Debate continues on the Jones-Yarhouse study of sexual orientation
Posted on September 18th, 2007 by Warren
Although only one mainstream newspaper has picked up the Exodus study, blogosphere is providing some dialogue. A particularly civil exhange can be found on BoxTurtleBulletin. Stanton Jones has gotten involved as well…
Box Turtle Bulletin civil? Dr. T., you must have a different definition of the word than I do.
I find the other side’s insinuations about particpant lying really interesting. Much in the same way that Scripture’s honest accounts of really screwed up people tends to support its veracity, the significant - though less than stellar - change results in the study also point to its reality and reliability.
If people were on the “Exodus payroll” and motivated to cheat, I’d expect to see far better results. But then, the participants would have been accused of lying about that, too. It’s a Catch 22 all around.
Karen - Hope you are doing well!
It was civil in the sense that Jim made a civil critique and Stan replied in kind. After that it kind of went downhill.
The study is a good one and much better than anything else we have. If massive harm was being done on a wide scale basis, this design would have found it. The results are actually modest but reflect what I have been seeing clinically for years. There is a variation in how people experience attractions to the same sex and there are variations in how flexible sexuality is for different people. This is essentially what they found. They also found that Exodus programs offer benefit to some who dont change much at all. I think as a ministry, the next step would be for Exodus to take a consumer approach and survey those who have expressed dissatisfaction and see if there are any practices that associate with those who don’t do well.
I’m not sure that’s really saying much
I don’t know where the accusations of lying came from, but I think we would be naive not to realize that people in such a ministry tend to carry on an optimism because for some, admitting negatives or defeat is giving in to the enemy.
My own reading of the responses leads me to believe a lot of the positive “change” might come from relief from shame and isolation, more so than from change of orientation, which seems to have been quite small when it did happen.
I’m not trained to interpret such things, but my own instincts tell me that not much depth can be gained from a study of 73 people with which one speaks once a year. How many believers have you known who went up and down in basic life situations? How much more can one expect that out of these? How long can one stay in a specialized ministry for maintenance?
I still have a lot of questions that are not being answered by this book, but to quote a phrase, this “irrational exuberance” does not seem warranted. If one can’t get more change out of a group of bisexuals than this, I’m not sure one can ever expect much from truly homosexual people, beyond of course celibacy.
I’m also very curious as to how anyone can be so certain that the dropouts did not experience harm. What if they dropped out because they experienced harm? Isn’t it rather careless to proclaim “no harm” when we don’t really know?
Karen,
Speaking for “the other side” for a moment: I do not believe that the study participants lied. Nor do I believe that Michael Bussee lied when he was part of a study that also found 11 people to have become straight. Nor do I believe Noe Gutierez lied on Warren’s video I Do Exist. Nor do I believe that Darlene Bogle or Anthony Vinn-Brown lied.
I believe that each of those individuals sincerly wanted to believe that their sexual orientation had changed. And I believe that they allowed themselves to believe that indeed it had.
But it hadn’t.
I am not claiming that any of the 11 participants who reported reduced same-sex attraction and increase opposite sex functionality were not reporting what they believed to be true. And I’m not even claiming that they are deluded.
But I am illustrating that if you insist that what they are saying is proof, then it isn’t entirely compelling. We’ve seen self-reporting before and have learned to apply a health amount of suspicion.
Perhaps there is someone amongst the 98 persons who now is fully heterosexual - but this is not what the summary reported. So to ask the question - do Exodus programs turn gay people into straight people? … Not according to this study.
But it does show that some small percentage of highly motivated Exodus participants are able to report that they are experiencing a reduction to same sex attraction and increase in opposite sex attraction - at least over four years. I hope that Yarhouse and Jones follow up again in a year or so and let us know how things are going.
Warren,
I must disagree with two things that you said:
This study is better than anything that preceeded it, but it is far from “a good one”. And the way in which the study has been falsely portrayed in the conservative and Christian press - without the slightest objection from Yarhouse, Jones, yourself or anyone else attached to they study is truly sinful.
Melissa Fryrear is suggesting that 67% of those who enter Exodus are successful. Is it moral to let her continue to imply, suggest, hint, and outright lie?
That is simply untrue. Surely we all can agree that if harm was being done it would most likely show up in two places: 1) those who left the program, and 2) those who have become disillusioned.
There is, as best I can tell, no evaluation of those who left the program. There has not been enough time passed to evaluate those who will become disillusioned.
You claim is little better than saying: This drug was taken by 98 participants. The 73 still alive at the conclusion of the trial did not show harm.
Timothy - So are you saying I am sinning by calling it a good study? You seem to go from disagreement to sin in short order.
The researchers can only get information from subjects who will answer questions. The subjects were simply unwilling to provide it.
The design was prospective. If people are harmed on a wide scale basis, I would expect that to show up in ways that are not seen. The drop out rate would have been higher. Those harmed would have reported their harm. The people still in the study who were continuing on would have demonstrated increased distress on the measures. If going to Exodus groups was a complete fools errand, the measures they used and tracking would catch it among those that remained. I am convinced that Jones and Yarhouse would love to talk to those who dropped out. If anyone knows any of them, plead with them to contact the researchers. They are still collecting data and will be through a few more years. No one, especially me or Jones or Yarhouse is suggesting that horror stories are not true; however, to discount the study completely is just as inappropriate as those who are using it to say that large numbers change.
How people use the study is another matter to which I will turn in a future post. But those who dismiss it completely as being of no value are doing so on ideological grounds. If Jones and Yarhouse have no merit, then pitch Shidlo and Schroeder as well since that study was not prospective, did not determine what was harmful about the subject reports, lumped religious, aversive therapy and talk therapies all in one big concept, did not follow up subjects over the same length of time, and was not in any way representative of people seeking value/sexuality congruence. I also expect bloggers and researchers beyond BoxTurtle to excoriate Montel’s Alicia Salzar (science tells us that only 4% change) and the lame psychologist on the recent Michael and Juliet Show who says no one changes. In fact, if we pitch Jones and Yarhouse, then we basically start over and have nothing. Nothing that exists can inform the APA task force or any other body that says we have evidence of anything. Big black hole.
I’m going to withhold a lot of comment about the study itself until I get the opportunity to read the book - hopefully sometime next week. It’s difficult for me to form an opinion based only on the summary presentation I heard in Nashville and the resulting commentary pro and con.
I realize that many folk on this blog and others are really into parsing words and concepts. Some of that is to the good, some not as helpful in my opinion. At the presentation/press conferences, especially the one at Exodus, it was made crystal clear what Exodus and its related ministries consider “success.”
Is success defined the same way Timothy does - turning gay people into straight people? No. Is it even defined in a way that the broader culture is going to understand or appreciate? Probably not.
While Drs. Yarhouse and Jones express concern for building bridges within the theraputic community and broader culture, which is a commendable effort, that’s not a real big motivator for me. I mainly care that the Church understands and wisely and compassionately applies the research findings. And I frankly don’t expect it will ever convince or convert anyone entrenched in pro-gay fundamentalism.
I would still argue that the less than stellar results that are reported indicate more rather than less veracity in the study.
Warren,
I realize how ignorant I am of the Jones and Yarhouse study here - but did there study show any real change? Perhaps it all comes down to our operational definitions for these words.
If both the results of the study are true, and the reports of horror stories are true, then how can that be? Are the people in the study incredibly lucky to have avoided the horror stories, or the others incredibly unlucky?
Are we only looking at this study in light of the current APA deliberations? Does anyone know why it was released now instead of after the full 5 years? I have to be honest, the idea that no harm is present seems a bit difficult to believe; I would have an easier time trusting the results if just a few reported harm. If we know that incredible harm can result (because we believe the stories of it), then where is it?
