Incongruence on UK ex-gay website

Last week, a British ex-gay group, Core Issues, hosted an ex-gay conference in Belfast, NI. One of the people involved with Core Issues is Paul Miller, a psychiatrist who was identified in 2008 by NI member of parliament Iris Robinson as a psychiatrist who works with gays to help them go straight.

Now Dr. Miller is facing more scrutiny due to a complaint from journalist who posed as a client and then wrote about the therapy experiences with Miller. The General Medical Council is hearing the complaints. The Independent article is here and Dr. Miller’s work is referenced as “David” in the article and conducts the therapy over Skype.

My intent is not to reflect on Miller’s problems. He is a devotee of Richard Cohen and the UK representative of NARTH. As such his methods and views are predictable. What I want to point out is that the website Core Issues has a link to the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework. I have asked them to remove the link and they have not answered my requests. I want to make it public that the SIT Framework contradicts the rest of the website and is not there by the permission of Dr. Yarhouse or me.

Given the links to NARTH and involvement of Miller, it is hard to understand links to the other resources including ours. Andrew Marin’s book is featured prominently as is Yarhouse’s Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity. In the SIT Framework, we specifically mention Richard Cohen’s book, Coming Out Straight as an approach which is inconsistent with the framework. Explaining a client’s experience as being a reparative drive is something we discourage as well.

There are two broad paradigms in sexual identity ministry – change and congruence. The change paradigm sees homosexuality as a treatable disorder and encourages the use of therapy and religion to change orientation. The congruence paradigm takes no strong position on what causes homosexuality. Change is not the objective but congruent living with a chosen value position. The website Core-Issues is a collection of references and resources which include both models. They certainly are free to put anything on a website which is public domain but I am also free to point out that the SIT Framework is within the congruence paradigm and inconsistent with most of what was described in the Independent article as well as what seems to be the focus of the Core-Issues organization.

107 thoughts on “Incongruence on UK ex-gay website”

  1. I don’t rule it [change] out because that would not be a scientific stance.

    Warren, I’ve been thinking on this, and it seems as though even thinking about “change” is nonscientific because the parameters of “sexual orientation” have yet to be scientifically established. That is, orientation change is always tied to some purpose for “change” or “not change.” Any stance regarding change: yes it can happen, no it’s can’t, it shouldn’t be ruled out, etc, is more political than “scientific.”

  2. I have some time this morning and decided to read and post. Perhaps the conversation is over, and if so, that’s OK.

    I think part of what we’re dealing with are different understandings of terms. Not that Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all of knowledge, but here is their definition for “pastoral counseling.”

    Pastoral counseling is a branch of counseling in which psychologically trained ministers, rabbis, priests and other non-ordained, lay persons provide therapy services. Pastoral counselors often integrate modern psychological thought and method with traditional religious training in an effort to address psychospiritual issues in addition to the traditional spectrum of counseling services.

    That’s not what I mean when I use the phrase. I mean the counsel (usually spiritual) that a professional or volunteer pastor does in the day-to-day course of his/her ministry. Some have more training than others in psychological theory and practice; many don’t. Some reject psychology out of hand.

    I’ll give another try at explaining what I mean by “honoring” choices. It means I will abide by that choice by not coercing or otherwise trying to force a different response, by not rejecting the person who makes the poor choice, by continuing to “shepherd” him/her as a pastor, by physically acting for his/her good as long as it doesn’t enable unhealthy or sinful behavior. Do I also have to hide the fact that I believe their choice was wrong? I don’t think so. Do I “whine” or “nag” them ab out it, as David may have been implying? Also, no. I see no conflict here.

    David, I don’t think you should leave the discussion. By I perceive that so much of what you put out there is driven by your personal response to me, which is almost always negative almost all of the time. I am trying very hard to get past our personal tussles. I don’t always succeed in that, especially when posting on the Ex-Gay Watch blog. I’m trying to be better here. And I’d humbly ask you to do the same.

  3. On “neutrality”: When I got my BA in Cultural Anthroplogy, we were told to avoid “enthnocentricsm”. Not possible. When I got my MS in Counseling, we were urged to remain “value free”. Again, not possible. We all bring our own “eyes” when we try to see clearly and as we try to guide safely and ethiclally.

    I think the best we can do is try to be aware of our biases, state them as such (not as fact or “God’s will”) — and not insist that those we try to guide “see” things they same way we do. Still working on it. I do not claim to have mastered it yet. 🙂

  4. No problem. Retinal detachments in both eyes, multiple surgeries, scleral buckles, lens implants — wonder I can see at all. 🙂

  5. I really need to get a maginifier for my screen.

    Oh geesh, don’t remind me. I’m just at the edge of needing to wear my reading glasses to use the computer and I can’t stand it.

