragically), the reality behind the experiment is far different than the myth that NARTH and its allies continue to peddle.

2. A plug for Nakedpastor, whose site I need to add to my blogroll one of these days. His cartoons frequently echo my own thoughts and reservations about the church.

3. Another plug, this one for Jon Rowe's blog. Rowe's writings are a valuable resource for anyone looking for hard evidence to refute the "Christian nation" advocates who are still popular in many evangelical circles.

4. Kathy Baldock's tireless advocacy is always worth a mention. Her latest post is an open letter to the church.

5. On a lighter note, there's now a blog where people can share the story of their first gay crush. For the record, mine was C. Thomas Howell (laugh if you must; I make no apologies).

Weekend Reading

Fortunately other bloggers are feeling more prolific than I am at the moment. Here are a few items of interest that are well worth the effort.

1. Wendy Gritter on creating space within the church for disagreeing over whether God blesses same-sex unions. Part 1 can be found here.

I've long wondered whether a day could come when the church matured to the point of allowing this issue to be a matter of personal (or at least congregational) conscience rather than one that divides. It still seems like a pipe dream, but seeing others come along to champion the cause of unity gives me hope.

2. Rob Tisinai has begun responding in depth to the latest arguments against same-sex marriage. Part 1 is here. His explanation of rationalism vs. empiricism in Part 2 is particularly useful; without understanding the lines of reasoning employed by the former approach, one can never understand fundamentalist thought.

3. On a different note, this is a beautiful story. And it's an outcome that I suspect is considerably less rare than ex-gay advocates would like it to be...

Quadrilateral

Craig Adams posted this excerpt from N. T. Wright addressing what is commonly referred to as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (a concept I touched on at an earlier point in my own journey). Wright disparages the idea of allowing personal experience to influence our theology, pointing out how often it ends up becoming a trump card in which one's personal feelings override all other considerations.

And certainly Wright's concern is valid, if we allow something as shallow as how a particular command or belief makes one feel to dictate whether or not we accept it as valid. I would argue, though, that experience plays an inextricable role in one's theology whether or not it is consciously acknowledged. How a person interprets the Bible is going to be colored by one's culture, language, teachers, peers and personal biases as two thousand years of church history - and countless theological disputes - ought to make abundantly clear.

"The heart is deceitful above all things," Wright quotes from Jeremiah 17:9 - but that applies just as much to the sola scriptura adherent as it does to those who employ the quadrilateral. Scripture may be a Christian's primary source of information about God, but our ability to interpret scripture to correctly divine God's will is considerably more fallible. One need look no further than the abuses (and even atrocities) that otherwise devout Christians have cited "Biblical" commands to justify to recognize the danger of declaring that scripture is the sole source of our doctrine.

Hence the quadrilateral (and the Anglican church's "three-legged stool" from which it was derived). Scripture constitutes a single leg of the stool not because it is of limited value, but because we humans need additional guideposts to keep us from straying too far off course when we make errors in our interpretations of what God is trying to tell us through its pages (as we inevitably will).

The ex-gay movement is a textbook example of how focusing entirely on scripture (with perhaps a nod to tradition) can lead to harm. Based on the prevailing evangelical/fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, it seemed logical to conclude that God ordained that everyone was really heterosexual, and that homosexuality was therefore just a sinful illusion that could (and should) be dispelled through prayer, counseling and/or conditioning.

By the time that Exodus was founded, however, reason already stood in opposition to that conclusion. The APA's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders is still dismissed by some Christians as a purely political move, even though it was the "Christian" side of the debate that refused (and all too often still refuses) to even acknowledge the existence of any evidence that didn't fit its preconceived dictates.

And since that time, the experiences of countless participants in ex-gay programs have demonstrated that "freedom from homosexuality" is little more than an exercise in semantics; extremely few have experienced a genuine shift in their attractions, while far more have found that wholeness lies in self-acceptance and living openly as gay and lesbian individuals. Even most of those who remain committed to the ex-gay path acknowledge that their "change" is primarily in behavior and perhaps in the intensity of their same-sex attractions. The idea that one can name and claim one's way to heterosexuality has led to far more harm than good, as disillusioned ex-gay participants have left the church in droves.

While it is possible to sincerely disagree over whether God will bless a same-sex union, the allegedly biblical notion that being gay is merely a sinful choice or a psychological aberration has led to a trail of damaged lives and done much to undermine the church's credibility. Through such episodes we see the value of the quadrilateral:

-Scripture necessarily plays a central role in the formation of any Christian doctrine; without the Bible, Christianity could never be more than a hollow institution or a vague cultural notion. But as history has demonstrated over and over again, interpreting the wisdom contained in the Bible's pages is a considerably more problematic venture.

