Christianity Today has an article out online today which covers familiar ground to readers here.
Written by Bobby Ross, the article notes the divisions over reparative therapy which have been accentuated by the recent APA report on sexual orientation and therapy.
No surprise here: Evangelical leaders who advocate gay reparative therapy took umbrage at a highly publicized American Psychological Association (APA) resolution that criticized such efforts.
By a 125-4 vote, the 150,000-member association’s governing council adopted a task force report in August claiming a lack of evidence that efforts to change one’s sexual orientation work.
One aspect of the 138-page resolution, however, drew praise from some Christian psychologists—and exposed a divide in the evangelical therapy community.
As we discuss here often, modest change in orientation has been reported but, in my opinion, the change paradigm for therapy and ministry is old school.
Warren Throckmorton, a counselor who believes that the Bible prohibits homosexuality, commended the task force for “clarifying the value of helping clients sort out their beliefs and work out an identity and life that fit within the clients’ beliefs.”
A one-time proponent of sexual reorientation efforts, Throckmorton said he spoke up until 2004 at conventions of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). But the Grove City College psychology professor has come to believe that changing a person’s sexual orientation is at best difficult.
Rather than focusing on reparative therapy, he has embraced “sexual identity therapy,” which focuses on helping a person live in a way that is consistent with his or her beliefs.
My issues with reparative therapy involve the lack of research support for the basic perspectives on the formation of same-sex attraction as well as the paucity of robust demonstrated outcomes.
“The reparative side sees the objective as healing the trauma [of family dysfunction] and thus curing the homosexuality,” said Throckmorton, former president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. “The sexual identity side doesn’t see the efficacy of that approach and doesn’t think change is necessary in order to help people live in congruence with their faith.”
Ross then addresses the Jones and Yarhouse study and notes Mark Yarhouse’s views on change and therapy paradigms.
Yarhouse says more Christian psychologists are providing sexual identity therapy rather than reparative therapy. He recommends “a range of options” to help believers make sense of their sexual and religious identities.
“I don’t want to discourage people from making that attempt [to change orientation],” he said. “But for most of those people, success will not be a categorical shift from gay to straight. The gains will likely be modest, more along a continuum.”
As co-author of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework, Mark offers a balanced view of the landscape. Most of the people who consider Exodus a success have a story of congruence with their faith than tell a story of some degree of change in their sexual arousal patterns.
Alan Chambers weighs in with more of the reparative therapy side of the divide.
Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, said it is wrong to assert that sexual orientation cannot change as a result of therapy.
“That flies in the face of the testimonies of tens of thousands of people just like me,” said Chambers, a married father of two who credits God and counseling for helping him leave a homosexual lifestyle. “That’s not to say that you can flip a switch and go from gay to straight.”
Finally, NARTH’s David Pruden worries that the APA report will keep people from trying to change.
David Pruden, vice president of operations for NARTH, said the APA’s resolution likely will not affect how Christian psychologists counsel. He voiced concern, though, about its impact on potential clients.
“[This] could discourage individuals from even seeking assistance or entertaining the thought that growth or change is possible,” he said.
Well, if the proper information is disclosed to people, I doubt they will not seek assistance. However, if therapists practice in accord with the SIT Framework and recent APA guidance, they will not experience over promising or be directed to developmental theories which may not fit their lives.
Nope!
My suggestion is just like your suggestion with the ‘misleading word’ change. Avoid using the misleading word and simply say what you mean. (This would go along with David’s suggestion as well…that you give examples of what it is that you deem to be ‘anti-gay’ rather than just declare ‘it’s anti-gay’. Then, like those Exodus spokesmen, we’ll know what you’re talking about.)
Eddy,
It would be foolish and counter-productive to communication to simply pretend that there are no attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism that is in opposition to gay rights, equality, and dignity.
So, until another word comes along that as accurately describes such attitudes, politics, behavior and activism, I’ll continue to use the very clear and concise phrase “anti-gay” to describe such activist, politics, behavior and activism. And I will also, upon occasion, use the term to describe people who are consistent and dedicated in their efforts to oppose gay rights, equality, and dignity (e.g. “Paul Cameron is an anti-gay activist”).
The term is neither a slur nor offensive and I view efforts to ban it as a way to control the debate by forbidding an accurate description of attitudes, politics, behavior and activism that are in opposition to gay rights, equality, and dignity. Rather than arguing the merits of the the attitudes, politics, behavior and activism, such attempts are meant to distract and change the debate and divert it instead to a discussion over hurt feelings.