    I apologize if I misunderstood you.

  6. Sorry. Vision is hard for me. I meant to type: “We just need to be very careful how, when and for what reason.” I really need to get a maginifier for my screen. 🙂

  7. Darvid Roberts: I was repsonding to David Blakeslee’s comment.

    The pastoral counselor cannot be neutral, the role of the shepherd is not neutral.

    I wasn’t challenging what you said. I tend to agree with it. I was trying to point out that no therapist is really “neutral”. We all, like it or not, bring ourselves into the equation. We just been to be very carful how, when and for what reason. I think it’s kinda silly to say one is neutral and one is not. It’s a matter or awareness, degree, respect and intent.

  8. @ David Roberts,

    your font is not invisible…although whom your are addressing in you latest post is a bit vague; I think it might be me.

    From you:

    after they have made that decision as an adult, one should not then interject one’s own feelings, needs or wants in to that post-decision equation.

    And certainly one who does so can’t then say they are respecting that person’s decision. In plain language, once they decide the course, don’t whine and nag them about it. It’s not about you.

    I injected the word “neutral”…in retrospect it is too simplistic a word. My apologies.

    “Whine and Nag” are your terms, which are also simplistic…and do not describe Karen’s actions.

    If Fred Phelps shows up at a pastors office…I hope he’ll get the full course, whining and nagging included.

    Pastoral counseling is willing to run the risks of alienation in an effort to define the faith; theologically, scripturally, historically and culturally.

    Actually, whining and nagging may be something that Paul, Jesus, OT prophets and others have done.

    :).

  9. Am I typing in an invisible font or something? I never said that. And just for emphasis, I NEVER SAID THAT. There is nothing neutral about counseling from a pastor, and there never will be. My point was very specific and it is described several times in this thread, one linked above.

    Before I could even address your statement I would need to know more specifically, neutral about what? And even then, it’s such a blanket pronouncement that I’m not sure I could say much about it even then.

    I don’t mean to be terse, Michael, but re-explaining this has gotten frustrating. I’m going to leave it now as I thought I did before. Perhaps I’ll take the long trip over to Andrew Marin’s blog and see what’s happening there. The bridge may be out so you never know how long it will take 😉

  10. David, II think I undertand what you are saying, but I have never met a therapist of any type who was “neutral”. At least, not one worth seeing.

  11. And take the risk of “burning a bridge” in an attempt to protect the flock.

  12. I’ll close restating my position:

    Pastoral counseling often involves expressing theological conclusions (not personal opinions), the counselee seeks out that relationship because of the identity and position of the pastoral counselor.

    The pastoral counselor cannot be neutral, the role of the shepherd is not neutral. His or her obligation is proactive and persuasive by nature (see Christ).

    It would be an oddity to not express wishes for their parishioners based upon scripture, theology and personal experience…

    Sometimes that rightly “burns a bridge”; sometimes that wrongly “burns a bridge.”

    Think of it this way…if Fred Phelps came to a pastor and asked, “Should I be publicly condemning homosexuality in the manner I am?” one would hope that the pastoral counselor would have a clear understanding of theology, scripture and a personal opinion that would adamantly condemn his behavior.

  13. Wow – all I did was ask a simple question in response to you comment below.

    Ann: I meant no rudeness by my response to your question. I apologize. I was actually attempting humor, but I guess it fell flat as me seeming presumptuous. In fact, I wasn’t really presuming anything from you at all. I’m actually in the middle of research on Mormons and how the culture “deals with” homosexuality, and at the time, I read something that said “Satan has a highly invested stake in convincing us that treatment is impossible.” I thought, “Oh, my gosh, is this really what all these arguments come down to? Satan?”

    The “neutrality” idea discussed here is a good example. A key component of therapy is that you offer a patient as much agency or self-determination as possible. But if you believe that “Satan” is doing work in this world, leading people toward homosexuality, then you’re implored to make that concern known in some fashion, which can sway your client, AKA take away agency. I’m sure folks will disagree with me on this point that somehow “agency” is “taken away” by expression of a religious view. I’m willing and able to see the other perspective and respect it…that agency is not taken away if the client/patient share worldviews. I’m wondering, though, how many folks here see and respect the idea that a pastor does, in some sense, restrict agency in her use of religious authority—whether or not the client sought this authority out.

  14. How does Michael’s statement there give enough information to make such a statement?

    Your comment before seems really loaded with attitude and statements that simply have nothing to do with my part of the discussion (called Karen foul? dared to conjecture?) My point could be made no matter who the counselor, but Karen is the one who made the statement.

    I never said that a pastoral counselor should be required to practice complete neutrality — that is simply false. Since I just recounted my position in detail (again) barely two hours ago, I’ll just link to it.

