Lessons From the Uganda Homosexuality Conference

Jump to Comments

Update: Randy Thomas has also made a public comment on his blog.

Update: Warren Throckmorton just posted a public statement from Scott Lively, as well as a public statement from Alan Chambers as reported to the Christian Post.

Recently, I received a couple e-mails from individuals concerned about a conference on homosexuality that took place in Kampala, Uganda last weekend. Of particular concern was the context of the conference and the fact that a board member from Exodus International participated as one of the three keynote speakers. The conference was sponsored by Family Life Network, a private Ugandan organization founded to address family morals. According to the conference invitation, the event was established in response to pressure to decriminalize homosexuality. In Uganda, constitutional law permits life imprisonment for those convicted of homosexuality. Three American speakers were asked to present: Scott Lively of Defend the Family International, Caleb Lee Brundidge of International Healing Foundation, and Exodus board member Don Schmierer of His Servants.

There were several problems with this conference, including Ugandan Christians supporting laws to imprison gay people, the failure of the American speakers to denounce this harsh penal code, and the suggestion by one speaker to require court-mandated therapy in lieu of imprisonment. As a result of my concerns, I sent a letter to Exodus International president, Alan Chambers, and the Board of Directors asking them to publicly clarify their position on the criminalization of homosexuality and forced therapy. While Exodus was not a sponsor of this event, nor directly involved, the fact that an Exodus board member played a prominent role requires an explanation. To their credit, I received a prompt response from Mr. Chambers. I was not given any definitive details, but it appears position statements may be issued in the future. Though, no timeline was given or promised.

As I have reflected on the conference and the resulting outcry, I decided to write a post on what we can learn from this experience.

Do Your Homework: It is very easy to make quick judgments about a situation without deeper investigation. As I sought information on the conference, virtually all news reports were from pro-gay organizations. There were few, if any, reports from the Ugandan Christian community regarding the conference. Thus, without hearing from all parties, it was difficult to obtain a holistic picture of what transpired. This required a little more digging on my part.

The gay community was particularly concerned about speaker Scott Lively, who has been described as a “Nazi revisionist” for his book The Pink Swastika. I knew nothing about Lively so I checked the web to read articles and statements he has written. Lively appears to be an ultra-conservative who falls into the same group as Americans for Truth, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council, and Mission: America. He promotes the view that a sinister gay agenda will destroy civilization as we know it if it is not stopped. According to his booklet, Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child, he believes gays are trying to seduce children, and that we are not far from Greco-Roman days when pederasts roamed the streets to molest children on their way to school. He also promotes the view that homosexuality is absolutely acquired with no biological underpinnings. He is vested in denying any possible genetic contributors because if homosexuality is acquired, then it can be stopped. Lively even goes so far as to blame gays for the Nazi holocaust. In the preface of the 4^th edition of The Pink Swastika, he demonizes homosexuals as the “true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind Nazi atrocities.” Like most ultra-conservatives, he believes in fighting gay activists via such methods as exemplified by his friend Ken Hutcherson who picketed high school students on the Day of Silence.

Ironically, despite his extreme views, he actually made statements at the Ugandan conference that may have sounded progressive to his African audience. Per an eye-witness representing the pro-gay organization SMUG, Lively stated that gays who are acting out in private should be left in peace. He also told conference participants to leave people alone who don’t want to change. But instead focus on fighting open promotion of homosexuality. He also said that criminalization should be tied to treatment rather than imprisonment. If these statements are accurate it suggests Lively is not so much in favor of forced therapy as he was offering the Ugandans a less harsh alternative to imprisonment. Nevertheless, he seems to support the criminalization of homosexuality and he did, in fact, suggest court-mandated therapy for those convicted. This is a frightening prospect given history’s use of electric shock treatment for those who are gay. Who knows what the Ugandan government would consider viable treatment. In any case, such forced therapy has no real hope of being effective.

The reporter also indicated Lively said gay people should be treated with dignity. I do not believe Lively hates gay people. When he spoke to a “Christian” audience in Russia that clapped (chillingly) at his story of a gay man who was killed, he admonished his audience to stop cheering. Yet, such sentiment is likely to be lost in the midst of his rhetoric about the threat of the gay agenda. Given the Ugandan cultural context of fear and anger toward gays, his overall message will likely fan the flame of existing hostility.

