Here’s the blog post over at Dan Gilgoff’s US News and World Report blog, God and Country.
The backdrop: The initial article about the APA sexual orientation and therapy report to hit the wire was by David Crary at the AP. However, some (many?) papers truncated the article in such a way that it seemed as though the APA was recommending either celibacy or a church switch as a way to resolve sexual orientation conflict.
Not long afterwards, OneNewsNow picked up that point and ran with it. From the US News blog post:
A news report from OneNewsNow, the information arm of the American Family Association, said the APA report “suggests that if a person with same-gender attractions has problems because of their religious beliefs, they should just change churches.” About the APA report, spokesperson for the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and executive director of Evergreen International, a ministry to homosexuals of the LDS Church, David Pruden, told OneNewsNow:
“The suggestion was as a Christian, when your conscience comes in conflict with what’s going on in your life — temptations, attractions, concerns, whatever they happen to be — that what you simply do is jettison your standards so that it becomes easier to live with your temptations.”
Both OneNewsNow and Mr. Pruden stand by their statements. But is it accurate to say that the APA report advises that conflicted people switch churches or “jettison” beliefs?
Of course it is not accurate. In the US News & World Report post, I quote Rhea Farberman who directly denies the claim. I then quote from the APA report which finds benefit in social support groups even if not gay affirming.
This is not to say that the APA discourages someone from changing churches if the client feels it is best. I suspect this goes in any direction. For instance, a client might decide to leave a gay affirming church if this seemed more in keeping with identity development. According to this report, psychologists would not try to prevent such a move, but neither would they encourage it.
I approached both NARTH and OneNewsNow with no change.
Mary: I agree.
It doesn’t make it right, it just points out we are all just sinners saved by grace. Get to know gay Christians on a personal level. Apart from being SSA, they are pretty much the same as non-SSA Christians — with the same ideals and the same failings.
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Micahel,
I remember how disappointed I was to find this out, too. It is disheartening. Especially when everyone is going on and on about homosexuals and yet, look! And I think those who are not seeing the hypocrisy are not seeing that they are being decieved.
True, Michael. The problem is too many in the Church forget Paul’s rhetorical question in Romans 6:1, answered in the next verse — “What shall we say, then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be!” He set that up with a discourse on the doctrine of justification, contrasting i with the condemnation of sin, In Romans 5.
How many of us use the “sinner saved by grace” mantra to excuse selfish, spiritually lazy behavior? “Well, I am just a weak human. You know, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. I am what I am, always caught up in the war between the two natures.” It’s a convenient excuse. Doesn’t cut it, though. That’s why sanctification — choosing to move toward holiness — means so much. Christ never meant to leave us where he found us in our spiritual poverty. Salvation is the beginning, not the end of our journey.
Not using “sinner saved by grace” to justify anything. Just trying to point out that no group has the market on holiness. OSA Christians and SSA Christians — we all miss the mark.
“You guys” consider all gay sex as sin, as unholy. I do not.
Michael,
Amen Michael – there are plenty of Biblical scholars who would back you up on that point
Jayhuck: some folks seem to have an assumption that if gay Christians do not think all gay sex is sin that we must therefore think that nothing is sin, that we are spiritually lazy when it comes to sin, that we are trying to “excuse” sin, etc.
I cannot speak for all gay Christians, but the ones I have met — and I have met many — are just as aware of their personal sinfulness and just as serious in their desire for personal holiness as ex-gay and non-SSA Christians.
Spiritual orientation and sexual orientation are not one and the same.
I agree with you mike – WHOLE-heartedly
I hope that I deserve that latter description 
Mary, very well said. It is tempting to assume that one group hates sin or loves God more. But God knows our hearts.
From a commentary I am reading this morning:
“If we say that we do not have any sin, we are deceiving ourselves and we’re not being truthful to ourselves.” 1 John 1:18. We have no holiness apart from Him.
This statement has a nice ring to it but how can anyone possibly assess it’s truthfulness. No substance has been provided. No criteria. Just a strongly held opinion.