    Your comment other comment just seems unnecessarily rude but the part that really disturbs me is this:

    Just as you and yours tell us not to meddle in your stuff, may we humbly ask the same.

    Do you really think that was appropriate? Who is we and why am I not part of them?

    Discussing or debating an issue becomes tedious when one has to constantly respond to straw men and tangents — the original issue gets lost in the confusion. At least Karen did, I think, in the end understand my point, but disagreed with it. I’m confused about how she maintains her view of what she does as honoring the person’s decisions, but it appears she does. Responses from both you and David B are, for whatever reason, misstating my view.

    Karen has left so I will leave it until and if there is another post that explores this issue.

  15. Michael-

    My apologies. I wasn’t suggesting that you had made the original comment. I think the one I was referring to was Dave’s…which you seemed to be going tangent to. Yours was a rather good restatement and I used it as a point of reference. I have heard from you on several occasions how you strive to live by your therapeutic ethics. I hear in her statements that Karen does also. For you, though, pastoral is in the past tense and, for Karen, it is her present tense.

    I don’t think you and I are in disagreement though. Karen seems to be demonstrating compassion. intelligence and ethics that are essential to good counsel…whether it be ‘professional’ or ‘pastoral’. (I put both word in quotes because “professional’ is a label as is ‘pastoral’. We all know of professionals who fall short ot the mark…and I also believe there are ‘pastoral’ counselors who come rather close to the standards of the ‘professional’.)

  16. My comment wasn’t directed at Karen — or anyone else in particular. I do not know Karen’s work, so I cannot comment on her “implementation”. And I am not certainly not claiming to “shine above” anyone. I have been told I do pretty good work, but do not claim to have mastered it.

    I was just making the point that it’s compassion, intelligence and ethics that make the real difference in all good counseling — whether it is pastoral, professional, secular, etc. There, the similarities outweigh the differences. The skills, ethics and heart of the provider — They are what mattered most when I sought help.

  17. Pastoral counseling, IMHO, can be very different than conventional counseling for the very reason that it is specifically sought out by the individual who WANTS to hear the religious take on whatever issue they are struggling with. This counselor is not picked at random, rather, deliberately . Conventional therapy should be, although not always is, neutral about the struggle without any biases. While there are differences, good therapists who are ethical and skilled and focused on the client’s well being, will have many of the same good attributes.

  18. I have recieved and provided pastoral counseling, secular counseling, professional counseling, and lay counseling — all sorts. When done compassionately, intelligently and ethically, the similiarities have tended to outweigh the differences.

    And so, back to the point that brought this up, how does Michael shine above Karen in his implementation? So far, I think she shines as a stellar example of pastoral counseling.

  19. Rejecting the foul, Warren, until you clarify. David was telling Karen she was ‘foul’ because, as a pastoral counselor she dared to conjecture that she’d likely express her disappointment. I countered with the term ‘meddling’ going toward David’s presumption that pastoral counseling ought to follow the same guidelines as professional therapy. I’ll grant a lot of rights but ‘pastoral’ remains pastoral. Still open to the ‘foul’, though. Please explain!

  20. Ann: I miss some things I am sure and I am sorry that I don’t catch all of what should be deleted. Please point out anything in a private email which you think I should deal with.

  21. I have recieved and provided pastoral counseling, secular counseling, professional counseling, and lay counseling — all sorts. When done compassionately, intelligently and ethically, the similiarities have tended to outweigh the differences.

    Michael,

    Very well said – I completely agree.

  22. There is a gigantic difference between pastoral counseling and professional Christian counseling. Please learn the difference.

    While there may be differences, I am inclined to disagree. Over the course of my life, as clent and therapist, I have recieved and provided pastoral counseling, secular counseling, professional counseling, and lay counseling — all sorts. When done compassionately, intelligently and ethically, the similiarities have tended to outweigh the differences.

  23. Commenters can have their opinions and when there is disagreement, that is not reason to just dismiss the opinion as wrong. I don’t know what you mean by “meddle” but comments are welcome as long as they are in line with the posting guidelines.

    Dr. Throckmorton,

    There seems to be an inconsistency as to who can dismiss an opinion as wrong. Why are some allowed to do this and others are not?

  24. Eddy – Foul.

    Commenters can have their opinions and when there is disagreement, that is not reason to just dismiss the opinion as wrong. I don’t know what you mean by “meddle” but comments are welcome as long as they are in line with the posting guidelines.

  25. Thank you, David Roberts, it is very clear now that you don’t understand pastoral counseling in the least. Just as you and yours tell us not to meddle in your stuff, may we humbly ask the same. There is a gigantic difference between pastoral counseling and professional Christian counseling.. Please learn the difference. Those that seek us do–and when they don’t, weexplain the difference and refer them on.