This seems conflicted.
Warren,
I thought the 15% conversion rate was a bit low. Is this your experience in clinical practice–that is, about 15% who seek help actually attain to heterosexual attraction/functioning? Not just celibacy, but strong enough heterosexual attraction to enjoy a solid heterosexual marriage?
Also, I am wondering how the percentage rate would compare to professional therapy. Exodus is a support group and obviously doesn’t go into some of the reparative therapy work that a therapist would do . . .
Additionally, this study only covers people for four years. In your experience, how long do you work with someone before you see them developing actual conversion? It seems it usually takes longer than 4 years.
I am interested in your thoughts. Karen Keen
Warren,
I will reserve any further claims about the “harm” part of the study until I read the book. I still think it unlikely that the study gives any assurance… but I’ll leave myself open to pursuation.
Timothy - So are you saying I am sinning by calling it a good study? You seem to go from disagreement to sin in short order.
Nope. Read it again: “And the way in which the study has been falsely portrayed in the conservative and Christian press - without the slightest objection from Yarhouse, Jones, yourself or anyone else attached to they study is truly sinful.”
I’m saying that those who are deliberately misquoting the study to claim it proves things that it does not (or ever deliberately giving that impression) are sinning. I guess I’m old fashioned, but I do still believe that lying is sin.
By the way, I do not dismiss this study out of hand. I just don’t think it says the things that are being claimed about it. I’m sure you would agree that reports about the study should limit themselves to that which is true.
And I’ll go further. I think that Yarhouse and Jones do have some moral obligation to ensure that those for whom they did the study are not misrepresenting it. Don’t you?
Karen,
Is success defined the same way Timothy does - turning gay people into straight people? No. Is it even defined in a way that the broader culture is going to understand or appreciate? Probably not.
That’s one of my problems. If one sets out to disprove someone else’s claim (ie the claim that a change in sexual orientation is impossible), then you have to use the same definitions that they do. If you change “success” to be something other than what they mean, you haven’t disproved them.
I don’t say that this report doesn’t tell us something. It does. It even tells something useful for those who seek to find a fulfilling life that complies with their beliefs on the subject.
But it does not refute the hypothesis that they set out to disprove.
Warren,
If the study does only cover 4 years - in my mind, that doesn’t seem like a very “longitudinal” kind of study - not, at least for a subject matter of this type. I know I keep bringing this up, but I think most Ex-Ex Gay people were in Exodus and related groups longer than that weren’t they - doesn’t this say something about the study?
Karen Keen wrote:
You seem to be confused like a number of those who think this works. It’s not 15% of ALL gay people who seek heterosexual functioning. Possibley 100% of those in the study thought they could get there because of the empty rhetoric of Focus on the Family, evangelicals and Exodus. Well, that’s not true. And these numbers are in no way representative of what can be done in the greater population of gay peoples. This population was one which iis “highly motivated” by parents, society, guilt, religion, or what hav you to “get the gay out.” And that population of persons is but a small fraction of the gay community, somewhere probably less than 1% - so that is 15% of 1% or a number closer to 0.15%. But remember even Drs. Jones and Yarhouse have said the numbers in this stufy are meaningless except to indicate existance of a “class” - which classes were constructed by Jones and Yarhouse to pump of the good numbers for Exodus….. but the numbers are meaningless….
Furthermore many of those in Exodus are also in therapy. But then what kind of therapy can there be for something that isn’t an illness? Thus the low numbers which probably are bisexuals in the first place or the real psycho-gays who were sexually abused as kids.
Lastly…. how much of a chunk out of your life should a person take to attempt to rid themselves of what is natural in the first place? And it is the waste of all those years which finally comes to define harm.
Jayhuck, my understanding is that the findings have been reported for the first three years of an intended five year study. Yarhouse and Jones did not indicate they would be following the participants beyond that, but that they would be publishing findings for years 4 and 5 sometime in the future.
From the other information they shared in Nashville, this study is the first of its kind to track prospective (in real time) self-report rather than relying solely on retrospective report as past studies have done. I don’t know enough about behavioral studies in general to know if five years is considered a long time longitudinally.
Timothy, I’m not sure I follow you in your last post. If the hypothesis for study is “change in sexual orientation is impossible” then any change at all (however it is measured and reported and regardless of scale) refutes that absolutist claim. And Yarhouse and Jones used other measures besides the movement on the Kinsey scale, all of which reflected some change.
As long as Jones and Yarhouse clearly define what “success” means in their reporting, I don’t see the problem with that, either. It’s more a matter of you not agreeing with the definition.
David, I remember Yarhouse and Jones saying specifically that “on average” participants did not experience the change attempt as harmful. That doesn’t rule out that some participants might have. I don’t think that makes it conflicted; it means different people had different experiences. They presented one graphic that compared the participants’ average level of stress (and maybe another descriptive term I can’t remember late tonight), but it was less than the mean average of folk involved in general theraputic processes.
Karen,
I guess the problem I’m having then is with the relatively short length of time for this study. We have all sorts of Ex-Ex Gay people who were in Exodus longer than this study - who claimed to have been changed during their time there - basically claiming all of the things that participants in this study or who are still in Exodus claim today - only to say or find out years later that what they were experiencing wasn’t change so much as it was a suppression of their feelings/desires. To me, these kinds of testimonies, along with the short time period of the study, and the very real possibility for Social Desirability Bias, throws even more doubt and questions on the results.
Karen,
My other issue with the study is probably the same as many other people have. You have a group of “highly motivated individuals” who have an intense need and belief to change - these people are members of a groups with a strong conservative political and theological stance, being studied by two unapologetic conservative Christian Evangelicals who have made their beliefs on homosexuality known to all. Now, is it possible for them to produce unbiased results in a study of this type - yes. It is also highly unlikely. I’m not suggesting that people are lying, but when you have as many parties as you do in this study who are “highly motivated” - that includes the researchers - that should all give us some pause and raise more than just a few eyebrows - People don’t have to outright lie in order to stretch, twist or distort the Truth. For the record, I have no doubt that the intentions of the researchers and participants are good - that doesn’t mean the results are showing us Truth.
I agree with you, Jayhuck, that there is probably a risk of bias in the findings. And Yarhouse and Jones publicly acknowledged that, and, I believe, deal with it in the book. (Just got word from Amazon that it won’t be delivered until maybe the first week of October, so I won’t comment about it until I read it.)
Correct me if I’m wrong, Dr. T., but I think the study used a “convenience sample,” as did the Schidlo and Schroeder (sp?) study of harm. But whereas Schidlo/Schroeder deliberately sought out those who retrospectively believed they experienced harm, Yarhouse/Jones did not overtly seek a foregone result. And they made every attempt they could to have a broadly representative sample of those within an admittedly limited category - 1-3 years involvement in an Exodus ministry.
I think almost all of us can acknowledge that there is some bias in ALL psychological studies, which is one of my major problems in putting too much stock in any of them. As I said to Dr. T in Nashville - psychology is not a hard science like chemistry or physics where one can usually expect to see the same outcome for the same input. (See Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science) The study of personality and behavior isn’t going to be as exact. It seems to me to be more of an “art.”
From the limited exposure I’ve had thus far to the study, my two main concerns are these, and they’re largely theological/pastoral in nature and based on anecdotal experience I’ve had with gays, ex-gays and ex-ex-gays.