Allow me one example: in their striving for personal holiness many ex-gays try to minimize seeing other humans as sex objects…they try to focus on the whole person rather than their physical frame. I know many non-SSA Christians who endeavor the same. Yet, the few times that I mentioned ‘going to the pool’, Michael’s comments immediately went to ‘checking out the hotties’. In his anecdotes about going to the beach, the same reference came up. To many ex-gays and non-SSA Christians, ‘checking out the hotties’ is ‘lasciviousness’; it is ‘objectifying’; it is focussing more on a the state of a person’s temporal body than on the state of their eternal spirit and soul. Perhaps they are wrong in this thinking but it brings to light the fact that the statement ‘just as serious in their desire for personal holiness’ falls short of being accurate. There ARE differences. We won’t be able to explore them here because of a general unwillingness to talk specifics but there ARE differences–as the ogling example illustrates.
Some might object that Michael was only joking…but again that goes to the statement ‘just as serious in their desire for personal holiness’…knowing my beliefs as they’ve been expressed on this blogsite, would a fellow Christian who is ‘just as serious’ make such jokes?
I am not saying which of us is right; I’ll concede that it’s possible I’m overly rigid…but it’s a rigidity I share with many and it’s glossed over or ignored in the words ‘just as aware’ and ‘just as serious’.
Eddy,
I personally think that Michael is just being upfront and honest with this statement. We all do it! If you say you don’t, you’re probably lying, and to me, that’s worse. Besides, Michael is one person and you are bordering on judging him and where he is in his journey! You don’t walk in his shoes, you don’t know his struggles. Making statements about another person’s holiness and deriding them for where they may be on their personal journey is wrong. We ALL fall short Eddy – your treatment of some people on this blog has been awful at times – should we go there and talk about your own failings?
Eddy,
Quick example – A straight friend of mine who identifies as a religious conservative goes out on the weekend and picks up women. Is that right? No – but again, we all fall short. I do not judge him because I know its something that he is trying to work on – we all sin, whether its objectifying people, or misusing sex, or drug or alcohol abuse, or lying, etc….. I’m unnerved at the way you judge Michael and the fact that you are using what may be his own shortcomings as evidence that he is not striving to become holier.
Eddy
I totally get what you are saying about objectifying others. Having gone through the journey of moving from one side of the spectrum to the other, I do see sex and sexuality differently than the average person, too. It’s not just about sex. It’s about the person with whom I am attracted – the whole person. It’s not just about penises, vaginas, breast, etc… and really about the other person and how we relate to eachother.
When I go to the beach – it is to go and have fun playing, swimming, eating etc… And while I do notice others – their physique, body types etc… it is not (not always) in a sexually arousing way. IOW – I don’t go to check out the hotties either. That to me is just sort of – so long ago type of thinking. I guess, I really have changed.
Though I am not without sexual sin, I have certainly changed how I view sex and sexuality.
Jayhuck–
You don’t know what you’re talking about when you say that you think Michael is just being upront and honest with his statement about the hotties. Yes, that’s possible for the beach statement…a simple honest admission on his part. It does not, however explain, however, why he’d say it to me when I announced that I was going to the pool–on at least two different occasions.
Please don’t use your dogmatic blindness as an excuse to attack me personally. I am not judging Michael’s holiness in any way other than to say it’s NOT THE SAME. I even allowed for the fact that ‘me and mine’ might be over-rigid. Because, as my example demonstrates, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I am not attacking anything other than words…words that made a comparison and said that they were just the same. My point, all along, has been that they are not. People keep coming back with all manner of generalized comparisons but they don’t support them. That being the case, I’ll continue to demonstrate that the statements being made are opinions…and I’ll demonstrate how I’m of a different opinion. It’s how discussion works. I asked questions very early on in an attempt to discuss differences, not one person was able to answer the questions and yet now Michael’s concluding that things are ‘just the same’. From what evidence???? Everyone just finished saying it was uncharted terrritory…that no one really knew…that studies (except perhaps for Marin) didn’t exist. Yet Michael takes it upon himself to ‘sum it up’…to speak on behalf of gay Christians, ex-gays and non-SSA Christians and pronounce a ‘just as’ comparison…no differences. He had no backup for his statement…how could he considering that the consensus was that it was uncharted/unexplored territory?
I’m not saying I’m holy…not saying I’m holier…not saying Michael’s unholy…what I’m saying is that there ARE differences in how we perceive holiness…what we think holiness is…and how we approach it. I’m saying that Michael’s ‘sum it up’ statement is somehow flawed because it does not consider some very significant differences in how we perceive holiness.