  26. @ David Roberts,

    I think the secular connection to disclosure is a good analog…maybe I didn’t make it clear enough

    1. Seeking out a pastoral counselor presumes (rightly) that you are asking a spiritual advise or his/her professional opinion. If you share that faith, it is likely he may be clearly disappointed if you don’t choose to act in accordance with his counsel. The fiduciary relationship is clear.

    2. Seeking out a secular therapist who implicitly applies Buddhist principals in his practice (which I actually think are very interesting and at times useful) for professional advice and his/her opinion. As a psychological consumer, you are unlikely to be able to know if you share his faith…although his faith has recently been appropriated by the profession as a useful tool. The fiduciary relationship is less clear (some might say it is actually hidden).

    Regarding your second response:

    No doubt many go because they want advice combined with spiritual opinions, but I’ve seen examples of all of the above. I’m not certain I understand the resistance to such a basic practice, nor the apparent cognitive dissonance of ignoring it and yet claiming to respect a client’s decisions.

    Pastoral counselors are sought for all sorts of human dilemmas, from divorce, to financial troubles, to in-law relationships, to parenting issues, to Same Sex attractions, to pre-marital sex. It is the nature of the relationship to present a thoughtful, informed religious opinion…and at times to verbalize disappointment when the person does not take your counsel.

    I am baffled at this “neutral standard” (sharing personal feelings about a parishioners decisions)…

    I think you are wrongly informed as to the many appropriate responses a pastoral counselor can take ethically.

  27. Such pressure is non-existent on secular therapists wishing to apply their specialized form of Buddhism on their mental health clients.

    I don’t know that this is true, that there is no pressure on “secular” therapists in this regard. However, like all the examples you offered, this does not appear to be a good analog. That pastoral counselors are going to bring their faith into the counseling relationship is a given — it’s rather the point of “pastoral.”

    The issue in the example given by Karen was that, after giving a client (for lack of a better word here) the benefit of all that spiritual advice and/or guidance, and giving them several avenues to pursue for further therapy, benefit, etc, and after they have made that decision as an adult, one should not then interject one’s own feelings, needs or wants in to that post-decision equation.

    And certainly one who does so can’t then say they are respecting that person’s decision. In plain language, once they decide the course, don’t whine and nag them about it. It’s not about you.

    That said, I would think it best if a professional therapist abstain from introducing any sort of faith or belief system into the relationship.

    Parishioners seek out pastors BECAUSE of their role, training and informed opinions. They are not therapists, nor are they sought out as such.

    Speaking of reality, this is often not the case. There are clearly many who seek such counseling for other reasons, including lack of funds, easy accessibility, incorrect impressions of psychiatry in general, etc. No doubt many go because they want advice combined with spiritual opinions, but I’ve seen examples of all of the above.

    I’m not certain I understand the resistance to such a basic practice, nor the apparent cognitive dissonance of ignoring it and yet claiming to respect a client’s decisions. Again, other than physically keeping them from following through with their choice, I don’t see how one could disrespect their decision much more. Why allow them to make a decision in the first place?

  28. Ann, I certainly don’t attribute the greater acceptance of homosexuality in American culture to Satan, if that’s what you’re asking.

    Alan,

    Wow – all I did was ask a simple question in response to you comment below.

    Obviously, the woman in your office was torn, but arguably, fewer people these days are torn, which speaks to possible future relevance.

    My question was “what do you attribute this to?”

    Where did you come up with the assumption that I was referring to Satan and why would you even think that? Also, I am not sure who you are responding to in the rest of the post you addressed to me – it was not me who made the other comments you have block quoted. Did you know that?

  29. Just wanted to say “goodbye” again for a while. I leave tomorrow morning for 8 days on the road and don’t know what time or access I’ll have to the Internet. Hope there are some great conversations again when I get back to the office.

  30. Unlike many of us, she simply asks without adding any flavor.

    Oh, well in that case, I attribute it to a combination of activism, media representation, and an inherent failure of heteronormativity to be applicable to all people in all times without significant cultural structures to keep queer people “in their place.” Once this was discovered, these structures started to fall away. Perhaps too many fell away in some instances and in some sectors, but well, that’s the way it goes.

  31. What do you attribute this to?

    Ann, I certainly don’t attribute the greater acceptance of homosexuality in American culture to Satan, if that’s what you’re asking.

