Allan Chambers of Exodus International, apologises

[Stella_Omega]

http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/i-am-sorry/
Admittedly, the pages starts off with a long explanation about himself and how he feels, and what he wants for himself, and all about him. But eventually it gets to some meat-- some actual apology.
In part:

...Never in a million years would I intentionally hurt another person. Yet, here I sit having hurt so many by failing to acknowledge the pain some affiliated with Exodus International caused, and by failing to share the whole truth about my own story. My good intentions matter very little and fail to diminish the pain and hurt others have experienced on my watch. The good that we have done at Exodus is overshadowed by all of this.

Friends and critics alike have said it’s not enough to simply change our message or website. I agree. I cannot simply move on and pretend that I have always been the friend that I long to be today. I understand why I am distrusted and why Exodus is hated.

Please know that I am deeply sorry. I am sorry for the pain and hurt many of you have experienced. I am sorry that some of you spent years working through the shame and guilt you felt when your attractions didn’t change. I am sorry we promoted sexual orientation change efforts and reparative theories about sexual orientation that stigmatized parents. I am sorry that there were times I didn’t stand up to people publicly “on my side” who called you names like sodomite—or worse. I am sorry that I, knowing some of you so well, failed to share publicly that the gay and lesbian people I know were every bit as capable of being amazing parents as the straight people that I know. I am sorry that when I celebrated a person coming to Christ and surrendering their sexuality to Him that I callously celebrated the end of relationships that broke your heart. I am sorry that I have communicated that you and your families are less than me and mine.
...

A day later, comes the announcement that exodus Internation will shut down; http://exodusinternational.org/2013/06/exodus-international-to-shut-down/

Unfortunately, they cannot shut down the local ministries that follow its precepts. But it's something.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I am genuinely curious about what he considers "the good that we have done at Exodus" to be.

As for the rest... it sounds like he's genuinely sorry for the damage they've done, and honest about the extent of that damage, which is good. But it feels like something is missing:

In 1993 I caused a four-car pileup... I never intended for the accident to happen. I would never have knowingly hurt anyone. But I did. And it was my fault. In my rush to get to my destination, fear of being stung by a silly bee, and selfish distraction, I injured others.

I have no idea if any of the people injured in that accident have suffered long term effects. While I did not mean to hurt them, I did. The fact that my heart wasn’t malicious did not lessen their pain or their suffering. I am very sorry that I chose to be distracted that fall afternoon, and that I caused so much damage to people and property. If I could take it all back I absolutely would. But I cannot. I pray that everyone involved in the crash has been restored to health.

This story leaves me imagining somebody who was injured in that crash. Somebody who might have spent the last twenty years unable to work, grinding themselves down fighting the medical system, spending every day of those twenty years thinking "if only I hadn't been on the road that day".

I wonder what their reaction would be to hearing that the guy is praying for me. I think if it were me, it'd be "that's nice now how about some help with the goddamn bills?" And I think the rest of his apology has the same failing: it's pretty good at acknowledging the harm and expressing his sorrow, but very light on specifics about what tangible steps he's going to take to fix things. All he seems to be offering is "I'm no longer going to actively fight against your rights and I want to consider myself your friend".

At this point, as he's acknowledged, Exodus International is irrevocably tainted by their record; they can change their name but no matter how good their intentions might be, folk still have good reason to distrust them. If they sincerely wanted to do what they can to remedy the damage, they'd do better to sell the foundation's assets and giving the money to one of the many organisations that has a track record in working for LGBTQ mental health.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I am genuinely curious about what he considers "the good that we have done at Exodus" to be.

Same here, Bramblethorn.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Interesting response here:
http://anarchistreverend.com/2013/06/20/exodus-international/

 

[emap]

The good Exodus thinks they did is make a homosexual man or woman devalue their sexuality and consider being celibate is better. This is all the while saying a priest who has been abusing his altar boys is perfectly fine because he confessed his sins and is repentant. Because it is in the bible that a man does not lay with a man like a woman and a woman does not lay with a woman as a man they won't ever just shut the fuck up and let people do who they want.