You were correct in suggesting that it would be audacious for me to judge Michael’s holiness or that of gay Christians in general. I don’t see how you can’t see that Michael’s ‘just as’ statement is a judging…it’s an assessing of value…of levels. I know I walked a fine line in my answer but I do believe I walked it. I pointed out a difference. If I told an ex-gay friend that I was going to the pool, they wouldn’t tell me to have a good time scoping out the hotties unless it was a warning in disguise…and unless they intended to pray for me while I was out on the battlefield. Like it or not, that demonstrates a difference in our approach to sexual holiness. Are our levels different? Some have a higher bar? Are some attitudes more ‘to the letter’ while others are more cavalier? I don’t know. I wanted to discuss that but there’s this recurring insistence that the differences don’t exist. As you can tell, I strongly disagree with that notion. I believe there are many differences but it’s going to take objective research to find them.
Mary–
A personal bias. I shudder when I read sentences that begin with “I totally get what you are saying”. Reason being that even if you get the one point that you’ve chosen to elaborate on, it tends to shift the focus of my own comment to that particular point…distracting from the whole and possibly placing undue emphasis on something that was only a sidepoint or illustration. In this case, it would tend to make ‘objectification’ my theme or main point….and it was actually only part of an illustration.
What you say is closer to how an ex-gay would approach going to the beach…they’d have that ‘lasciviousness’ filter hanging over them and they’d try to value the spirit over the body…that would be their approach to holiness…but I made no value judgements. That’s how they’d approach this sexually charged area. But what if they are being self-righteous? What if they are wrong in their ex-gay quest? What if it’s God’s intent that they celebrate the physical beauty of his creation? There are other questions down the road worthy of exploration but we can’t get to them if we blind ourselves to the real differences.
Re the gay Christian and the non-SSA: That’s the comparison that intrigues me most. Do they have the same standards for lustful looking? At one point, does the guilt factor step in…the sense of “I’ve transgressed” or “I’ve crossed a line”? And is that point essentially the same for gay Christians as straight Christians?
Do they have the same standards for sexual practice? Statistics seem to indicate that there’s a whole lot of ‘sex outside of marriage’ going on–even among Christians? I hear that…I hear that folks are crossing the sexual acting out threshhold even earlier in their relationship…but is the threshhold at the same place for gay Christians as it is for straight Christians. I tossed out a 4th date threshhold in another comment as an example only. I’m not certain but “from the media” I get the impression that the 4th date is a likely point for a first time having sex among straights. I’m hunching that, for gay men, at least, the ‘normal’ threshhold may be sooner than the 4th date. BUT, what my questions have been trying to get at are: is this threshhold a little further down the line for straight Christians AND is it further down the road for gay Christians? How do these two threshholds compare?
Jayhuck–
You’ve made this statement or one similar to it more than a half dozen times in the course of our blogging here. I’d love to go there. I’d love to have this online chat about my own failings that you so generously offer. But I know what you know…that Warren would shut the conversation down before it barely got started.
Being that we share that knowledge, your repeated challenges are very similar to the playground bluster that challenges a fight and secretly relies on the teacher being there to break it up. It’s bluster, buster. Since it’s something that we wouldn’t be able to pursue…since it’s something that has obviously escaped Warren’s radar…I suggest that you gather your examples of my awful treatment of people and send them on to Warren for his review and consideration.
The fact that you’ve brought them up so often is an indicator of how serious they must be…and how vivid they must be in your memory. So, please, let’s have that resolve. Let’s spare you from having to make this statement yet again. Gather your evidence (I’ve used copy and paste with excellent results) and submit it in a personal email to Warren. He’s admonished me a time or two in the past on other things; if he concurs with your conclusion that my ‘treatment of some people on this blog has been awful at times’, I’m sure I’ll hear from him.
Eddy,
Point taken.
I agree there are differences in how gay christians and straight christians view holiness when it comes to sex and sexuality.
Ok, enough of the personal comments. This never goes anywhere good, well, once it did but it didn’t stay there.
The topic is sort of about church and sexual orientation. I don’t mind observations regarding church and gays, church and straights, church and gays who pretended to be straights, etc. If anyone has any data that gets my attention.
The main point of the thread is that the APA did not recommend church swapping, wife swapping, husband swapping, or any thing else like that. Gays and straights are sinners according to orthodox Christianity so it doesn’t really matter what “groups” do since “groups” don’t really do anything; individuals do. I have not seen the number of groups among gays that promote chastity that I see among straights but maybe I need educated. If there are such groups beyond gaychristian.net, then mention them. But the back and forth about which group is better is really unhelpful in my view since we are not judged by what group we belong to.