First, almost all of the guys on my Board of Directors experienced the most profound change in their lives previous to ever getting involved with Exodus or another kind of support group. One came to faith in Christ in the MCC church under Troy Perry’s leadership, came to believe Troy was lying to him about homosexuality, and went on to growth and change in another local church through prayer and Bible study. Much the same is true for another former member of our Board. I’ve heard similar stories from other folk and it makes me wonder if there is a certain something about those that seek out a more therapeutic approach. And could Yarhouse and Jones control for that or did they consider or explain it? I’d like to see a study find those kind of people and report on them.
Second (and I’ve posted here and elsewhere about this before), my anecdotal experience with ex-ex-gays has observed a consistent pattern of them reporting a laundry list of things they did to try to change and then indicate they expected God to take their temptations or desires away because of their performance. In pastoral care, that’s called “bargaining” or even “magical thinking,” and it’s often based on a “works righteousness” understanding of Christianity.
For many of the “formers” I know, it didn’t work that way. Change happened when the willingly submitted their sexuality and discipleship/sanctification to the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, come what may. I’ve never heard an ex-ex-gay talk that way. So, I hope Yarhouse and Jones’ book will give some explanation as to what approaches the various ministries used. I don’t think a “works” approach will do it.
Karen,
I agree with you. My own experience of trying to change my desires for many years left me feeling quite helpless, but once I chose to surrender to the will of God the benefits of that spiritual journey began to reveal much change in my life and in my orientation. Some may want to negate that as simply a shift in behaviour, but I would contend that the shift in my behaviour opened up the door for a definite shift in my orientation.
I hope that this book will be looked at and open the door for further studies and for funds to be provided to help researchers look at the possibility of change. This to me would provide an important balance in this debate.
Karen,
As you are not understanding me, let me explain further.
Suppose that you claim that XYZ is impossible. And suppose that I set out to prove you wrong. In order for me to prove you wrong I must prove that XYZ occured AND it must be the same XYZ that you claim is impossible.
For example, suppose that you claim that it is impossible to change one’s eye color. I cannot simply put on colored contacts and claim I proved you incorrect - because this in not what you meant when you said that eye color cannot change.
That’s obvious. But let me give a slightly less clear example. I have an eye condition that causes some of the pigment of my eye to flake off. Consequently, my eye color has significantly changed over the past decade from hazel with light green edges to a dark mossy green.
This would seem to prove you wrong. But does it? We would have to go back to what your original claim was and the context in which I set out to prove you wrong.
So let’s revisit this study. According to the authors, “These questions were framed in the context of strong declarations by sectors of the mental health community that change of sexual orientation is impossible”. Thus we understand that to be meaningful to the study’s original intent, “success” has to be defined as refuting the strong declarations of the mental health community.
I think we can agree that a life of celibacy does not refute the strong declarations. So to claim that this is “success” shows a disconnect between the results and what they set out to do. Such a result may be valuable to strugglers, but it does nothing to refute the mental health community.
So, then, how about the 11 people who decreased same-sex attractions and increased heterosexual functioning? Is that a successful result in the context of refuting the mental health community? Well that depends on whether the mental health community was arguing that this could not happen. As far as I can tell, it was not.
Unless I’m mistaken, when those in the mental health community claimed that “change of sexual orientation is impossible” (what Jones and Yarhouse set out to dispute), they meant from homosexual to heterosexual. They did not mean quasi-heterosexual who still has same sex attractions but they are less disruptive. Or so I understand.
So we have two categories of “success” (or three if you believe Melissa Fryrear)… but none of them meet the criteria of what the study set out to do. So while “success” as declared by Yarhouse and Jones may indeed be success from the perspective of the participant, as far as proving the declarations of the mental health community wrong, I see no categories of success.
It is not, Karen, a matter of whether you and I define success differently. It is very simply a question of whether the study does what it set out to do. And for that to occur, we must go to how “sectors of the mental health community” define success.
So while I believe that the results are valuable - especially to those who seek to change their lives, behavior patterns, and identity - what it says about sexual orientation change is probably not what Exodus would like us to focus on.
With the exception of a change in sexual orientation, my experience is very similar. The struggle almost killed me, but giving it up to God gave me peace and clarity. My concern about which sex I am attracted to has given way to concerns about the person, does he share my faith, is he kind and thoughtful — all those things which are important to me and my relationship with God.
If you are happy and believe that you are doing as God would have you do, I wouldn’t suggest otherwise. I wouldn’t use a study of 73 people to validate or invalidate either of our lives. However, neither would I use it to give license to those who believe than the rest of us, or as it seems even a small minority, can experience an honest to goodness, major shift in the sex to whom we are attracted.
And even worse, that to force such thinking, reinforced with the idea that our very eternal souls depend on the continuation of such a struggle, can be done without serious harm.
David,
The same is true of those who chose not to look at change or who have tried and found that it did not work for them. Is it the will of God that you should say that no one can change because change did not occur for you or is this simply a justification for the position you have taken.
Timothy …
I understand you, but I find your argument illogical. Even just from the sentence you quoted from the study, the “strong statements from the mental health community” is the context for the study, not the hypothetical claims Jones and Yarhouse were addressing and attempting to answer.
One of the hypotheses was the pretty straightforward, ABSOLUTIST contention that orientation change is IMPOSSIBLE. (By their very nature, absolutist claims are universal - at all times, in all places, for all people.) So, if the “life of celibacy” RESULTS FROM a shift in orientation - as I believe the Yarhouse/Jones study shows on several measurable scales - then yes, that refutes the hypothetical claim. You mix apples and oranges when you blur behavior and desire. I don’t buy it.
And some people in the mental health field have classified anyone above a 2 on the Kinsey scale as homosexual. So you’re generalizations about mental health professionals don’t convince me, either.
David, thank you for sharing your story, but you and I are not describing the same thing at all in regard to submission
Karen,
You seem to suggest that Ex-Ex gay people haven’t sought out therapy or long-term strategies for solving their issues - on the contrary, many Ex-Ex gay people have been in therapy, and sought help for years or even decades. I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you said it is your experience that Ex-Ex Gays expected God to take away their feelings, but it has been my experience that ALL ex-gay people hope that God, in one way or another - through therapy or another avenue - will take away their unwanted feelings.
You didn’t really address the problem I brought up with ex-ex gay people, bias, and the subjectivity of psychology. What I said was that Ex-Ex Gay people, when they were in groups like Exodus, reported exactly the same types of change, relief, “movement in desired direction”, what have you, feelings that the people in the study are reporting - basically the exact same things. SO, my issue here is, when there is no true objective way of telling whether people are repressing, suppressing, or actually changing their orientation, what do we say about results like these? Do we simply do as we do now and pick the side we want to be on? You have no way of telling whether anyone in this study will one day be an Ex-Ex Gay person - you don’t know if they already are. There are so many problems with this study that go beyond the inherent bias of the study, that I find it hard to believe we can actually take it at all seriously.
And for the record, I know that the researchers mentioned the possibility of bias in their study, but what did they really do to “address it”, as you say?
Karen,
One last thought - before the results of a study done in any other area of science are accepted or are taken seriously, they have to be repeated in studies done by many other groups - I’m guessing this isn’t going to happen in this study? I’m also guessing that one study is going to be assumed to be good enough for whoever wants to believe in the results of this study?
Interesting, how do you know?
Obviously, 2 in a scale of 0-6, 6 being fully homosexual, would be bisexual. Saying otherwise is simply wrong, no matter who says so. For the sake of the discussion, could you please quote the “people in the mental health field” who have said this? I’m not doubting that someone might, but I think it best we know what we are dealing with.
Karen,
Sorry, everyone, for all the posts. I think you’re missing a crucial point with Ex-Ex Gays. When they believed they HAD changed and were still considering themselves to be Ex-Gay, they DID talk in the way you say you haven’t heard them speak. It is only natural that their “talk” and emphases would change when they decided they were Ex-Ex Gay.