I'm fairly sure that is actually in the bible, not a direct quote but what I came away with. At least I think it's not a direct quote. Course the darn book is so confusing and convoluted what it says in the latest translation could be changed in five years to something else.

Not that it matters, haters hate. Republican haters hate that the current president is a democrat and black, not that they will admit the second one. Some will hate that he is probably a Muslim, not that it is a new thing, Kennedy was looked down on because he was Catholic.

See there is a trend, religion gets the people who hate more than any other people. There is a reason for this, haters have to tell people they are a hater and why they hate. Religion lets them get out there and proclaim it to the world, even if they happily do the very thing they denounce. Back to the priest abusing alter boys, it's wrong except when the priest does it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The good Exodus thinks they did is make a homosexual man or woman devalue their sexuality and consider being celibate is better.

Yeah, that's my suspicion, and I wouldn't be AT ALL surprised if the shiny new renamed Exodus goes on preaching that same message, just with the language toned down a bit. The things Chambers didn't say in his apology are suggestive.

This is all the while saying a priest who has been abusing his altar boys is perfectly fine because he confessed his sins and is repentant. Because it is in the bible that a man does not lay with a man like a woman and a woman does not lay with a woman as a man they won't ever just shut the fuck up and let people do who they want.

I'm fairly sure that is actually in the bible, not a direct quote but what I came away with. At least I think it's not a direct quote.

Leviticus 18:22 – “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20:13 – “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Leviticus also forbids tattoos (Lev 19:28), round haircuts (19:27), and wearing poly-cotton fabrics (19:19). It sets the basis for kosher law (no pork, shellfish etc). It's cool with polygamy, though - unless you want to marry a woman AND her mother, which is out. I'm not a theologian, but by my understanding most branches of Christianity view the laws in Leviticus as either obsolete (superseded by the New Covenant) or only relevant to Jews, except where reaffirmed in the New Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_old_covenant

Of course, plenty of folk will happily pick and choose whichever verses match their prejudice, but
Real Live Preacher has a good roundup of what the Bible actually says about homosexuality. (oops, broke link - fixed now)

 

[Dyslexicea]

Exodus members are about as likely to change as I am to hit the lottery!

May I clarify Leviticus 20:13 for all of you.

King James. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New International Bible. "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Both of these translation, along with many more, were translated by men who happened to be both patriarchal and homophobic.

The true translation from Hebrew to English. "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

This has nothing to do with the men having sex with each other. It has to do with Jewish Law as who has the right to sleep in a woman's bed. Which was restricted, as far as men go, to only her husband, along with other laws as to when he was allowed into her bed.

 

[stickygirl]

mistaken post
but since I'm here, this is interesting reading and confirms my atheism. Religion is just control and why Henry VIII did the right thing... though that was a while ago.
Apologies again

 

[John Doe]

mistaken post
but since I'm here, this is interesting reading and confirms my atheism. Religion is just control and why Henry VIII did the right thing... though that was a while ago.
Apologies again

I get the impression that he only broke away from the Catholic Church because the Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. Is that what you are referring to (the English Reformation)?

 

[njlauren]

Exodus members are about as likely to change as I am to hit the lottery!

May I clarify Leviticus 20:13 for all of you.

King James. "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

New International Bible. "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Both of these translation, along with many more, were translated by men who happened to be both patriarchal and homophobic.

The true translation from Hebrew to English. "And a man who will lie down with a male in a woman's bed, both of them have made an abomination. Dying they will be put to death; their blood is on them."

This has nothing to do with the men having sex with each other. It has to do with Jewish Law as who has the right to sleep in a woman's bed. Which was restricted, as far as men go, to only her husband, along with other laws as to when he was allowed into her bed.

Therein lies the rub, trying to decipher the intent of something written in a language not like our own in a time and place we don't understand. I have never heard that interpretation of those infamous lines in Levicitus....