So no matter how much you want to blast someone, just follow Nancy Reagan’s sage advice, Just Say No.
Thanks, Mary.
My ‘conversations’ with a few people here are difficult enough to keep focussed or on point without ‘outside distractions’.
Jayhuck and I have a significant history of brutal entanglements, and, it’s been my experience that the less distraction the better.
Warren–
I think I’m BI……..lingual.
Mea culpa kumbaya….
LOL
Thanks, Warren, for this:
To any reader of this blog: I am a deeply flawed person. I have no holiness apart from God. I beg you, please, do not assume that I speak on behalf of anyone but myself — and please, do not use my journey, my successes or my faliures (and there are many) as an example of what any individual or group should do.
Let me be blunt: When it comes to holiness — in both the strength of my desire for it and the actual living out of it — I am certainly not a very good example — as some commenters here discerned very clearly. May I suggest, instead, the Apostle Paul?
Michael,
This is a very profound verse – it speaks to my heart and I am sure to many others here reading it. There have been so many interpretations about what the Apostle Paul meant, however, if this verse, which speaks to the human condition, begins or reaffirms a stirring of the heart toward humility and introspection, then something great has begun. Also, the best part is the last sentence – it does not leave us empty and hopeless in our human condition, rather just the opposite. We have redemption and hope and forgiveness through our faith and can begin anew every day.
Michael–
Your personal holiness was never the issue. I explained that in my first comment and several times subsequently. My comments only went to your ‘just as’ statement…and since it was you who made that comment…I felt it was appropriate to use an example from you that demonstrated how things weren’t ‘just as’. You and I have a very different take on going to the beach (or the pool). That’s it…that’s all. We have a different take…it’s related to our perception of and response to our personal notion of holiness. So, it’s not really ‘just as’. That’s it. That’s all. No value judgments…just an observation of an area of difference.
Thanks, Ann. I sometimes worry that people might take my open-ness and humor as approval or promotion of sin. I confess. I do notice great looking guys at the beach – and elsewhere — and I think, “Wow! My compliments to that man’s maker! He is one handsome guy!”
Sometimes, the thoughts go beyond simple admiration. Not proud of that, but it’s true. Like Jimmy Carter, I sometimes lust in my heart. More often, it doesn’t even feel like lust.
I think it is envy – I sure wish I was a 20 year old, ripped, tanned, athletic skim-boarder — instead of a grey-bearded, achy old coot reading the Bible under my umbrella. I mourn for my lost youth.
I know that lust and envy are both sin. The Holy Spirit bops me on the head and says, “Put your eyes back in your head, Mike. Accept that you have aged. It’s OK to look — to find someone attractive — but letting your heart and mind go to lustful or envious thoughts is out-of-line. Keep your eyes on Me.”
I cannot and do not speak for all gay Christians. I don’t have any stats or studies. But, the ones I know do seem sincerely interested in trying to live a holy life. I don’t do a very good job at it. I hope they do better.
At the beach or elsewhere, when my vision strays, this old hymn reminds me where to keep looking… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA2VpysAvgk&feature=related
Ann–
Somehow, in Michael’s comments to you, he still seems to be responding to me…and to a message he got from my words that I didn’t deliver. This all started when I wondered if gay Christians and straights had similar sexual standards. Granted that all are fallen–both in the strictly Biblical sense and in the cultural sense…standards have changed markedly in the past several decades. But, are our standards essentially the same? Naturally, the exploration of that question only led to detours and diversions and then, oddly, to a conclusion from Michael that things were essentially the same across the board…the ‘just as’ that I referenced. I picked something seemingly innocent…something already in the blog record…as an example of a difference. The example was how we approach going to the beach or the pool…how we approach ‘eye candy’. I honestly don’t know how I could find an example any more innocent to display that there are differences…yet it seems to have raised a firestorm…and has Michael dressing in sackcloth and ashes. While he’s addressing comments to the blog in general and now, in response to you, the comments are clearly connected to my words and the perception that I’m branding/judging him as unholy rather than attempting to define and gain understanding from examining our areas of difference. I know in the past you’ve showed signs of being a capable mediator…are you refreshed enough from your trip to provide any helpful insight into this communication breakdown?
Ann: I especially appreciated this:
That’s what made me think of the song. Hope you have a blessed evening.
It’s kinda off-topic, but I’ve always wanted to ask-
What exactly is Warren’s own stance on homosexuality and morality?