So, if the “life of celibacy” RESULTS FROM a shift in orientation - as I believe the Yarhouse/Jones study shows on several measurable scales…
This is, with all due respect, sheer and utter nonsense. A change in orientation results in no attraction to the opposite sex???
If you persist in claiming that someone with absolutely no opposite-sex attraction whatsoever somehow proves those claims wrong, then I don’t know what to say.
If you went to ANY of those claimants and said “do you believe that same-sex attracted persons can, through religious efforts, achieve celibacy”, I doubt you’d find one that said, “no”. That doesn’t disprove ANYTHING.
Further, if you asked, “can efforts, religious or theraputic, help reduce immediate same-sex attractions and improve heterosexual functioning?”, I imagine that everone would say, “yes, at least for a while”.
Your argument about absolutism is nothing but a strawman argument. This study didn’t disprove anything that anyone was ACTUALLY claiming, as far as I can tell.
If you want to measure the success of proving a claim false, you can’t misstate the claim. Well, unless you care more about your agenda than you do about truth. Which I sincerly hope that you do not.
Timothy and Karen,
I hope you don’t mind me stepping in, but I think most of the problems in this debate come down to our operational definitions of words like change and orientation.
I do have to agree with Timothy regarding celibacy - leading a life of celibacy doesn’t require ANY change in unwanted attractions. That doesn’t mean its not a holy state to be in - but it doesn’t require any change, of the kind mentioned in the J&Y study.
Jayhuck
There have been a number of studies that have been presented in respectable scientific journals that have given supported to the arguements that many pro-gay activists put forward as evidence, when in fact they are not evidence at all (eg. Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer). The media picks up on a portion of these studies and blasts it on the headlines “Gay-Gene” is found, when in fact these studies have not in anyway supported or even suggested that this is the case and yet this is what is being held onto as scientific evidence.
Now the onus falls back on those who want to change to prove that it is possible. I suggest that no one has yet proven scientifically that orientation cannot be changed.
Timothy Kincaid said
Honestly, I am not sure it would be possible to keep up with all of the silly things that will be said. Inasmuch as they become aware of inaccuracies, it would be proper to say so and ask for accurate reporting.
I believe however, there is a double standard. I do not recall anyone calling for Shidlo and Schroeder to publicly call out Alicia Salzar or others who have misused their study. I realize BTB made a post about it, but (and correct me here if I am wrong), I do not recall you guys calling on Shidlo and Schroeder to do something about it. Let me remind you that S&S opened their study by saying the professional associations had been making pronouncements about the harm involved in reorientation without any data and they said their study addressed that need.
It is not correct to do to others what they have done to you and I work to resist this. However, I sure would like to see this attention to accuracy go both ways.
Karen Keen - Since I do not work for change in a direct fashion, I cannot answer well your question.
I do see that change is highly variable and hard to predict (I do not know who will change much and who will not).
David R - In a study of twins done by Bailey, there were two groups, heterosexual and non-heterosexual (2+). Bell and Weinberg classified as those K4+ (if recollection serves, it may have been K5+) as gay. These measures have been quite variable across studies. Measured sexual orientation shifted some along a continuum for some of the participants. Future assessments will help address whether those shifts widen, stay the same or reverse.
As I said, I think that’s absurd (classifying K2+ as gay), I don’t care who did it. But thanks for adding the factual reference
Concerned,
You said: “There have been a number of studies that have been presented in respectable scientific journals that have given supported to the arguements that many pro-gay activists put forward as evidence, when in fact they are not evidence at all (eg. Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer)”
Please elaborate on how these are “not evidence at all”! I’m curious to know what you mean
Concerned,
You have it backwards - NO ONE has proven scientifically that orientation CAN be changed. The ONLY thing that has been proven scientifically is that behavior changes - and that is ALL!
Dr. T., thank you for answering David’s question about the Kinsey ratings. I would have had to dig out some books to do it. To the other posters, I am going to answer some of the other questions addressed to me (above), but it will take a bit of time.
First of all, Dr. T., this post is long and if it’s too off topic for this thread, feel free to pull it or put it somewhere else.
I want to respond first to Jayhuck and then to others in separate posts.
He writes, “You seem to suggest that Ex-Ex gay people haven’t sought out therapy or long-term strategies for solving their issues - on the contrary, many Ex-Ex gay people have been in therapy, and sought help for years or even decades. I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you said it is your experience that Ex-Ex Gays expected God to take away their feelings, but it has been my experience that ALL ex-gay people hope that God, in one way or another - through therapy or another avenue - will take away their unwanted feelings.”
I’m not suggesting that at all. I have no doubt that ex-ex-gays may have sought out therapy or long-term strategies. My concerns are with a perceived approach to those strategies and therapies. From the folk I have spoken with, I have noticed a pattern of behavior that seems to point to a works righteousness understanding of Christianity and a “bargaining” or “magical thinking” mindset. I see that all the time as a pastor in my local church, and it usually doesn’t work.
I have concerns as to how that approach/worldview could play out in Exodus ministries (though again, I have no direct knowledge) and in the Yarhouse/Jones study results. I’m not attempting to universalize my observations or concerns to all ex-ex-gays. I think you other guys are the ones doing that.
Perhaps the following might help to explain my thoughts and concerns, though it also might just further muddy the waters.
First, elsewhere on this blog, Dr. T. said something along the lines of he would like Exodus to now take a consumer approach and see which techniques work best for people who are trying to change. I somewhat agree with that statement, but it also concerns me. There is a risk that folk would be encouarged to put their trust in the techniques. That’s not what Christian ministry is (or should be) about; it’s about inviting people into a living relationship with Jesus Christ and thereby connecting them to the saving, justifying, healing, freeing, sanctifying grace of God by the Holy Spirit. And then it’s about letting God do the work of transformation. I agree that we need to weed out (or at least warn against) consistently and blatantly harmful methods, but that’s about as far as I would go in trying to “consumerize” the change process. And even saying that, I also know that Richard Cohen (through his writings and work) has had a profound healing effect on several people I know, probably more than anything else they have experienced. As have some charismatic approaches that I’m personally uncomfortable with. God is going to work uniquely with each individual - even through experiences of perceived suffering and stress - to bring them into conformity with His best intentions for them.
Second, I’ve been doing a lot of reflecting on my own struggle with obesity. (I know – it’s not fully comparable to dealing with same-sex issues, so no one even think about going there. I’m trying to make a more general point.) I could if I wanted to easily attribute it all to genes. When I do my genealogy, a slew of very large women stare back at me from family photos. My Mom has been overweight ever since I can remember; my Dad and both of my other two sisters are thin. Fifteen years ago before my 25th class reunion, I lost 70+ pounds (in 9 months) through Weight Watchers. Since that time, I have put all the weight back on and then some.
A year and a half ago, several health issues forced me to take a deeper look at my life and to try again to make some changes so I could be healthier and also have a better Christian witness regarding my stewardship of my body. I’ve lost 30 pounds, but that’s just the “icing on the cake” to other changes. For the first time in my adult life, I’ve been “convicted” about the sinfulness of gluttony and sloth. That’s resulted in a continual process of repentance and re-submission of my will and desires to God. (I know you’ll all be surprised to hear I have control issues.) Because prior to this I wanted techniques – ANY technique – an eating plan, an exercise routine, a pill, a lap band, for crying out loud. (Didn’t get one, just wanted to.) Has my desire to overeat changed? Yes, some. (Well, actually a lot.) But I didn’t enter into it this time “bargaining” with God for that outcome.
I don’t argue that all ex-ex-gays approached the change process this way. The folk that I have spoken with seem to have done so. I’m concerned others involved in the Exodus change process may do so as well. I’d like to see a study address that. Haven’t a clue how that could happen.