The second speaker was Caleb Lee Brundidge, a representative of International Healing Foundation. In news reports Brundidge was criticized for his involvement with the discredited group, Extreme Prophetic. This ministry, among other things, engages in “mortuary ministry” to raise the dead. However, Brundidge did not speak at the conference as a representative of Extreme Prophetic. Rather he shared his testimony of coming out of homosexuality—a typical testimony one might hear at any ex-gay ministry. Nor am I particularly concerned that Brundidge believes, as did the early Christians, that some people can be raised from the dead through prayer. While there are problems with Extreme Prophetic, this appears irrelevant to the conference and merely used as a form of character assassination to further portray the Ugandan conference as weird.

However, Brundidge’s involvement with Richard Cohen’s International Healing Foundation is a concern. Exodus International has publicly disavowed IHF stating: Exodus International does not endorse the work of Richard Cohen or the methods utilized in his practice. Some of the techniques Mr. Cohen employs could be detrimental to an individual’s understanding of healthy relational boundaries and disruptive to the psychological and emotional development of men and women seeking clinical counsel and aid. So, why did an Exodus board member speak alongside a representative of a ministry Exodus has disavowed? The issue is further complicated by the fact that board member, Schmierer, seems to support IHF as indicated by a link he provides to the ministry on his website. Exodus would certainly benefit from more cohesion among its staff and board members about whether are not they believe IHF practices can be “detrimental.”

The third speaker, Exodus board member Don Schmierer, of His Servants focused his presentation on basic Reparative Therapy concepts. That is, people become homosexual due to a breakdown in parent-child relationships. While I don’t agree with all aspects of Reparative Therapy, I support people’s right to provide training regarding their perspective on certain psychoanalytic theory. To his credit Schmierer advised the Ugandan audience to practice empathetic listening and genuine understanding toward those who struggle with same-sex attraction. In response to these statements someone in the audience agreed that they had not been doing a good job of listening to homosexuals. Schmierer coached his audience to work to prevent child neglect and said all people need to be treated with dignity.

Overall, I have little complaint about Schmierer’s presentation except that it does not provide the whole scoop. Supporters of reparative theory often fail to inform audiences of all possible etiologies for homosexuality. Likewise, they do not reveal the low conversion rates. Christian psychologists Yarhouse and Jones found only 15% (after a four year period) experienced a shift to heterosexual attraction. The majority of individuals are not going to “repair” their sexual orientation despite practicing all the advice of reparative therapists. This needs to be acknowledged. To provide false hope that most people can be cured of homosexual attraction is grievous and deceptive. It also keeps people from addressing how we can actually support individuals who are not going to experience desired change. Furthermore, I have concerns about a European psychoanalytic worldview being transplanted to Uganda without any consideration for how African cultural dynamics influence family and sexuality in that country.

Be Culturally Aware. Perhaps one of the primary problems with this conference is that it tried to impose American ideology on Ugandan culture. Uganda is not America. Its one thing for Lively to say the things he does in the United States where gay people are not threatened with imprisonment. Its quite another to bring that same rhetoric to a country where even pastors have posted the names, addresses and photos of gay people on a website, exposing them to potential violence and arrest.

There are also dynamics unique to Uganda in regards to sexuality. The AIDS epidemic has, in part, contributed to strong reactions to sexual activity in general. In the 1990s, Uganda launched an assertive campaign in an attempt to reduce infection and death rates. Their efforts succeeded in reducing HIV prevalence from 15% in 1991 to 5% in 2001. Many Africans know a friend or relative who has died from AIDS. As a result, it is not only homosexual sex that is opposed, but any extra-marital sex. The same verbiage used to condemn homosexuality is used to denounce illicit heterosexual activity as well. The Minister for Ethics and Integrity, James Nsaba Buturo even proposed criminalizing mini-skirts. And in regards to prostitution he stated:

We want to shame the public officials who even use government vehicles to buy prostitutes. We want to shame the husbands who go after these prostitutes and those running brothels. Their names will be published in print, television, Internet and other possible arena.