-Tradition, the second side of our quadrilateral, helps us to understand how we got to where we are today. Just as parents can continue to offer valuable advice long after their children are fully grown, so past generations of believers can guide us around certain pitfalls and give us a leg up in our own explorations. But an overemphasis on tradition can lead to stagnation and irrelevance; just because people did things a certain way for centuries doesn't guarantee that those methods will continue to work in our current situation.

-Without reason, we might still live as peasants subject to the whims of all-powerful kings as we burn alleged witches at the stake and kill the cats that could have stopped the latest plague from spreading. Although most churches in the West now champion the ideals of democratic society and individual rights, they came to do so in the wake of the Enlightenment, not at its onset. Human reason is not infallible by any means, but to ignore what the philosophers and scientists have to say is to surrender to superstition and impoverishment (both material and spiritual).

-Experience is, admittedly, the most easily abused of the four. If we allow experience to be shallowly used as a trump card whenever a proposed doctrine makes us uncomfortable (as Wright accuses others of doing), then we might as well quit pretending that we have anything worth taking seriously. But to dismiss experience because some would abuse it is equally shallow, and equally dangerous.

Experience is the forum in which our theology becomes practical. If we never stop to evaluate the fruits of our beliefs, then we risk becoming oppressors of the worst sort. When a doctrine of ours demonstrably causes more harm than good, it is time to reevaluate what we thought to be true rather than blaming those we have harmed for their supposed failure. Without experience as a guidepost, our mandate to love others eventually devolves into an abstraction in which the needs of the people we claim to love are not truly the focus of our concern.

By listening to experience we have one final quality test to ensure that we have not veered too far off course. We allow our lives and the lives of those around us to inform our doctrines, not because we don't value the Bible, but because we value it too highly to allow it to become a symbol for oppression and injustice. We take the experiences of others into account not because truth is relative, but because truth is complex and so much larger than our finite ability to fully grasp it.

Stated in this way, I don't know for sure how far apart Wright and I really are on this issue. Since I haven't read much of his writing I hesitate to put words into his mouth. But I would hope that he recognizes the importance of stepping outside the sterile confines of the seminary before claiming to have divined God's will for those who live in the everyday world.

Upside Down

Via Andrew Sullivan, I came across this essay by Richard Grant on the relationship of faith and science. As a recovering creationist myself (an old-earth creationist since college, but a creationist all the same), I thought these two points were especially pertinent:

I’m not saying that faith fails to be faith if there’s proof. I’m saying that if your ‘proof’ is shown to be false then you’re utterly screwed. So if you tie your faith to a ‘proof’ you actually end up trying to prove that your proof is true, rather than seeking out ‘truth’. Which is the cleft stick Creationists find themselves in.

and

What happens when those you trust are shown not just to be wrong, but deceitful? Those people who told you that the creation story in Genesis is literally true, that there really was a global flood that killed every living being, that the Revelation is a literal account of the end of the world — and who make those things necessary items of faith — what do you do when you realize they were lying to you (intentionally or otherwise)?

Interestingly, the ex-gay movement finds itself in a parallel dilemma. Rather than remaining open to the possibility that it might not already know it all, the evangelical church attached itself to a psychological theory that seemed to explain the phenomenon of homosexuality in a way that validated all of its dogma related to human sexuality.

Elizabeth Moberly's rehash of old Freudian ideas allowed the church to continue thinking itself compassionate as it reinforced the notion (based on a questionable interpretation of Gen. 1:27) that everyone is, at their core, heterosexual. Any deviations from that God-ordained norm were simply psychological issues that could be cleared up through proper counseling, and any evidence that this might not be accurate has been summarily dismissed and denounced as evil propaganda. No further reflection on the matter was (or would ever be) needed.

Thus the ex-gay movement was founded on the assumption that all homosexuals could develop heterosexual attractions, given the right tools. Since homosexuality was defined as an unnatural twisting of an individual's true nature, it followed that same-sex relationships could never be healthy or stable, and that gays could never be truly happy unless they renounced that 'false' identity in favor of naming and claiming their God-given heterosexuality.

As time has shown that the vast majority of homosexuals cannot change their attractions, and as the scientific evidence has increasingly pointed toward biological factors as the predominant determinants of one's sexual orientation, Exodus and its allies have found themselves trapped between a rock and a hard place. Having tied their theology so closely to a specific theory about the cause and mutability of homosexuality, many within the the ex-gay movement have come to conflate discarding those mistaken ideas with rejection of the Christian faith altogether.