And … “You didn’t really address the problem I brought up with ex-ex gay people, bias, and the subjectivity of psychology. What I said was that Ex-Ex Gay people, when they were in groups like Exodus, reported exactly the same types of change, relief, “movement in desired direction”, what have you, feelings that the people in the study are reporting - basically the exact same things. SO, my issue here is, when there is no true objective way of telling whether people are repressing, suppressing, or actually changing their orientation, what do we say about results like these? Do we simply do as we do now and pick the side we want to be on? You have no way of telling whether anyone in this study will one day be an Ex-Ex Gay person - you don’t know if they already are. There are so many problems with this study that go beyond the inherent bias of the study, that I find it hard to believe we can actually take it at all seriously.”
I take the study seriously in that I think it answered its two hypothetical questions. Like others, I will look forward to what Jones and Yarhouse report a bit further down the road. I’ve posted elsewhere that I don’t have a whole-hearted love affair either with psychology or with research studies in general. As you seem to be, I am a skeptic. But psychologists will have to answer and address your other concerns.
And … “for the record, I know that the researchers mentioned the possibility of bias in their study, but what did they really do to “address it”, as you say?”
Again, let me reiterate that I haven’t yet read the book. From the presentation (and my notes) I remember them saying they addressed methodological criticisms and concerns in their narrative. I’m trusting they’ve done that.
And … “One last thought - before the results of a study done in any other area of science are accepted or are taken seriously, they have to be repeated in studies done by many other groups - I’m guessing this isn’t going to happen in this study? I’m also guessing that one study is going to be assumed to be good enough for whoever wants to believe in the results of this study?”
Dr. Yarhouse said that he currently intends not to do any more studies along these lines. I don’t know if anyone else is planning to or if he might change his mind.
And finally … “leading a life of celibacy doesn’t require ANY change in unwanted attractions.”
Yes, it does.
In this study, it usually required a decrease in homosexual attraction – which Yarhouse/Jones documented. That IS a change, though as you wrote above, we all seem to be defining change differently.
But isn’t that what we do on this blog, anyway?
Karen wrote, “David, thank you for sharing your story, but you and I are not describing the same thing at all in regard to submission.”
And David responded, “Interesting, how do you know?”
See above, David. Now it’s back to you to share what you mean by submission. For me, it also includes submitting to the will of God as revealed in Scripture. Does it mean the same for you?
Karen wrote, “So, if the “life of celibacy” RESULTS FROM a shift in orientation - as I believe the Yarhouse/Jones study shows on several measurable scales…”
And Timothy responded, “This is, with all due respect, sheer and utter nonsense. A change in orientation results in no attraction to the opposite sex??? … If you persist in claiming that someone with absolutely no opposite-sex attraction whatsoever somehow proves those claims wrong, then I don’t know what to say.”
Timohty, I’m saying that even one person who changes to any degree refutes the absolutist claim that change is impossible.
But you do raise another general concern that I have with what I know so far about the study. (And again, won’t have answered until I read the book.) I forget which scale they used to measure sexual attraction – there was another one besides Kinsey. (Help, Dr. T.!)
I wonder if what was measured was a generalized heterosexual attraction – for lack of a better term, a “lusting after” women or men in general.
Again, anecdotally, the men and women I know best DID NOT develop/experience that. They fell in love with one individual and experienced sexual feelings for that person, to whatever degree. I don’t know whether or not the study attempted to measure that (or if there’s a standard, accepted tool for doing so) or whether it’s reflected in the research results.
My more profound theological musings are – isn’t that closer to what God intended all along? Isn’t an un-mixed attraction to your spouse – without the generalized lust (or even emotional attraction) for others – a really deeper healing and freedom?
Karen,
You mean submitting to the will of God as you INTERPRET it in Scripture, right? I think this might be where some of the problems with understanding submission are coming from.
You still failed to address my main point with Ex-Ex Gays and change. Perhaps I am not making my point clear - a problem I often have - so if that is the case, let me know. But my contention still stands - there is NO real OBJECTIVE way of proving a change of orientation has taken place. The ONLY thing we can prove for certain is that behaviors change. And, I’m sorry here, but this is an indisputable fact, and a real problem that these researchers, and others, just simply don’t want to - understandably - admit to.
As far as how Ex-Ex Gays approached therapy - granted, I haven’t talked to a great many Ex-Ex Gays, but in MY experience, they approached it exactly like almost all Ex-Gay people do or did. Thank you for at least not generalizing your own experience to all Ex-Ex Gay people - I will try and refrain from doing the same.
When it comes right down to it though, when you have people with an intense desire to change - you are frequently going to be dealing with people who want that change so badly they are willing to believe change has taken place, convince themselves of that - even if it hasn’t. That may be my biggest problem with this study and this type of research. The bias runs so deep and is so powerful, we really need to try and remove religion on the part of the researchers as much as possible to create any kind of respectable scientific study - and then we have to show that the results can be repeated in other studies before we actually accept them - otherwise, this isn’t science - this is just rationalizing ideology.
Karen Booth wrote:
“And finally … “leading a life of celibacy doesn’t require ANY change in unwanted attractions.” — Yes, it does.
In this study, it usually required a decrease in homosexual attraction – which Yarhouse/Jones documented. That IS a change, though as you wrote above, we all seem to be defining change differently.”
While a lessening of attaction was apparently seen in this study and was commensurate with a propensity towards celibacy, in no way is a lessening of attraction necessary for a life of celibacy. All that is necessary to be celibate is to decide not to engage in any sexual contact. Furthermore, I would venture a guess that what Jones & Yarhouse are reporting (actually the individual is reporting) is not a lessening of attraction (as a function of sexual orientation, but see below) but a lessening of the general sexual drive, which mimics a lowering of sexual attractions.
It is for this reason that persons are not able to have a commensurate rise in heterosexual attaction as even Jones & Yarhouse reported. So it is likely that no one is suppressing their attactions, they are suppressing their sexual drive and reporting that as a lessening of a same-sex attactions. And thus attraction (sexual orientation, again see below) remains the same. It is further likely for this reason that persons are vulnerable to returning to same-sex sexual activity or simply stating their attempts at “change“ failed.
_____________________________________
Jayhuck wrote:
“You have it backwards - NO ONE has proven scientifically that orientation CAN be changed. The ONLY thing that has been proven scientifically is that behavior changes - and that is ALL!”
Perhaps this is correct… and yet, no one has proven what sexual orienation is! Since we do not know exactly what sexual orientation is, we cannot exactly say that it cannot be changed. What is sexual orientation (SO) then?
Is it biological? If so, is SO the result of the consequences of a hormonal cycle in the first trimester fetal hypothalamus which when interrupted results in a homosexual orientation? Or is SO the result of an ordering of neurons in the brain due to early developmental occurrances (what are those?) in a young persons (under 4 years?) brain?
Or is an anomalous SO simply due to a mature brain being trained to enjoy a sexual activity? Which is somewhat more akin to a created mental illness in the individual and since many a young man has reported same-sex orientations long before sexual contact this seems to be not true. Or is SO a true mental illness - a psychological pattern that occuring in the individual that results in a disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture (ie. desire for same-gender sexual contact) and due to lost daddy-love or sexual abuse?
But let’s assume it is biological, which I think is an imiplication of the Jones & Yarhouse study when they report lessening of same-sex “orientation” (or attractions, but what I consider to likely be the general sexual drive) without a rise in heterosexual attractions (orientation). Let’s even assume that it is the first trimester hormonal cycle in the fetal hypothalamus.