Does he buy into the interpretation of homosexuality as sin? I assume his personal beliefs are not allowed into therapeutic practice, so does he hold to the outcome-independent stance in the paper?
What if the patient has an outcome in mind?
JR: Warren has told me that he believes gay sex is not what God intended. That said, I don’t believe he imposes any of his religious or personal views in therapy. He’s a good man and a good therapist.
For what it’s worth, I personally believe that things like teen sex, anonymous sex, affairs, addiction to pornography, prostitution, sex which demeans or objectifies, cheating, lying, group sex, sex for sport, sex with minors and sex outside of marriage (or since gays cannot marry in most states, sex outside of a monogamous, committed relationship) are sin — gay or straight.
None of these sins should be taken lightly and Christians, gay and straight, should strive towards holiness. There are probably many other things I could add to that list — lust and envy for example. I should note that those are just my opinions and may not reflect how other SSA Christians feel.
I should also note that everyone is different and that individuals may be at different points along the path towards personal holiness, some further ahead on the road and some lagging behind. I am also certain that some individuals and some groups are better at holiness than others.
In looking over my posts, I realize that I should not have used the words “same” or “just as” in discussing the sexual holiness standards of Gay Christians. Bad choice of words.
I personally don’t think that Gay Christians have lower standards of sexual morality — but how would I know if they are the same? Maybe they are lower than straights or ex-gays. Maybe they are higher. Maybe they are the same. Maybe they are very different. Who knows?
I meant to speak ONLY of the gay Christians I know and interact with. I should have said that “the gay Christians I know seem to be quite serious about sexual and personal holiness” — and left it at that. I would imagine that the standards of holiness and the level of success at living out holiness would differ from individual to individual, as Warren has pointed out.
I believe this is a clue to how this conversation derailed:
99% of the time, when we use the term ‘lower standards’, it’s a negative thing. Most of us can’t say or hear ‘lower standards’ without thinking ‘compromise’ or ‘cutting corners’ but that isn’t always the case. Didn’t Jesus get into trouble for challenging that ‘your righteousness is as filthy rags’?
Over the years, I’ve known many Christians whose standards are higher than mine…folks who would never expose the flesh of an elbow or a knee, folks who would never step foot inside a movie theatre, some who frowned on joking of any kind, others who had rules against playing pool or cards…cooking on a Sunday…swimming in the same water as the opposite sex. Their standards were literally higher…mine were indeed lower. They didn’t adopt their standards willy-nilly; most everything they did was based on their interpretation of the Bible…but I didn’t come to the same conclusions. While I believed in the same principles, I thought they took some things to the extreme. Them higher…me lower but does that say which (if either) is God’s ideal? You can recognize a difference…you can even discuss a difference…you can even use the English words ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ re the standards without placing a value judgement.
Mary, you said:
I am curious. What do you see as the main differences in how gay Christians and straight Christians view morality? Do you see any similarities? Could you give some examples? Are you speaking of individuals or groups?
Mary’s comment came prior to Warren stepping in with his admonition. I really cannot imagine any way for Mary to answer Michael’s question without transgressing Warren’s appeal. This is the portion of Warren’s statement that would likely be violated.
IMHO, the entire ‘holiness detour’ needs a “Road Closed” sign. We need to either get back to the actual ‘main point of the thread’ or let this thread die.
Late returning:
@ Evan,
If you were addressing me about holiness and abstinence for gays (and straights). I would like to respond.
You seem to be arguing that if there is not a reliable outlet for sexual pleasure, it does harm to a person….
Although this is a common belief, I know of no research to support such an assertion. Anyone?
I think it may be an Urban Legend…I would like to see it debunked on Mythbusters.
Some have argued that the sexually repressed are more creative and innovative, using sublimation (as a defense) thereby making more profound contributions to society.
@ Evan,
I don’t think it is about population density.
It is about anger, social isolation and marginalization. Sex is the myth that promises to alleviate all of this…
We market the myth—but first we have to make people feel empty.
This could be a transition to a related topic…
Michael Bussee ~
Thanks for the response. Does he reckon the development of homosexuality is a disorder or is it a normal development?
Forgive my poor wording. I am neither professional nor an academic.
When I looked into therapy that affirmed orientation change, I (perhaps naively) believed everybody was on the same page and the same side.
I’m struggling to make sense of what exactly the differences are between all these groups that ultimately seek to help homosexuals who are unhappy with their feelings.
Is it policy differences? Academic schisms? Personal quarrels?