    Alan–

    Ann is known among us as someone who asks open questions that aren’t loaded. Unlike many of us, she simply asks without adding any flavor. That’s why it felt rather strange of you to even suggest that she was fishing for any particular answer like “Satan, if that’s what you’re asking.”

    coldweatherisfun–

    I am totally with Michael on this one. Your allusion to gay men crotch grabbing in restrooms seems so far from any reality I’ve ever heard of. You might have someone trying to ‘sneak a peak’; if it’s a known hangout, you might have someone doing the infamous ‘foot tap under the stall’ but these are far, far from the images you present.

    There seems to be an undercurrent to your posts that suggest that homosexuals deserve the bashings. I maintain that most bashings have NONE of the blatant sexual grabbing or groping that you suggest and, while I might understand the reaction of a punch in those extreme situations even then I wouldn’t condone it; further, bashing goes beyond that and is NEVER, EVER justified.

    Occasionally, you make an observation that is thought-provoking; unfortunately those statements are sandwiched between statements that are simply provoking.

  32. What do you attribute this to?

    Ann, I certainly don’t attribute the greater acceptance of homosexuality in American culture to Satan, if that’s what you’re asking. I do believe that the hetero/homo binary is oppressive, but I don’t believe everyone is “created” heterosexual. Nor do I believe folks are created homosexual.

    Therapeutic neutrality foisted on pastoral counselors is a way to coerce the argument against those who disagree with building an identity around one’s same sex attractions…

    This was my concern above regarding SIT, and why I said SIT becomes gay-affirmative therapy if the client moves in that direction. This discussion about the “pastor,” “therapist” and “pastor therapist” makes this clear. In Mormon culture, all social services are oriented toward the gospel, so that every therapist works within a value-laden worldview. What I do appreciate about SIT, though, is that a secular psychologist might encounter ANY number of value-laden worldviews, whereas pastors would not. In the context of the APA, this move was needed because of the overwhelming push for gay-affirmative therapy, despite the fact that this was inapplicable to a significant chuck of the conservative American population. Some conservative therapists are still working in the realm of reparative therapy, which is problematic, so in that sense SIT is a step forward for them, too. But it hits a wall when it comes to “value neutrality” given that value neutrality is indeed a value.

    Such pressure is non-existent on secular therapists wishing to apply their specialized form of Buddhism on their mental health clients.

    I wouldn’t make assumptions about this because you see the word “Buddhism.” Western culture is saturated with Christian thinking, even for the secular therapists. For example, notions of “agency” permeate secular Western psychology. In Buddhism, agency takes a different ontological form, which can be incorporated into therapy in a secular fashion. Whether this is “bias” or not is up to you. Everything is biased.

  33. Secular therapist are currently very excited about adding Buddhism to their clinical practices…especially as applied to Dialectical Behavior Therapy…

    In this regard the influence of Buddhism as a religion on the values of the therapist and the client are not really discussed.

    Therapeutic neutrality foisted on pastoral counselors is a way to coerce the argument against those who disagree with building an identity around one’s same sex attractions…

    Such pressure is non-existent on secular therapists wishing to apply their specialized form of Buddhism on their mental health clients.

  34. Parishioners seek out pastors BECAUSE of their role, training and informed opinions. They are not therapists, nor are they sought out as such

    David,

    Yes, I agree. If the foundation is already there or being prepared for individual faith, then this seems like the first, and for some, only counseling that they want or need. For them, it has to have this base to start from and then go from there.

  35. Agree here, too …

    It’s been my impression that the role of ‘pastoral counselor’ was simply to be an extension of the pastor. In the past 30 or 40 years, many of these counselors have broadened their training in the fields of psychiatry and psychology but they remain ‘pastoral’.

    I’d add to it that a pastoral counselor would/could also rely more heavily on prayer, possibly even anointing, healing prayer, and exercises in Scriptural guidance/discernment/direction. When these didn’t have the desired effect, or when issues went beyond his/her theraputic skills, that’s likely when referral would take place.

    The timing is very, very tricky, with some pastors referring too early and some too late. And some, unfortunately, not at all, either through ignorance of resources or lack of professional humility.

    I try to trust that God is directing my timing, that He’ll overcome all my potential screw-ups, and that He’ll work only the best for those that come to me for help, as He has promised to do.

  36. And I also agree with Eddy (and probably with David R.) …

    I do expect a difference in a professional ‘Christian counselor’. I see them more as a ‘therapist’.

    That’s why I tried to spell out the distinctions with the young woman I referred.

  37. I agree with David, too …

    Parishioners seek out pastors BECAUSE of their role, training and informed opinions. They are not therapists, nor are they sought out as such.

    That was the situation with the young woman I referenced. She and her grandmother, but not her parents, sought me out because they knew where I stood on human sexuality. They knew my values going in, and had she chosen option 1, it would have been hypocritical of me to affirm her choice or to remain silent and not share my sadness and disappointment. I don’t think that would have risked “burning bridges” as Warren indicated earlier. I think it would have demonstrated real and honest Christian interaction.