Man’s brain is a composite structure. Certainly, reason and other higher functions of consciousness - the mind of man - is/are present in the neocortex which surrounds the limbic system (including the hypothalamus) which is the seat of our emotions. What the Christian ministries of Exodus are then asking of their participants is to use reason to overcome what is essentially the animal in us, the emotional limbic system where sexual orientation would reside. Certainly some (all?) people should be able to use their reason and a reasoning, which for Exodus is supplied in the form of condemnation of the behavior resultant of the anomalous SO by a supreme being’s plan for mankind.
But then are we humans reason alone or are we the amalgam of all biological drives of mind? Is not our human spirit representative of the totality of mind, the work of all our brain? Even Dr Throckmorton has suggested that we separate out ourselves in this respect by suggesting that a person may seek only reason, to lead “a life of value rather than seeking out a life of happiness.”
If a person cannot do so, if a person cannot separate out the biologically sourced elements of his human spirit and commit only to reason, then is less a man in the eyes of his creator? Why is the anomolous SO a “fallen” state; does the supreme being lie only in the neocotical functions? Then what of these certain values man espouses, when they are a function of a reason whose SO of the lower brain function fits the stated values?
But hey, reason it out.
Ok… sue me I got a little OT philosophical…..
Sexual orientation: the direction of an individual’s sexuality with respect to the sex of the persons the individual finds sexually attractive.
Perhaps it can’t be measured precisely enough to please some but changes in sexual orientation (direction) DO occur and CAN be objectively proved. Karen cited some who did enter marriage having found one person of the opposite sex attractive. If their previous experience allowed NO possibility of being sexually attracted to ANY woman and they are now attracted to ONE…that’s a perceivable objective shift in direction. (The needle would have inched a bit towards center…)
I believe that behaviors can and do speak to shifts in the direction of sexual orientation. I don’t think they tell the whole story but they do indicate shifts.
Eddy -
“Karen cited some who did enter marriage having found one person of the opposite sex attractive. If their previous experience allowed NO possibility of being sexually attracted to ANY woman and they are now attracted to ONE…that’s a perceivable objective shift in direction. (The needle would have inched a bit towards center…)”
I would have to agree that the needle has to inch a bit towards the center…closer to what most might define as bisexuality, it seems.
From the majority of research that I have read (and please point out others if scientifically credible), it appears that even in most cases considered “successful,” individuals who have an exclusively same-sex attraction do not ever entirely extinguish their same-sex orientation…they simply gain the ability to also find some members of the opposite sex attractive. To me, this is hardly the “change” of orientation many christians believe is possible or might expect of their gay congregants.
When we say that “change is possible” I think what most believe (and are led to believe) is that you can go from exclusively homosexual attractions to exclusively heterosexual ones…I have not seen the research support this. I think what might be possible for some (and what you allude to), is for them to add enough heterosexual attractions to live the life they feel is consistent with their beliefs.
I’m not sure the church realizes that when they state that change is possible, what they mean is that you may be able (and still, not everyone will be able to do this) to go from a homosexual orientation to a more bisexual affectional inclination.
This is interesting to me, because the same groups that may support or encourage you in essentially becoming bisexual (which may or may not be arguably a more accurate term than ex-gay for many) but would simultaneously not support rights for these groups in preventing housing or employment discrimination, etc…
It seems that there may be a sense (and I cannot speak to this directly) of never feeling “heterosexual enough,” as someone might who always felt inclined to someone of the opposite sex, without any same-sex attractions.
Jayhuck, I mean submitting to the will of God as revealed in Scripture as interpreted by the majority of Christians for 2,000 years and also the majority of Christians outside Western culture. And, yes, I agree with them.
Lynn David writes … “Furthermore, I would venture a guess that what Jones & Yarhouse are reporting (actually the individual is reporting) is not a lessening of attraction (as a function of sexual orientation, but see below) but a lessening of the general sexual drive, which mimics a lowering of sexual attractions.”
Not being snide here and really interested in a professional answer. If they mimic each other, then how do you ever know the difference? Again, as in this general overall discussion, how do you know anyone is reporting accurately or truthfully?
Jones and Yarhouse showed graphs, etc. at the presentation that showed participant results from more than one widely accepted psychological measuring tool for sexual desire and feelings (what most people would dub attraction) and behavior. (Don’t know which they were, because AGAIN, I haven’t read the book yet.)
I totally agree with you that there is, including within the gay activist community, little consensus on the meaning of sexual orientation. So why are we all even having this conversation?
Lynn David writes … “What the Christian ministries of Exodus are then asking of their participants is to use reason to overcome what is essentially the animal in us, the emotional limbic system where sexual orientation would reside. Certainly some (all?) people should be able to use their reason and a reasoning, which for Exodus is supplied in the form of condemnation of the behavior resultant of the anomalous SO by a supreme being’s plan for mankind.”
Are you serious? Is this really your understanding of both Christianity and Exodus?
Yes, Christianity teaches that we should be willing to overcome our so-called animal instincts if they conflict with the will of God. But it’s not done solely - or even primarily - through reasoning. In actuality, it isn’t done BY us at all, but rather by Jesus through the Holy Spirit working in us.
Yes, Paul indicated that change could occur through the “renewing” of our minds, but by “mind” he meant far more than just biological processes. That’s too simplistic.
Your generalization that Exodus ministries rely mainly on condemnation is false and highly insulting.
Jayhuck writes … “The bias runs so deep and is so powerful, we really need to try and remove religion on the part of the researchers as much as possible to create any kind of respectable scientific study.”
Do you mean that only card-carrying atheists should do research or be trusted? Should all religion be expunged? Or only Christianity in general? Or specifically, evangelical, conservative Christianity?
For me, “religion” is “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,” its primary dictionary definition. Even Darwinists, for example, have that. So won’t every researcher have some broadly defined religious bias that may influence his or her research?
The notion of ‘change’ that you described is NOT the definition espoused by Exodus. Change is change. For some, it might be a reduction in compulsiveness; for others, a shift from NEED to WANT. Still others do find a capacity to enjoy the opposite sex in ways they never could before. “Change’ is the word they use to describe these shiftings; I believe its a fair and true word.
Our problem seems to be twofold (and I hope I remember #2 by the time I get there…): You are correct when you say that many define ‘change’ as ‘complete change’. I’ve known only a few though, both ex-gays and concerned church members, who believed in the ‘complete change’ notion. (I asked one dear church lady if she was ever tempted to envy or to tell a little white-lie after all her years in the church. Did she ever expect a day when she’d NEVER be tempted again?) Most believed in decreased compulsivity, decreased frequency and intensity of temptation and a capacity for opposite sex attraction. Without exception, they believed that it was most likely they’d have homosexual temptations again–but that these would be infrequent and incidental.(I don’t have a bible handy but “Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” seems to be the gist of the reference.) This is my definition of ‘change’ and it’s also the one frequently cited by Exodus leaders (Joe Dallas, Alan Chambers, Frank Worthen, to name a few).
#2–(I remembered!): You’ll note that I used the Christian word ‘temptation’ above. Notice how it ‘ties in–but not quite’ with the word ‘orientation’. It’s the ‘not quite’ part that seems to be the stumblingblock. Science can’t adequately speak to religion and religion refuses to be bound by terminology that doesn’t recognize its validity. Most ex-gays don’t care what label psychology or science puts on ‘where they are’ but they won’t use those labels themselves. (To call myself ‘bi-sexual’ because I became ‘open to’ heterosexuality–with little or no actual sexual attraction–would be untrue. Yet, the lack of aversive thoughts was quite a change!) The companion word ‘freedom’ meant ‘freedom from the life-dominating effects of a sin. (You didn’t obsess about it; you weren’t living under a cloud of guilt or self-hatred; that issue didn’t create undue obstacles to your daily walk as a Christian.)