The harsh attitudes in Uganda toward gay people, the way the AIDS epidemic has shaped responses to sexual activity, and the societal use of shame to effect change are only a few cultural factors that need to be considered before Americans on either side of the debate start telling Ugandans what to do.

Don’t Mix Ministry and Politics: I strongly support anyone’s right to be involved in the political process. Those who take part in public policy on issues of homosexuality are not automatically bigots simply because they are advocating for their views (though the manner in which they lobby or the type of action recommended may be bigoted—by either side). Nevertheless, one cannot successfully minister to a gay person while simultaneously lobbying against him. One cannot assure a gay person he has dignity in one moment and accuse him of preying on children in the next. This is exactly what happens at conferences like the one in Uganda.

Public policy is a completely different mission from providing counsel and support to those affected by homosexuality. Major problems develop when the two are blended. For example, Lively’s view on ministry to gays is directly affected by his political message that homosexuality is completely acquired. To acknowledge the possibility that homosexuality might have biological underpinnings is to lose part of the political battle. In the same way, many ex-gay leaders are reluctant to admit low conversion rates in an effort to counter gay activists’ equally problematic assertion that change is impossible. Yet, by denying the low conversion rates, we fail to provide adequate discussion and resources for those living single, celibate lives. We also increase the likelihood of people returning to homosexuality when they are disillusioned by a lack of expected change. Furthermore, if we are not open-minded about causation of homosexuality, we risk promoting ineffective treatment.

Ex-gay leaders will often say its about “holiness, not heterosexuality.” But, the lack of forthright teaching on low conversion rates, the use of ambiguous terminology such as “freedom from homosexuality,” and the tendency to hem and haw when asked about any continued same-sex attractions sends a contradictory message. Some years ago, one ex-gay leader’s ministry was almost excluded from Exodus affiliation because he admitted still being predominately homosexual (albeit celibate). Ultimately the affiliation was granted, but the fact that there was any hesitation at all speaks loudly. Political battles lead us to promote certain ideology in order to win an argument, rather than what is most effective for ministry. By being honest about etiologies and conversion rates, we can provide much more accurate and helpful resources.

In addition, mixing politics with ministry creates poor results simply on the basis of basic leadership/management principles. Marcus Buckingham spent seventeen years with the Gallup Organization conducting research on the best management practices. In his book One Thing You Need to Know about Great Managing, Great Leading and Sustained Individual Success, he writes that effective organizations are those that pinpoint one, primary strength and cultivate that to excellence. Organizations that try to excel in too many different directions end up lukewarm in all areas or floundering entirely.

Listen Well, Communicate Well. Despite requests for clarification for almost two weeks, Exodus has not publicly responded to concerns about the conference. Exodus VP, Randy Thomas alludes to this silence in a recent blog post. An organization like Exodus is constantly getting flack from the gay community simply for existing; they cannot be expected to respond to every negative reaction. At the same time, the concerns about this conference are very legitimate. Not only is the gay community concerned, but also members of the ex-gay community. The criminalization of homosexuality and forced therapy are serious issues. To be silent at a time like this is not prudent.

Many ex-gay leaders are on the defensive because our ministries are so often misunderstood, but this interferes with the ability to be receptive to feedback. In the past when I have expressed concerns to certain ex-gay leaders, I received responses like, “Don’t believe everything you read on Ex-Gay Watch.” In other words, I don’t have a mind of my own. I’m just being brainwashed by gay activists. Sincerely listening to others is common courtesy. Responding to people is respectful. This is about basic communication skills. Ignoring people is not a good leadership tactic. Nor is it good PR.

If Exodus is not ready to make a position statement at this time, perhaps they might consider saying: “Hey, we’ve heard your concerns, we are taking them seriously and we want to spend some time thinking and praying through them before we give an official response. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.”

17 Comments

Filed under Sexuality & Gender, Social Concerns

Tags: All Posts, ex-gay, family life network, gay, homosexuality, lesbian, uganda