I will, however, remain open to other words or phrases that are equally concise, clear and descriptive.
Timothy–
When you use it here–in these discussions–and fail to make it clear that you are not referring to us just because we happen to disagree with you–I will challenge your usage.
And I will keep your logic in mind in all future discussions regarding ‘the confusing terminology’ employed by ex-gays.
Only time will tell if your choice today was a wise one. Let’s consider the request asked and answered (although with a ‘no’) and move on.
David, I am not calling you anti-gay.
David, you mentioned that some people disapprove of homosexuality for “rational, deductive, logical reasons”. I am not sure what you mean. Could you give some examples of such reasons?
Anti-gay…Timothy persists in this, because he knows the power of it.
Let him persist.
Anti-gay is about a person…not a set of political goals.
Anti-abortion is about a procedure….(although some make it about being anti-woman, when they are trying to accomplish the same visceral response as Timothy).
Pro-gay is about a person…not a set of political goals.
To conflate tolerance with being aligned with specific political goals with being Pro-gay politically is a gross simplification.
It is a simplification that is tried and true…call a name.
But that appears to be the method Timothy wishes to use.
It would be like saying Timothy is anti-traditional marriage….or that Timothy is trying to destroy our culture….
Timothy has a set of ideas, rooted in logic, science and human rights advocating for a particular agenda for GLBT people…
He is not anti-Christian, anti-marriage and so on…
Timothy, the very weapon you have worked so hard to take out of your enemy’s hand, you readily wield.
It is beyond disheartening.
David, while I do not approve of name-calling, I agree with Timothy that persons who who have “attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism that is in opposition to gay rights, equality, and dignity” could rightly and fairly be referred to as “anti-gay”.
In the same way a person who had “attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism that is in opposition to Christian rights, equality, and dignity” could rightly and fairly be called “anti-Christian”.
(Not saying that anyone here is either one of these, though I wonder sometimes…)
I think we also need to recognize that certain words, terms and phrases may be offensive to a person or group of persons — even if that is not the intent of the speaker.
For example, I find the phrases “the gay lifestyle” and “gay identity” offensive since these phrases seem to lump all gays together — as though we all shared a partcular lifestyle or identity. I also find it offensive to refer to gays as broken, disordered, sick, etc. as well as the assertion made by some folks that gays have “an agenda”.
It may not be name-calling or intended as slurs, but it sure feels like it.
If enough persons who are opposed to or dislike homosexuality on any level organize into a unit with an agenda or agendas to oppose it, that group could rightly be called anti-gay. Likewise, if enough persons who dislike the Church or religion or who reject God and those who follow Christ organize into a group with an agenda or agendas to oppose those things, they could rightly be called anti-Christian or anti-religious.
The forms the opposition within both camps — we all know some that fit this description — take are all over the map, of course. And somewhere, those who see any sex outside of traditional marriage as sin (but don’t go around carrying “God hates gays” signs or practicing Christianity as an “assault” ministry instead of as “a salt” ministry) have to fit in.
Michael, would referring to people as gay-identifying ring differently than saying they have a gay identity? The term identity has come to be associated with agendas and politics in the minds of many folks. One who identifies as gay, as defined by his or her sexual attractions or activity, is not necessarily one who also identifies with the full spectrum of gay identity politics or social causes, you are saying. True. But that person is likely to have associations that may give rise to the identity label. I think gay Christians would rather be known as having an identity in Christ.
Not all Democrats are tax-and-spend liberals and not all Republicans are greedy capitalist pigs. But there are enough with those leanings within each party to create a perception of a party identity.
The culture war has been largely a war of words and image-crafting or debunking. Clearly, words carry weight. Our heightened sensitivities these days make it hard to effectively communicate. We walk on eggs. We have need of getting past the initial layer of lazy, knee-jerk reactions to words. This happens when we seek and achieve relationship. “Love covers a multitude of sins.”
Some of the name-calling amounts to intended slurs and some is out of pure ignorance. Of course, the terms “broken, disordered, sick, etc.” would rankle gays. The truth is those terms apply to a wide swath of people within every church who are straight in their sexual orientation while otherwise living crooked lives.
When I’ve played a record album that repeats because the needle is stuck in a groove, the remedy is to lift the needle out of the groove and move on. I wonder if that would work here.
David has stated his point…that he feels the term ‘anti-gay’ is charged and that it can be used to shut down those who disagree. He was referring to conversations here, on this blog, and even cited that he doesn’t believe that any of the regular bloggers here are ‘anti-gay’.