Bonus Round. #3: It seems that the nuances of our words shift depending on whether we’re talking religiously, politically, psychologically or scientifically. (I could use the word ‘change’ in-house–within Exodus circles–and they’d interpret the word religiously as I described above. But, if I used the same word in a brief press release read by outsiders, it was often taken with the ‘complete’ sense added in. And this was after I’d handed them a packet of ‘teaching sheets’ with topics like: Reality of Temptation, Wayward Emotions, Masturbation Dilemma–all about the daily experience of ‘change’.)
the fact that we all have to remember is this - regardless of any studies, research, percentages, organizations, religions, etc. - there are some people who are not in harmony with their same gender attractions and want theraputic or other resources to help them align how they live to their personal values and beliefs. I see so much support, encouragement and resources available for the individuals who are in harmony with their same gender attractions and relationships but not so much for the individuals who are not. Don’t they deserve the same and what are we doing to facilitate them with support and resources and encouragement to live the kind of life they want to? If the current organizations, studies, research, resources, etc. that have received so much criticism are that unethical, immoral or impotent, then what suggestions or resources are available for the people who are asking for and deserving of them?
Karen said:
Historical interpretation is certainly one factor in understanding scripture, but using it as the single or even main factor would have prevented the protestant reformation, among other things. Now we are discussing only a tiny issue in comparison, but being a female pastor, I’m surprised you are so willing to make that claim.
And as a protestant, I would say that for about 1000 of those years we (the Church) got things pretty screwed up - even the core doctrine of salvation by grace was distorted.
Karen said:
Yes.
Warren,
I continue to believe that Jones and Yarhouse have a moral obligation to make certain that Exodus International and Focus on the Family are accurate in their portrayal of the study that they funded.
This is NOT comparable to Salzar. As far as I’m aware, Shidlo and Schroeder never received any payment from Salzar nor did they provide information directly to her. They didn’t go on stage with her and lend their authority to Salzar. So when she made her comments some decade later based on what she thought that she read, I didn’t think it necessary for them to personally confront her.
Timothy - I agree with Exodus but why do you think FOTF funded it? Exodus funded it and not even as much as needed. 100k was promised and they delivered on about 65k. This was announced at the AACC presentation/press conference. But unless I missed something there, I did not hear anything about FOTF funding.
Maybe it wasn’t you but I thought I was getting the idea from somewhere that J&Y should police how people in general used their work.
Karen Booth writes:
“Not being snide here and really interested in a professional answer. If they mimic each other, then how do you ever know the difference? Again, as in this general overall discussion, how do you know anyone is reporting accurately or truthfully?”
Eh… I cannot give you a “professional answer” as I am a geologist [one of those guys who keeps digging up facts about evolution and the 4.5 billion year age of the earth along with an oil well now and then]. What I am speaking from is simply my understanding of the extant science and scientific thought, as much as a geologist commenting upon psychology/neurobiology might, which you may consider to be nil. Also what seems to be a rather obvious to me from what is anecdotally and scientifically reported. And yes, my own experience as a gay man (and for that I’m not even considering lesbians here, I don’t understand them). Among that anecdotal information is the recent statement from Alan Chambers that he has never met an ex-gay and that even he has moments when he needs his support system. Along with… I am not sure but I believe it was Mr Chambers who also said of his marriage that it was a year (few years?) before intimacy with his wife was possible.
My point is that a “sexual attraction” is likely a complexity of the mind, a perception, among which includes sexual orientation (SO). It depends on what you believe and I am not sure anyone has given factual proof what sexual orientation is. For some psychologists, and I think Jones & Yarhouse tend towards this idea, sexual orientation is analogous to and measurable by sexual attaction. They will point out afterall that is about all they can measure, but what they are measuring is a psychological factor which has its origin in both mind and biology - or does it? I consider that the point Jones & Yarhouse made and Dr Throckmorton voiced as, “diminishment of homosexual attractions were more pronounced than acquisition of heterosexual attractions,” is an indication that sexual orientation is a reality separate from - but a part of the experimentally perceived psychological factor of sexual attraction.
In other words for some (many, most?) sexuality (sexual attaction) is not a “fluid” state (again, I am speaking only of men here). Yet for many others it apparently is, bisexuals and those who are truly psychogays (for want of a better word, those who experienced daddy issues, sexual abuse, etc). But for those in the Jones & Yarhouse study and for others who must first reduce homosexual attraction and then build heterosexual attractions, it seems rather obvious to me that there is a component, which I call sexual orientation, which is not a psychological factor. I can only assume that sexual orientation is a component factor, likely derived of neurobiology.
Sexual attaction is thus a psychological factor which is made up of several things, sexual orientation is at its base, however one’s life experiences, socialization, etc, come to bear on how one translates from sexual orientation, which I have come to consider to be of the limbic system (early mammalian brain) to sexual attraction, which is a function of the work of our entire brain which is the cognitive human mind. Thus sexual attraction becomes a more complex issue for humans than sexual orientation might be for a sheep. So I think people are reporting correctly that their sexual attractions are reduced but via a reduction in their sexual drive another component, like sexual orientation, of sexual attraction. Thus I do not think that means their sexual orientation is changing or ever changes; however one may develop different sexual attractions via higher brain functions. I just tend to think a person should be a whole.
Ok…. I get wordy…. and next we have…
Karen Booth wrote:
“Are you serious? Is this really your understanding of both Christianity and Exodus?”
It was a cold, impersonal, rather clinical statement of what I think happens when one changes their sexual attractions. One uses the higher states of cognitive mind to overcome biological imperative of sexual orientation (as for the sake of that discussion of mine I have defined it to be, a neurobiological function of the limbic system [mammalian brain]).
And Karen Booth further wrote:
“Yes, Christianity teaches that we should be willing to overcome our so-called animal instincts if they conflict with the will of God. But it’s not done solely - or even primarily - through reasoning. In actuality, it isn’t done BY us at all, but rather by Jesus through the Holy Spirit working in us.”
Ok… you believe the human spirit is supernatural, I happen to believe the human spirit is purely natural. Man is a spiritual animal due to his consciousness.
And Karen Booth even further wrote:
“Yes, Paul indicated that change could occur through the “renewing” of our minds, but by “mind” he meant far more than just biological processes. That’s too simplistic.”
There is a philosophical point in science that truth is beauty, beauty, truth…. and beauty is derived of simplicity (the KISS principle, Keep It Simple Stupid). If you want to add a supernatural aspect to it then you are going outside the realm of science and adding a level of complexity which defies beauty.
And Karen Booth even, more further wrote:
“Your generalization that Exodus ministries rely mainly on condemnation is false and highly insulting.”
Uh, ok… get rid of the Biblical “clobber” passages concerning homosexuality and then tell me why Exodus should even exist. Because heterosexuals have the “ick factor” concerning homosexuality? I said the reasoning was supplied by the “condemnation of the behavior … by a supreme being’s plan for mankind.” I am not saying that any human (Exodus) condemns homosexual people or uses it in any manner to elicit guilt (though Alan Chambers’ recent politicization of the issue in Tampa as Exodus president seems to be getting into the condemnatory side).
…
Timothy - Do you think Shidlo and Schroeder have an obligation to correct the way the NGLTF used their research here?
S&S conducted their study in association with the NGLTF and the NGLTF in citing the study quotes percentages of people who benefitted as if this is some indication of how prevalent benefit really is.
…and then the S&S study is used to promote a prevalence number, implying that all the other people experience harm such as in this article quoting Jason Cianciotto of the NGLTF.