Thus we now witness the spectacle of ex-gay spokespersons engaging in rhetorical acrobatics to deny that "change," "heterosexuality" and the rest of their catchphrases mean what they seem to mean, even as they stubbornly refuse to plainly state what they actually mean. To do otherwise would require admitting that they were wrong about some very significant things - and humility has never been an abundant commodity within American evangelicalism.

Nonetheless, there are ex-gay leaders who have publicly acknowledged their error without abandoning their faith. Some of them have even maintained a more traditional Christian stance on sexuality even as they have adapted their programs to better reflect the realities of what it means to be a gay Christian living under that belief system. That the leadership of Exodus is too proud to do the same suggests that they have invested far too much in being right to effectively help those they claim to be here to serve.

Sites to See

-First up, Peterson Toscano's thoughtful response to a guy struggling with his sexuality. Key insight: "Where is the joy in the journey?"

-Conservative Republican Ward Connerly follows in Barry Goldwater's steps and endorses gay marriage.

-Professor Miguel de la Torre challenges James Dobson's version of the gospel.

-And, not to make this a complete Dobson bashfest, but it's nonetheless true that James Dobson Doesn’t Speak For Me.

-Finally, five words nobody ever expected to see together in the same sentence: Jar Jar, You’re a Genius...

More Linkage

Because my inability to get a post together this week doesn't mean there aren't other things out there worth reading...

-Joe Moderate shares why he left the ex-gay movement.

-David (formerly of Resolving Realities) talks about some of his current skepticism toward his Christian faith. At the end of the day I'm not sure any religious belief is possible without a leap of faith of some sort, but that doesn't mean we should turn off our brains and pretend we can ever have perfect answers to much of anything.

-Box Turtle Bulletin analyzes the "death or change" message that some Exodus spokespersons present as the only two choices for GLBT individuals.

-Finally, a fun and informative geography lesson.

Self-Protection

Peterson's recent post on emotional dependency got me thinking about my own issues with intimacy. My current life circumstances would have to change dramatically were I to find myself in a serious dating relationship, and as such I've made no efforts to search for anyone that I could pursue a relationship with. Yet I have to question how much I'm simply respecting the terms of my employment, and how much I'm using that as an excuse to avoid having to let somebody get that close to me.

Not that I can lay all the blame for my relational issues on ex-gay ministries, which have been as much a help to me as a hindrance in that regard. Long before I knew much of anything about the ex-gay movement, I started building the walls that have become as much a trap to me as they are a barrier to others. Even the evangelical culture that I grew up in can't take all of blame, though the attitudes I absorbed and took to heart in church on a regular basis consistently rewarded and reinforced my tendency toward withdrawal. Over the years my defense mechanisms have become so instinctive that I often fail to notice the things I do to keep people at arm's length.

There are a handful of people that I've allowed to get close to me, but even the deepest friendship is a looser and less complicated bond than marriage. As much as I think that I want a life partner, I find myself questioning how I'd handle actually having one. Celibacy hasn't exactly been the wonderful state that so many married heterosexuals try to convince gay people it can be, but it is a lot safer. The thought of being completely naked with another person - physically, emotionally and spiritually - is actually rather scary.

The old tapes that still force their way through my head from time to time don't help, either. Even knowing that they're completely untrue, it takes time and conscious effort to overcome the residual fear that still accompanies them - fear that no intimate relationship I pursue with someone I actually find attractive could ever work out; fear that any man I fall in love with will turn out to be an amalgam of every bad stereotype I was taught about the "gay lifestyle;" fear that I'm emotionally deficient and constitutionally incapable of building and maintaining a stable relationship.

Few churches actively set out to be incubators of fear and self-loathing, yet in practice many of them still encourage secrecy and distrust. Even in this age of accountability partners and support groups, many evangelical churches are only safe havens to the extent that one adheres to every last line of dogma and speaks in the correct Christianese dialect.

Developing healthier relational skills is a steep uphill battle at times, especially in a world where most people don't have the patience that it takes to work past those old emotional barriers. I'm slow to trust others - sometimes glacially slow - but that doesn't mean I've given up trying. Some things really are worth the effort.

Away For a Bit

Tomorrow morning I'm off to DC for the 2008 GCN Conference. For those of you who will also be there, see you soon. For everyone else, here are some items of interest to peruse while the rest of us are away:

-Eric from Two World Collision elaborates on Side X, the term he coined to describe the ex-gay perspective, and the problems he sees with that viewpoint.

-A brief history lesson from Box Turtle Bulletin.

-A very cool board game that will be hitting the U.S. sometime this spring: Agricola.