    And I also agree with Warren …

    This is the duty of a pastor for sure. Where the roles are ambiguous – “pastoral counselor” – I am not so sure which role applies.

    Yes, it can get quite fuzzy. That’s why even many very experienced pastors will refer after one or two meeings or when the issues go beyond your “garden variety” spiritual concerns. I still believe where moral issues are involved (as opposed to say the best way to solve a problem in family communication) pastors are remiss if they don’t share their best understanding of what the Bible and Church tradition teach.

  38. It’s been my impression that the role of ‘pastoral counselor’ was simply to be an extension of the pastor. In the past 30 or 40 years, many of these counselors have broadened their training in the fields of psychiatry and psychology but they remain ‘pastoral’.

    I do expect a difference in a professional ‘Christian counselor’. I see them more as a ‘therapist’.

    Claiming ‘professional’, I expect them to adhere more to the style that David Roberts suggests but without the ‘you want to do what’ look that you can get from a non-believer. From someone billed as a ‘pastoral counselor’, I expect direction, advice, admonition and anything else you might expect from a pastor.

    Yes, while we criticize the pastoral counselor from injecting their views, many a secular counselor, without saying outright that they disrespect an ‘ex-gay quest’, often gets hung up there…questioning their client far more than necessary re the suitability of their ex-gay quest.

  39. David B said:

    Parishioners seek out pastors BECAUSE of their role, training and informed opinions. They are not therapists, nor are they sought out as such.

    I agree with this. This is the duty of a pastor for sure. Where the roles are ambiguous – “pastoral counselor” – I am not so sure which role applies.

  40. @ Warren, David and others:

    Pastors do have some different roles however, and they certainly have a shepherding function that involves a commitment to a value position. I do think however, it is short sighted even for them to burn bridges as it were by communicating strong feelings about these choices.

    It seems we are trying to sharpen the edge to this professional relationship to perfection…at the cost of reality.

    Family Law lawyers often counsel against divorce, physicians for healthy habits, accountants for savings accounts…

    Pastors are in a professional role…if the model of Shepherd is useful, they at times use strong words for good reason.

    Coercion of our will is part of the spiritual journey…just read Paul about a number of topics (Love your enemy, love those who persecute you). The spiritual journey is part corralling our nature and expressing our nature.

    Is it OK to communicate “Weak Feelings” strongly? Or better to communicate “Strong Feelings” weakly?

    Parishioners seek out pastors BECAUSE of their role, training and informed opinions. They are not therapists, nor are they sought out as such.

  41. Obviously, the woman in your office was torn, but arguably, fewer people these days are torn, which speaks to possible future relevance.

    Alan,

    What do you attribute this to?

  42. By “honoring choices,” David, I mean that I will continue to love, serve and help the individual in any way I can whether he/she has followed my spiritual advice or not.

    I still see a basic conflict between those things you said above, but I have explained this to the best of my ability here. I would also disagree that we should not support statements we make like those. If you can’t support it, I wouldn’t say it. Putting the ministry label on it does not take it off limits.

    Perhaps the issue will come up again with someone willing to sharpen some iron.

  43. Thanks Warren and Eddy for the comments. But Warren, I think a pastor would be remiss if he or she did not share his/her feelings about situations. Perhaps not “strongly,” as you suggested. But I’ve never had a pastoral relationship with a parishioner severed through the honest give and take of sharing our feelings, even if we disagree. Actually, some of the best results have probably come out of that.

    By “honoring choices,” David, I mean that I will continue to love, serve and help the individual in any way I can whether he/she has followed my spiritual advice or not. Now … beyond that, I will no longer continue to defend my pastoral decisions with you any more than I will defend my ministry.

  44. The discussion about interjecting one’s own feelings about the choices of clients reminds me of why the SIT Framework is so important. I think counselors should refrain from expressing sadness or encouragement regarding a client’s choices, especially in the initial going.

    Pastors do have some different roles however, and they certainly have a shepherding function that involves a commitment to a value position. I do think however, it is short sighted even for them to burn bridges as it were by communicating strong feelings about these choices.

    Ministries like Exodus would probably do well to be open doors for people to move in and out as they wrestle with their values and related choices. The statement of beliefs do not have to shift at all.

  45. My intention wasn’t to prevent you from posting anything, Eddy. I wanted to emphasize that I would like to hear Karen’s response to the question, not have yours stand as the answer by proxy. I still responded to you. Other than that, I don’t see that my questions keeps Karen or Gary or anyone else from continuing their discussion. And one has to join the conversation at some point, so I don’t know what “popping in” really means here, either.