My take on Leviticus is different. Those portions of the leviticine law were written during the Babylonian exile c600 bc, and much of what is in there is to prevent Jews from being absorbed into Babylonian society and culture. For example, eating Kosher would mean eating with fellow jews, since Babylonians were not likely to follow that law, the things about not using metal on the face (shaving) and the clothing of multiple colors and so forth, refer to Babylonian practices that in following Jewish law, would keep them distinct.

The Babylonian religion had a ritual where male priests would have sex with each other, with literally the other priest would take the role of a woman (in a sense like in later times, how men would play female characters), where the object was to make love as with a woman. The wording of the Babylonian ritual supposedly was almost identical to the way the Hebrew text read...


The important part, of course, is that leviticus doesn't matter, because it is one part of many hundreds of laws of a people and time far removed form ourselves, and we ignore the rest, because we say they are 'jewish cultural law'. There are few mentions of homosexuality in the bible, and many of them have nothing to do with homosexuality (deuteronomy, Soddom and Gommorrah). even including S and G and Deuteronomy, there are about 6 references we are talking about across both books. In the NT, only Paul makes reference to something that could be homosexuality, but that one is realyl doubtful, the greek could be translated to outrageous practices and could be referring, at least in part, to masturbation. In reality, it comes down to Leviticus and Paul, and both are problematic.

What is ironic is the same people who can take a couple of references reputedly about homosexuality and can turn it into a major pogrom against gays, are the same people today who are creating this whole "prosperity' Gospel, where they have fused Christianity with Ayn Rand, where the rich are blessed by God and were put in that position for that reason, where the poor are often poor because they would rather live off of others, where 'Jesus wants you to be a billionaire" or some Jesus freak twat drawls how being Jesus good friend saved her 40% on her kitchen......which besides making my skin crawl is basically perverting Christianity to its core to fill a political agenda (basically, the quid pro quo, the religious nuts fervently support the GOP and their economic agenda, and they give the religious nuts anti gay laws and trying to make abortion illegal, abstinence only sex ed, the works). I guess they never really read the bible, or in the words of one billy-bob preacher, "Jesus was making a big joke when he said a wealthy man would have a harder time than a camel going through the eye of a needle trying to get into heaven"

 

[njlauren]

I get the impression that he only broke away from the Catholic Church because the Pope wouldn't grant him an annulment from Catherine of Aragon. Is that what you are referring to (the English Reformation)?

It was a combination of things, the annulment from Catherine was part of the picture, the other was that Henry, like other prelates in Europe, were tired of paying fealty to the princes of the church or more importantly, pay them taxes, the nation state was growing and they didn't want Rome deciding things. Keep in mind that for centuries the church, for example, often decided on alliances between countries, whose child should be betrothed to another families scion,and so forth. Henry was no different, and the issue of the annulment gave him the casus belli he needed to break from Rome. It was much the same way that Luther was saved by a German prince, because said prince was fed up with Rome exacting taxes from his kingdom, if Luther had acted 20 years before, he would have ended up burned at the stake; doing it when he did, he was protected by a powerful prince the church dared not attack.

I think it is a bit silly to give Henry credit, since the Anglican Church was no more free than the old Catholic Church had been, and in Protestant Europe Luthers followers and the Cavlinists were equally repressive. They did set the ball in motion, but it was the enlightenment, it was people like Rousseau and Locke and Hobbes, who helped ignite the seperation of church and state that in turn allowed things to change. All one has to do is look at the medievalist who have been running the RC for the past 30 years to see why they were right (the enlightenment types), given how far backwards the Catholic church has gone, or the evils of the evangelical Christians.

 

[stickygirl]

I was thinking Catherine was the final straw for Henry, but he decided to take the divine right of kings that extra step. It's always about power

 

[Safe_Bet]

Bullshit!

Sorry. I, for one, do NOT accept that lying bag of shit's apology.

He and his organization has done more harm, fomented more tragedy and caused more suicides in the LBGTQ community than any others.

I personally hope the motherfucker gets very painful stomach cancer, dies and become Satan's homosexual fucktoy.

I'd go WAY out of my way to spit on his grave.


(and yeah, I know... just be grateful I haven't had my afternoon coffee yet! LOL)