Your fight is with yourself – not with others.

That is assuming that you know what it is that the religion is really saying about you. Perhaps it is your interpretation of what the religious group is saying that is faulty not the religion itself.

I’ll make it very simple.

Anyone who says, “homosexuality is a sin” will watch me punch holes in their faith and slaughter every single one of their sacred cows. Every sacrament, every precious religious belief, will be relentlessly and mercilessly mocked in front of their eyes and in front of their sky god. My primary weapon will be the Bible and I will remain firmly grounded in scripture in everything I write.

Don’t like it? Then immediately drop the “homosexuality is a sin” thing. Otherwise, LET’S FIGHT!!!

Think about it. If the “objection” (namely, “gays are evil and should be destroyed”) is based in their religion, then shouldn’t we attack the problem at its source?

Outlining all the links, then trying to understand the posts, was a bit like reading threads in a rather complex tapestry. After praying, and asking our Lord for insight, I think two threads stood out to me, followed by one hypothetical test. I hope these thoughts are of use to you. If not, then please accept them as an attempt to help.

Thread 1. Your letter stated the following assertion:

On point, in the assertions above, we are troubled by statements that we believe stigmatize religious practice and traditional religious beliefs and specifically Christianity.

I did read the entire Ethics Committee Opinion (ECO). I then asked myself ‘how would I feel if IBM used the same language in one of their statements?’ I then concurred that the specific references to Christianity should be removed from the ECO. Indeed, I would consider removing references to Buddhism, atheism, or agnosticism (if such were used) in order to enforce a neutral point of view/ neutrality-of-language.

Thread 2. Your letter also stated the following assertion:

Essentially the entire opinion discourages counselors and clients from attempting to do anything about homosexual desires except affirm them.

Again, I studied the ECO. As an outsider, I did not reach the same conclusion as your second assertion.

I noticed that the ECO goes into great lengths to describe an ‘escape clause’ for counseling professionals that wish to honor their client’s request for ‘conversion therapy’. The ‘escape clause’ is the ‘informed consent’.

The informed consent consisted of 5 requirements. After reading those requirements, and your post/links/letter, I understand that you have concerns that Informed Consent #4 and #5 are weak requirements.

I would therefore suggest that you seek a level of reconciliation with the ECO, specifically requesting the change in language (removal of religious references), and further strengthening of Informed Consent #4 and #5 (or their removal, if they cannot be strengthened).

Hypothetical test using ‘prayer’:

Quick background:

- I think of ‘prayer’ as primarily a religious activity, with collateral effects in the soul (psychological) and body (physical) dimensions. Thus, I thought it best to test the ECO, using an extremely ‘religious’ activity.

- As a Christian that has GID and PTSD, I did seek religious counseling and non-religious counseling. The first was politely declined by a trained Christian psychologist (I was outside his area of expertise as a bi-sexual and a transgender). I understood his position, and thanked him for his consideration. Later, my attempts to seek God via meeting with an Evangelical pastor (outlined in the other thread concerning Christianity Today) caused me severe emotional damage – so, I abandoned religious counseling. And thus, I attended apparent non-religious professional counseling.

So, let’s create the hypothetical test:

Let’s say that I desired not ‘conversion therapy’, but that I desired ‘prayer’ during my counseling sessions with the apparently non-religious professional. What if she had initially declined, but was willing to give me Informed Consent #1, #2, and #3 as outlined by the ECO? What if after that, she was then willing to pray with me for healing from the GID and/or PTSD? [Or, she could have referred me to another professional that would give counsel and prayer, right?]

I think I would have been quite satisfied, really. After all, prayer was and is important to me, and she [the professional and licensed counselor] wished to honor my desire as a religious client. And, by using the Informed Consent she had clearly signaled that I had requested a religious action known as ‘prayer’, and not a psychological therapy endorsed by any of her professional counseling/certifying agencies.

Allow me to further complicate things in this hypothetical example:

Within my belief system is also Second Corinthians chapter 12, which allows for God to heal or to deny healing. My praying for healing until God confirms that He will not heal, and then accepting His decision, is also a strong part of my belief system. Thus, it is possible that I would have asked for three ’seasons’ of prayer.

In concluding my hypothetical test, I then ask myself ‘would I have been satisfied with three readings of the Informed Consent, one for each ’season of prayer’?’ And yes, I would have been satisfied.

Warren, in your letter you wrote:

We respectfully ask that the ACA Executive Committee void this opinion since it violates longstanding ACA policy.

In light of my limited understanding of your situation; in light of the two threads I followed (above) and the hypothetical test case (wherein I substituted ‘prayer’ for ‘conversion therapy’); I offer that you prayerfully consider that a ‘void’ of the Ethics Committee Opinion may not be necessary for reconciliation and/or peace with the ACA.

However, an edit of specific religious references, a strengthening of Informed Consent #4 and #5 (or their removal, if they cannot be strengthened), may be all that is needed to protect the counselor, and allow avenues of religious activity for the religious client and his/her (consenting) counselor.

May our Lord Jesus give you wisdom in this matter, as you seek to be a ‘peace maker’ per Matthew chapter 5.

Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn

You’re absolutely right – I meant to say that MAYBE this indicates we are growing as a society – I did not mean to be so sure about it . I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I think there are other signs that indicate our society is maturing – but there is still quite a ways to go.