Ann gave demonstration to what David was saying. She was branded as ‘anti-gay’, felt shut down and minimized…and all because she held to a different point of view. Instead of rationally discussing the difference in point of view, people branded her as ‘anti-gay’ as a way of dismissing her. After Michael met Ann when she attended a memorial gathering, Michael realized that Ann was not ‘anti-gay’.
It does not matter to David’s point that Michael never called her ‘anti-gay’. That is to Michael’s credit, however, the point was that some use the term in an attempt to control, shut down or sway our conversations. Some used the term ‘anti-gay’ in reference to Ann and they were wrong to do so.
Ann had the unique opportunity to prove that she was not ‘anti-gay’ but Ann went to that memorial out of her own heart and desire…the same heart and desire she had when she was branded ‘anti-gay’. Some used the term ‘anti-gay’ in reference to Ann and they were wrong to do so.
The repeat was intentional. Although that statement is specific to Ann, it goes directly to David’s point. ‘Anti-gay’, when used as a conversation controlling, discussion quenching brand is inappropriate and offensive. And, as he cited in his latest post…it’s personal. When used on this blogsite and directed at people who are in the conversation, it’s a personal slur.
I believe we can accept that people aren’t going to eliminate the term ‘anti-gay’ from their vocabularies; what we are unwilling to accept is its indiscriminate usage here as a conversation controlling tactic and an unsubstantiated personal slur directed at a commenter.
Hoping that we’re done groovin’….
@ Michael,
I addressed you with Timothy, not for calling people anti-gay; I was trying to address your comparison between anti-war, anti-abortion and anti-gay as being neutral descriptors of a political position.
Also, the inclusion of your phrase “irrational fear of…” does not generalize to other “anti” positions.
I am also concerned with dependence on Wikipedia for definitions…but that is another argument for another day.
@ Michael,
When I first started commenting at ex-gay watch and elsewhere, I used the term “gay lifestyle;” it was naive and harmful on my part. I have resolved not to use the term and to the best of my knowledge have not done so for several years.
Regarding “gay identity”…I would argue that this is less limiting than you imagine; Christian identity, conservative identity, American identity…very broad categories that include a great variety of people.
Since the science does not support, in my opinion, advocating for civil rights based upon biological differences; I have opted to support many people like you based upon one’s right to choose an identification based upon beliefs, associations, sensations, experiences and facts.
Very much like religious tolerance….and religious practice.
I will argue for a respectful, non-demeaning use of the word “identity”—and I think the same must be applied to “identifying as heterosexual”—to be consistent with my rational (although I think there are much stronger arguments for a biological model here).
I cannot speak for haters, whether obvious (fa**ot) or subtle (SSA, body language of sneer and disgust).
This website is sacred…because people from previously alienated positions are seeking understanding and reconciliation.
Timothy’s labels attack what is good here.
Eddy
I think my usage has been clear. If not, please identify where I used the term as a slur or to falsely suggest that you or anyone else was anti-gay when, in fact, they are not. I’ll happily apologize.
David,
You appear to be unaware of the common use of these terms. The term Pro-gay most definitely includes a supportive position on gay political goals. And if you doubt that, let me give you reference from conservative sources in use in the news today:
OneNewsNow: Producers treated the 12.7 million viewers who tuned in Wednesday night for the premiere to a pro-gay adoption speech within the first two minutes of the program.
Associate Baptist Press: The church still remained in relative obscurity until 2005 when it moved beyond picketing gay-rights events and pro-gay politicians to demonstrating at funerals of fallen soldiers.
And if you wonder about my usage of the term “anti-gay”, today alone I found this term used by media as diverse as Courthouse News Service, Memphis Flyer, Baltimore Sun, Yeshiva World News, and The Guardian. The term was even included in a statement about the United Nations by Republican congresswomen Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
If they can use it, so can I.
It is not a “weapon” or a slur or a name. It is a descriptive term. But if you don’t like it, I’m open to alternative terms.
What I will not do, however, is pretend that we cannot ever acknowledge that some attitudes, politics, behavior, or activism are not hostile to gay rights, freedom, and dignity.
And David if you really are interested in whether or not this is getting personal or whether incivility and slurs are getting in the way of communication, I’d invite you to re-read your last several comments.
Ugh… double negative typo. What I meant was
Timothy–My statement goes to the future as evidenced by “I will challenge”. I won’t be digging through the archives and am no longer ‘in the groove’. It appears to be a beautiful autumn weekend ahead and I don’t relish the notion of playing tit for tat online.