Analyses

Dr. Patrick Chapman, a university professor whose name you're likely to see again, recently wrote a three-part series for Ex-Gay Watch critiquing Jones & Yarhouse's recent study on participants in Exodus programs. A must-read for anyone with an interest in ex-gay issues.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

And, for the sake of balance, here's a link to Part 1 of the authors' response to Dr. Chapman's articles. Parts two and three are still pending.

Also, another must-read: Disputed Mutability blogs about her experience at a Love Won Out conference here.

The Ex-Gay Survivors Conference

It's been posted elsewhere, but here it is again for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. I don't appear in the video, but one or two of my contributions to the Chalk Talk are visible in a few shots. It was a memorable weekend, and I'm glad I was able to be a part of it.

Chasers War on Reparative Therapy

Edit: This is from an Australian TV show. I haven't watched any other clips, but these guys seem like the sort who will make fun of just about anything.

As John pointed out in the comment section, this clip may be offensive to some. While there's certainly a time and place for exposing - and even laughing at - absurd claims and practices (and every movement has its Richard Cohens), there's a fine line to be walked between shining a light on those fringe elements and conflating them with the larger group they claim an affinity with.

Since, as always, your answers may vary, I'm leaving the clip up (at least for now) to let viewers decide for themselves which category this falls into.

Critical Analysis

If you haven't yet heard about the new ex-gay study that's just been released, don't worry, it's only a matter of time. For some in Exodus and religious right circles it seems to be an event comparable to the return of Christ, while some on the other side would leave us with the impression that it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

The truth of any matter generally lies somewhere in between the extremes of opinion that are inevitably generated, and I doubt that this is an exception to that rule. Jim Burroway has done a preliminary analysis of the Jones-Yarhouse study that's up to his usual high standards (he'll be doing a more thorough look at the study once he's had a chance to read the book). Even if you don't normally delve deeply into ex-gay issues, I recommend reading Burroway's review so that you can knowledgeably address the subject should it ever come up in conversation.

Around the Blogosphere

There's always plenty going on. Here are a few highlights:

Peterson Toscano has just completed his "Change Was NOT Possible" series, in which he conveys many of the nuances of ex-gay life that often get brushed aside in the war of ideas.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Part 5 of Jim Burroway's series on his experiences at a Love Won Out conference is finally up, and well worth the wait:
A Candid Explanation For “Change”

Misty Irons presents an all-too-sadly-accurate primer on How to write a conservative Christian article on homosexuality.

And, on a slightly different note, a defense of the ability of atheists to formulate a coherent moral code. Makes sense to me, even though I'm not likely to become an atheist anytime soon. I can see strains of Stage Four/Stage Five thought in his reasoning, which is perhaps part of the appeal of his case for me.

Questions For Exodus

Cross-posted from Ex-Gay Watch. If any Exodus leaders opt to respond, they'll most likely do so over there.

Given the defensive, sarcastic, and even hostile reactions that Exodus and its political allies have offered in response to the Ex-Gay Survivors Conference and the growing profile of the ex-ex-gay movement, several questions come to mind.

1. How do Exodus and its affiliates treat those who “drop out” of their programs? Is any follow-up ever done to find out why those individuals left? If not, does Exodus just hope that those people will go away and quietly vanish? How are current participants encouraged to treat former participants?

2. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays have a right to tell their stories in their own words, or does it regard only the testimonies of “faithful” ex-gays as valid? Is there room for dialogue with former ex-gays, or are they considered enemies of the church?

3. Does Exodus believe that ex-ex-gays are in danger of losing their salvation? Can God still work in the lives of those who disagree with Exodus’ theological and political opinions, or are such individuals heretics to be expelled from the church at any cost?

4. When a former ex-gay claims to have been harmed by their ex-gay experiences, does Exodus take those charges seriously or are they dismissed as political posturing? Does Exodus consider its programs so far above reproach that no complaint made against them could be valid?

5. Former ex-gays are familiar with being told (by presumably well-meaning individuals) that their disenchantment is due either to personal failure or to incorrect perceptions and false expectations on their part. What, then, is Exodus doing to correct misperceptions about the definition of “change,” which are still widespread throughout the evangelical church? What is Exodus doing to ensure that “strugglers” – and their families, peers, pastors and fellow churchgoers – adopt a proper set of expectations, including fully understanding that “change” will, for most participants, mean a lifetime of celibacy?

Ex-Gay Watch is interested in hearing how Alan Chambers would respond to these questions, but the floor is open to leaders of local Exodus affiliates as well, as we recognize that their answers may vary.