Last week, a British ex-gay group, Core Issues, hosted an ex-gay conference in Belfast, NI. One of the people involved with Core Issues is Paul Miller, a psychiatrist who was identified in 2008 by NI member of parliament Iris Robinson as a psychiatrist who works with gays to help them go straight.
Now Dr. Miller is facing more scrutiny due to a complaint from journalist who posed as a client and then wrote about the therapy experiences with Miller. The General Medical Council is hearing the complaints. The Independent article is here and Dr. Miller’s work is referenced as “David” in the article and conducts the therapy over Skype.
My intent is not to reflect on Miller’s problems. He is a devotee of Richard Cohen and the UK representative of NARTH. As such his methods and views are predictable. What I want to point out is that the website Core Issues has a link to the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework. I have asked them to remove the link and they have not answered my requests. I want to make it public that the SIT Framework contradicts the rest of the website and is not there by the permission of Dr. Yarhouse or me.
Given the links to NARTH and involvement of Miller, it is hard to understand links to the other resources including ours. Andrew Marin’s book is featured prominently as is Yarhouse’s Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity. In the SIT Framework, we specifically mention Richard Cohen’s book, Coming Out Straight as an approach which is inconsistent with the framework. Explaining a client’s experience as being a reparative drive is something we discourage as well.
There are two broad paradigms in sexual identity ministry – change and congruence. The change paradigm sees homosexuality as a treatable disorder and encourages the use of therapy and religion to change orientation. The congruence paradigm takes no strong position on what causes homosexuality. Change is not the objective but congruent living with a chosen value position. The website Core-Issues is a collection of references and resources which include both models. They certainly are free to put anything on a website which is public domain but I am also free to point out that the SIT Framework is within the congruence paradigm and inconsistent with most of what was described in the Independent article as well as what seems to be the focus of the Core-Issues organization.
Darvid Roberts: I was repsonding to David Blakeslee’s comment.
I wasn’t challenging what you said. I tend to agree with it. I was trying to point out that no therapist is really “neutral”. We all, like it or not, bring ourselves into the equation. We just been to be very carful how, when and for what reason. I think it’s kinda silly to say one is neutral and one is not. It’s a matter or awareness, degree, respect and intent.
Sorry. Vision is hard for me. I meant to type: “We just need to be very careful how, when and for what reason.” I really need to get a maginifier for my screen.
Oh geesh, don’t remind me. I’m just at the edge of needing to wear my reading glasses to use the computer and I can’t stand it.
I apologize if I misunderstood you.
No problem. Retinal detachments in both eyes, multiple surgeries, scleral buckles, lens implants — wonder I can see at all.
On “neutrality”: When I got my BA in Cultural Anthroplogy, we were told to avoid “enthnocentricsm”. Not possible. When I got my MS in Counseling, we were urged to remain “value free”. Again, not possible. We all bring our own “eyes” when we try to see clearly and as we try to guide safely and ethiclally.
I think the best we can do is try to be aware of our biases, state them as such (not as fact or “God’s will”) — and not insist that those we try to guide “see” things they same way we do. Still working on it. I do not claim to have mastered it yet.
I have some time this morning and decided to read and post. Perhaps the conversation is over, and if so, that’s OK.
I think part of what we’re dealing with are different understandings of terms. Not that Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all of knowledge, but here is their definition for “pastoral counseling.”
That’s not what I mean when I use the phrase. I mean the counsel (usually spiritual) that a professional or volunteer pastor does in the day-to-day course of his/her ministry. Some have more training than others in psychological theory and practice; many don’t. Some reject psychology out of hand.
I’ll give another try at explaining what I mean by “honoring” choices. It means I will abide by that choice by not coercing or otherwise trying to force a different response, by not rejecting the person who makes the poor choice, by continuing to “shepherd” him/her as a pastor, by physically acting for his/her good as long as it doesn’t enable unhealthy or sinful behavior. Do I also have to hide the fact that I believe their choice was wrong? I don’t think so. Do I “whine” or “nag” them ab out it, as David may have been implying? Also, no. I see no conflict here.
David, I don’t think you should leave the discussion. By I perceive that so much of what you put out there is driven by your personal response to me, which is almost always negative almost all of the time. I am trying very hard to get past our personal tussles. I don’t always succeed in that, especially when posting on the Ex-Gay Watch blog. I’m trying to be better here. And I’d humbly ask you to do the same.
Warren, I’ve been thinking on this, and it seems as though even thinking about “change” is nonscientific because the parameters of “sexual orientation” have yet to be scientifically established. That is, orientation change is always tied to some purpose for “change” or “not change.” Any stance regarding change: yes it can happen, no it’s can’t, it shouldn’t be ruled out, etc, is more political than “scientific.”