David,
Sorry for yet a fourth comment. But it distresses me that I’m being portrayed as insulting or offensive. And I want to find resolution.
If there is a word or phrase that is as descriptive and accurate, I’d like to use it. So, please help me with the words that you would use to replace “anti-gay” in these sentences:
and
and
While Sarah’s politics were anti-gay, she had strong personal relationships with several gay individuals and couples in her community.
and
Periodically I hear anti-gay folk explain that homosexuality is just a “social construct.”
Eddy,
Enjoy your beautiful autumn weekend.
Thanks, Tim, I will. My favoritest time of the year…I expect that the colors on the trees will start to pop within the next week or two.
Eddy, Take pics and send them my way!!!! PLEEEEEEEEASE.
@ Timothy,
No one is even remotely asking that.
No one is forbiding (Warren is the arbiter of such actions) you from using anti-gay; feel free….as I said, persist.
It is a manipulative phrase that oversimplifies the issues involved and has an imbedded personal attack (double meaning).
I am repeating myself…but once more:
These are the tactics of narcissistic agenda folks on all sides of every debate.
I think some of the comments on this thread give one reason why there are not tens of thousands of testimonies readily available for verification. (Hint: not because there are no people whose attractions have changed.)
I am a female who used to have exclusive SSA. Due to my Christian convictions, I did not act on them very much, although I did to a small degree in one relationship. I was never formally involved with Exodus or any reparative therapy groups, but I read some of their materials, found them to be helpful, and received pastoral counseling. And, to make a long story short, God changed me.
I am now married (pregnant with our second child, not that I think Alan was referring to numbers of children) and OSA. I do not know that I could say absolutely, utterly OSA, but there was definitely a huge shift. Very rarely I have fleeting feelings of SSA, but it is certainly not a dominant struggle. I rarely even think about SSA even theoretically, as it’s not part of my life now. …That’s kind of the thing.
Since no one who meets me now would ever know about my past SSA, and it doesn’t feel like it has much relavance to my current life, why would I want to open myself and my family up to this hostile, invasive criticism and skeptical demands of proof, and then more/better proof. No one has ever asked me to be in an anonymous survey — if they did, I might consider it, if I had time/energy in this hectic stage of raising small children. I share my testimony with close friends when I want to, but it is not public knowledge and I don’t feel called or responsible to provide that.
Not sure why I’m even posting this now, except that I was surfing around, this thread caught my attention, and I guess I felt sufficiently irked by some of the arrogant presumptions in this comment section that I felt like adding my two cents.
(Note: In general from the little I’ve read on this site, I think Warren’s focus on sexual identity therapy rather than reparative therapy is positive. I think congruance between belief and behavior is more important than change in attraction. But change in attraction is possible, and from someone who has been there, it comes off as really arrogant and annoying when people dismiss it out of hand. I personally think Alan’s “tens of thousands” number is probably more than fair. I understand why people want hard data to back these claims up, but I really don’t think it takes that much of a leap to understand why people like me are not clamoring to publish their testimonies for public consumption.)
Thanks, Claire, for that breath of fresh air. You give substance to what many like me believe in their hearts and confirm with their own experiences. Except, you are living proof of even more than I am as you can testify to being exclusively SSA in the past.
I wrestled with keeping my past life confined to only that small inner circle, and would have done just that were it not for the definite call God has put on my life. Yes, who would willingly want to put themselves out there to incur the wrath of arrogant, insensitive and ignorant onlookers? I have come to see this “thing” as much larger than any of us and our individual feelings.
I think there is a reason you came here and posted.
Thanks Claire!!! Not only did I appreciate what you said but HOW you said it. Very clear and easy to grasp. I agree with Debbie…a breath of fresh air and I’m very glad you dropped in. The rest of us can get caught up in our seemingly endless debate while people like you simply move on. (I mean that in a good way!!! I believe it’s God’s plan for most people to move on and live out their lives without the focus on the past.)
Thanks Claire. My current boyfriend knows a minimal amount of my past and no one in my present life (save here and my family of origin) know of my past. It’s just not worth discussing or bringing up because of the criticism and the stereotypes that persist.
Why oh why would I want to drag my boyfriend through this mud.
David,
I stated my case. I backed it up with examples. I asked for alternative phrases and offered compromise.
You chose to ignore the examples, refuse compromise, and accuse me of a narcissistic agenda.
In the spirit of not furthering the hostility, I’ll avoid the temptation to speculate on why you chose not to find a solution and instead went for personal attacks.
Again.
Claire,
Congratulations on your happy life.