  46. It all gets so squirrelly cute around here. I’ve been involved in this thread (and another) with Karen and have even had her say several times how capably I represented her point of view. Yet Dave Roberts says:

    I appreciate your input, but my original question was addressed to Karen, and I would like to know how she reconciles this herself.

    This, referring to a question he popped in to ask regarding a response she was giving to Gary…a conversation I was also a part of.

    I really do wish you all would post your rulebook.

  47. God isn’t limited by regulatory guidelines

    I’m not sure how that addresses the question, but I would tend to agree — all the more reason to use them.

    You are the one who made the point about pastoral counseling and the honoring of choices. No matter what your point of view, you are involved in a counseling situation above. If God is the sole force at work, then one need not counsel the person at all — just send them home and pray for them. But in fact we are talking about counseling, and human beings are doing that.

    Responding with platitudes is not an answer, it is avoiding the question, which still remains and I think is perfectly valid.

  48. Essentially, David, I simply don’t agree that a “professional” counselor is necessarily the best answer when a person is working out issues of sexuality and faith. God isn’t limited by regulatory guidelines, and I have witnessed Him work just as powerfully, if not more so, through prayer and Christian healing practices than a theraputic approach.

    If the young woman I used as an example had not been so messed up because of core family dysfunction, I would have continued to work with her about the sexuality issues. I was merely trying to indicate how I approach various referral options to answer one of Alan’s questions.

  49. I suppose Jesus wouldn’t have made a very good counselor

    Actually, I am sure he would. Being God of the Universe and fully knowing the heart and mind of the creature He created gives Him a distinct edge. But then again, Jesus didn’t have the baggage of a flawed nature and his own needs that might get in the way of such counseling. Human beings are not omniscient and need to set up certain boundaries to help avoid these issues. I might add, your comparison here seems rather far fetched.

    As to advice, yes I recognize that a pastoral counselor will be more likely to give advice than a professional. However, in the hypothetical, the woman has made a decision — she is past the advice stage and has made her mind up. Karen makes a point of saying that she would respect the woman’s choices at that point, something which she clearly is not doing by subsequently expressing her “sadness” i.e. disagreement with the woman’s choice.

    I appreciate your input, but my original question was addressed to Karen, and I would like to know how she reconciles this herself.

    I think this is an important issue because so much harm could be avoided if counselors and therapists in general would follow the basic rules required of a professional. In a counseling relationship, the counselor has tremendous power depending on the counseled person’s issues, state of mind and personality. It is extremely easy to muddy the boundary of needs and issues between the two people. And this is not only with pastoral counseling — Richard Cohen does not work under the demands of a professional license either. The potential there for harm has been discussed at great length.

  50. I’m not quite getting what you mean in your last paragraph about ex-gay ministry and relevance and how that relates to my example. Could you say more?

    If a woman has experienced life as a “lesbian” and found joy and happiness on that path, at some point the right/wrong distinction just seems to come from those who don’t understand. I guess all I’m saying is that there are plenty of happy lesbians out there and there plenty more happy lesbians to come. Obviously, the woman in your office was torn, but arguably, fewer people these days are torn, which speaks to possible future relevance.

  51. That isn’t true of pastoral counseling. The term pastor and the role of a pastor is to watch, tend, feed, lead and, yes, even steer the flock. I’ve never been to a pastoral counselor in my lifetime who didn’t offer advice, who didn’t suggest Scriptural remedies and who didn’t ‘share their feelings’.

    I suppose Jesus wouldn’t have made a very good counselor when he said “Go–and sin no more.” He shared his belief that a behavior was sin; he expressed his desire that she stop doing it.

  52. David, I’m not a licensed counselor, nor do I pretend to be. I do pastoral counseling within the framework of my church affiliation which has its own boundaries and expectations. I don’t have to remain neutral, and as you might imagine, I don’t.

    That you are not a professional counselor does not change what is or isn’t good practice when counseling. It simply removes (in most cases) the consequences of not following those practices. The fact remains that it is overwhelmingly recognized that interjecting one’s own needs, feelings or desires into the counseling setting is inappropriate and counter-productive to the counseled. You imply that such well established boundaries are incompatible with a pastoral counseling situation, and I don’t believe that to be the case.

    And how conveniently, David, you leave off the most important part of my statement … “but I would have also tried very hard to honor her choice.”

    How exactly are you honoring this hypothetical person’s choice by telling her how sad that choice makes you? That could put a lot of pressure on someone in that situation and seems more than a little manipulative. What would you call not honoring her decision, sitting on her so she can’t leave the room?

  53. Alan writes …

    Homosexuality is deemed worldly, dirty, sinful, concentrating on youth, etc.

    Not exactly, at least not from my viewpoint, which is moderate Protestant with a large dose of Anglo-Catholic.