No mention of the recruitment bias, no mention that these numbers are meaningless, no mention that the types of interventions were religious and non-religious, therapy and non-therapy, no controls for pre-existing mental and emotional conditions, etc. With sincere respect to those who went through reparative therapy and were harmed by it, there is no way to tell from S&S beyond self-report, what caused the emotional problems of the participants.
Warren,
When is someone doing a study to demonstrate the harm that has been done to those who do want to change or at least cannot live with the idea that no change is possible. When will there be a study to show the damage done by those who are so insistent that the way they have experienced their sexual orientation is the only way anyone can find happiness. Please keep me informed I want to enlist. I spent years in conflict and depression because of the hopelessness I felt trying to reconcile my feelings and behaviour with my faith and being told over and over that it was my faith that had it wrong. Now I understand that it was not my faith that was wrong, but the faith of those who were trying to convince me that their way was better.
I truly look forward to the release of the J & Y study but I hope that someone has the courage to do another study to look at the damage done by the other side. My feeling is there are still many who are struggling in silence and could really benefit from such a study.
Concerned - The closest I guess is my study with Welton where we reported that reorientation clients who were pushed toward gay affirming therapy did not find the experience helpful or preferred.
I suppose we could do such a study but it would be about as meaningless regarding how the extent of harm such practices create. It would be as meaningless as S&S when it comes to documenting the prevalence damage in reverse.
Your question reminded me that no prospective outcome studies have documented the benefit of gay affirming therapy. If I am wrong, readers, point to it.
Timothy said - “You claim is little better than saying: This drug was taken by 98 participants. The 73 still alive at the conclusion of the trial did not show harm.”
Except in this case, the drop outs were not all unreachable. They did not want to participate. I have no trouble assuming some of them were not successful, may have experienced some harm, but it cannot be assumed that all did. Furthermore, it is meaningful that those remaining did not demonstrate compromised mental health because this group included those who had not changed appreciably. I believe this is important. Now, when the data is collected for future waves, this finding may change. You can be assured that whatever happens, Jones and Yarhouse will report it.
Warren,
Timothy - Do you think Shidlo and Schroeder have an obligation to correct the way the NGLTF used their research here?
This doesn’t appear to be a live link.
I do think S & S is misused all over the place. I never quote it myself, and frankly I don’t think it tell us anything more significant than J & Y did: “Some small subset of a carefully selected population of … self-reported … etc.”
S & S is not representative and cannot be used to talk about percentages or suggest the same.
And I do think that if NGLTF (also a group I place little faith in) misused the report to then S & S had an obligation to correct them. Within reason - I’m not sure how many years this needs to be done but definitely for the first release and the immediate time thereafter. (was Jason Cianciotto around when it was released?)
. . . .
Timothy - I agree with Exodus but why do you think FOTF funded it?
Unless I am mistaken, FOTF is a significant funder of Exodus. Also, we do know that Exodus and FOTF are collaborative on LWO and other efforts. Up through the release of the study, the Chairman of Exodus’ Board has been held by a Focus employee. Yes they are separate, but it’s not hard to see the interlinking.
. . . .
I have no trouble assuming some of them were not successful, may have experienced some harm, but it cannot be assumed that all did.
Quite true. Just as we cannot assume that none did.
My point is this: if half of those who left experienced harm, then more people were harmed than experienced improved heterosexual functioning. If J & Y are going to report 11 folks as significant, I’m not sure how we can discount 25 (or some unknown portion thereof) as not significant.
But I’ll wait to read the book before I make any statements about harm.
Timothy - The link is now live - sorry about that
Jason Cianciotto is one of the authors of the report that quotes S&S as if it were a representative study.
I do not think FOTF funds Exodus in any direct manner. I suspect they allow staff to attend Exodus functions, etc, on company time but I am pretty sure there was no FOTF connection to the funding of this study. In any event, I do think researchers should correct what they become aware of. My reactions here are based in the observation that I rarely see that same zeal in the other direction.
Dr. Throckmorton,
Can you describe what “harm” was incurred by the individuals who cited it? Also, isn’t this subjective and personal or is it the same “harm” for everyone? I have never known any therapy or rehabilitation that isn’t painful. More for some than others. I am wondering whether the word “painful” can cross the line into “harmful” and is it a matter of personal sensitivities, perception, and temperment that accommodate it. The individual who is resolved in their decision to live according to their values and seeking therapy for a shift in unwanted same gender attractions might look at it differently. They know what they want and that keeps them focused during the difficult and painful times of therapy.
Warren,
Timothy - The link is now live - sorry about that
Ah yes, Youth in the Crosshairs. I think you’ll find my opinion of that particular document here (a clue: I wasn’t impressed).
I believe that NGLTF should have made clear that S&S was not representative nor could quantification be drawn. They did not. Further, their “get a lawyer” advice was, I believe, insensitive to those who might have experienced harm and be in need of counseling, not a legal fight.
But as you know, Warren, that was prepared quite some time after S&S was released. Should Shidlo or Schroeder have responded? Well, it certainly couldn’t have hurt. But as I’ve said over and over, it’s not the same scenario. It’s not the same time frame. It’s just not the same.
In any event, I do think researchers should correct what they become aware of.
Then we agree.
David, the “woman pastor” thing is a straw-man (or maybe straw-woman) argument that I’ve encountered many, many times before.
And my answer is this … Scripture is mixed in its message about women in leadership, and different churches have come to different conclusions about it. (I personally like church polity that lets each there is also a trajectory (Paul’s statement about “neither male nor female” and his reference to one woman who may have been an apostle in the early church, for example) that points to the possibility of a broader understanding.
There is no mixed message about sex. From Genesis to Revelation, the only sexual expression that is unreservedly confirmed is that within life-long, heterosexual marriage.
Biblical Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson (who is fairly conservative) was refreshingly honest when he wrote, “I think it important to state clearly that we (gay-affirming Christians) do, in fact, reject the straightforward command of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.”
Lynn David, thank you for the more detailed answers to some of my questions. I don’t know enough about the current research on the brain to be able to follow most of the distinctions you are trying to make.
What made most sense to me in your response was your statement … “Ok… you believe the human spirit is supernatural, I happen to believe the human spirit is purely natural. Man is a spiritual animal due to his consciousness.”
Our worldviews are so very different but you’ve never expressed that quite so pointedly before.
Sorry. Messed up paragraph above.
It should read …
And my answer is this … Scripture is mixed in its message about women in leadership, and different churches have come to different conclusions about it. (I personally like church polity that lets each local church decide through their discernment by the Spirit.) There is also a trajectory (Paul’s statement about “neither male nor female” and his reference to one woman who may have been an apostle in the early church, for example) that points to the possibility of a broader understanding.
Eddy, thank you for your post #49015. You write some great stuff.
Karen said:
You are correct, however for the most part that has only been recently. Should we call this a liberal agenda, social Gospel, etc? Some churches are coming to different conclusions on monogamous, same-sex relationships, and even ordaination of gays. While my own denomination, Southern Baptists, has not come to this point yet, here is what they say about female pastors.
Sound familiar? Why are you not going with 2000 years of church history here? And why am I not out campaigning against the idea that you would hold such a position in the church? The answer to both questions is the same.
The freedom of denominations and even local congregations to make their own decisions about certain issues in scripture which are not core to salvation is important, as is the priesthood of the believer. Concerning my sexuality, I am doing exactly as I believe God wants me to do at this time. If she should tell me otherwise, I will follow. I’m willing to accept that you are in the same situation, but I won’t override my relationship with God on your say so.
Eddy,
Your definition of the word change is a good one - I think I can agree with that. I wanted to elaborate a little more on what that means though. We definitely see changes in feelings/desires in Exodus, and we see changes in behaviors - all these things