Tuesday, January 15, 2008

New Exodus Plan: Make 9,930 New "Member Churches" by 2010

Exodus international, the Evangelical Christian umbrella organization for a variety of "ex-gay" ministries and therapists, plans to grow its network of member churches from the present modest 70 to 10,000 by the year 2010. What must a church do to be saved, ahem, become an Exodus member?
  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.
hat tip: Ex-Gay Watch


D.J. Free! said...

oh great . . . *rollseyes*

Pomoprophet said...

Why would you roll your eyes Darren?

I think its a good thing. Though I might not agree with their conclusions, atleast thats 10,000 churches dealing with the issue. Which is WAY better than churches who just preach hate or who are silent on the issue and leave people to wonder or suffer in silence.

Atleast by taking a stand people know. And are we not more concerned with peoples spiritual lives than having churches agree with us? I would rather a person be embraced than have people in the congregation hate these individuals because they are never told that they are to lose these people (youd think they would know but we know thats not reality).

If people later decide they need an open affirming church then they can leave and find one. But isnt it better to atleast have the church dealing with and thinking about and discussing this issue? I think so. I'd much rather that than a person suffer in silence.

I trust that God can lead people. So im not worried that churches agree with exodus. Afterall thats the evangelical view of Scripture. We cant blame churches for that can we? Still, I think it takes a safe place where people know they are going to be accepted no matter what they deal with.

Joe Moderate said...


I see your point. But I think you're only seeing the possibility that churches moving to become Exodus members will be progressive. Surely there are a number of churches where hate isn't preached and people are thoughtfully considering whether to openly embrace gay folks--take the case of Broadway Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas. I think that for a church like Broadway, becoming an Exodus member church would be a regressive step. I think that for other churches, becoming an Exodus member church might also give them a false sense of "oh yeah, we're doing something about that."

But on the whole, I do agree that the Exodus perspective on homosexuality is progressive from fundamentalist Christian teachings (e.g. Fred Phelp's ilk).

I just feel uncomfortable about people joining forces with an organization I feel is involved in actively deceiving its followers.


Pomoprophet said...

That makes sense. I guess I just assumed that a church that is actually thinking about embracing gay people as gay wouldn't "regress" to the Exodus message. I was more seeing it as a step forward from denial/hate to exgay. Atleast thats the path alot of us seem to be on...


TweetyJill said...

But why would a church want to be a part of Exodus? I may be missing something here wouldn't a church joining be a good thing for Exodus? So why all the rules and restrictions. I would think that it would be the churches who would be inviting Exodus and not the other way round.

It sounds like Coca Cola wants to put their vending machines on a campus but first they want the university to meet all these requirements, plus pay an annual membership before they do.

I am confused.

seithman said...

Does anyone besides me find the idea of an "optional membership fee" something of an oxymoron? Why not just call it a "suggested annual donation"?

-- Jarred.

Joe Moderate said...

I totally agree, Jarred