    Homosexual intimacy, which could include both physical behavior and thought life, would be considered sinful. But the attractions to the same sex would be considered unbidden feelings, and from my Christian perspective, temptations.

    The underlying argument for me is not that it “doesn’t go anywhere,” but that it’s outside the boundaries of God’s perfect will for human sexual expression. Which heterosexual expression is a unique reflection of His image in male and female, His relationship as husband with Israel, and Jesus’ relationship as Bridegroom to his Bride, the Church.

    Chaste singleness is also within God’s perfect will – whether gay or straight – because it stays within the boundaries, but more than that because it foreshadows the resurrection reality Jesus described in Matthew 22:30.

    I agree with you that there are still many, many stereotypes. And from what I know about Mormonism (I almost converted in my early 30s), their doctrines around salvation and exaltation are very centered on family and procreation. It almost does seem like obsession sometimes, as you describe it.

    I’m not quite getting what you mean in your last paragraph about ex-gay ministry and relevance and how that relates to my example. Could you say more?

  54. And how conveniently, David, you leave off the most important part of my statement … “but I would have also tried very hard to honor her choice.”

    Do you now what it means to honor choices, David? I have my doubts.

  55. David, I’m not a licensed counselor, nor do I pretend to be. I do pastoral counseling within the framework of my church affiliation which has its own boundaries and expectations. I don’t have to remain neutral, and as you might imagine, I don’t. It’s part of my calling to share my best understanding of Scripture and God’s will for sexual expression. I make no apology for that.

  56. Had she chosen option 1, I would have been very sad, and would have explained that sadness,

    For what purpose would you interject your own feelings, needs or desires into a situation like this? This goes against everything I have ever heard about proper counseling ethics.

  57. classic Christian faith has always looked askance at most things that feel “at home” when it comes to our “natural” bents.

    Well, this is why, as I understand it, the opposite of gay for ex-gays isn’t straight, but “holy.” Homosexuality is deemed worldly, dirty, sinful, concentrating on youth, etc. A prevailing notion in many quarters that it goes nowhere because gay relations cannot produce kinship. This, of course, is changing as there are tens of thousands of same-sex parent households in America, and as people think of their lives in contexts different than “raising children.” In fact, one of the things about ex-gay culture is how being celibate allows one to see society’s privileging of marriage over singleness. But there are still stereotypes about being gay meaning that you necessarily are prone to certain destructive behaviors. This is a disjoint from the world I live in as a 20-something urbanite. In my work on Mormons, the “alternative” ways of living or being “homosexual” (or being a functional person) are not even approachable because of the theology’s obsession with heterosexuality. If one identifies as gay, there must be something that demonstrates non-functionality, and if not, then there’s a “bigger” problem at work that people are gay and feeling okay or good about it. I just checked out a 500-page LDS book published in 2009 on same-sex attraction, and it says nothing of gay marriage or same-sex parenting with ONE exception (that I’ve found). The context is the epilogue, describing a friendship between an LDS man and gay man agreeing on the idea of “helping people.” But my feeling is that if homosexuality continues to be presented as stereotypes (e.g., a constant focus on disease, immaturity, falsity) then gay folks will continue to need to be helped. Many will see right through the lies…which is why 80% of them leave the LDS Church.

    Obviously I’m putting my politics down clearly here, but I’m also saying this for the sake of ex-gay ministries to remain relevant. At some point, the discourse enters the realm of naivete. I would argue, though, that many gays exit conservative communities and fall into destructive behaviors, but this is not because of homosexuality itself, which is how it is painted.

    Karen: in terms of your story about the 20-something woman, I know a woman who came to a conservative church with a same-sex partner and their children. At first, the congregation wanted them to go to therapy, but then eventually focused their attention on parenting issues (just like all the other parents). Then, the woman got a male partner, and everyone was happy that she was “on the right path.” However, she confided to me that these people just don’t get it. =p What I’m saying here is that, beyond the question of right/wrong, there is the question of relevance.

  58. Eddy writes …

    we referred people on to ‘gay-affirming therapists’ and/or gay churches if it was appropriate

    And Alan asks …

    What was the logic behind these decisions? When would it be considered “appropriate”? Was there sadness to these decisions, happiness, or both?

    The ministry I serve, Transforming Congregations, has not been your “typical” Exodus-related ministry, so I can’t speak for all of them. The greatest bulk of my work is with local churches, pastors and volunteer leaders, and since most of them are conservative, I try to move them beyond hostility, rejection, ignorance or apathy to compassionate outreach and care. I am, however, sometimes contacted by individuals and family members with whom I do minimal pastoral counseling before I refer.

    Shortly before I left Delaware to move to Wisconsin, I met a couple times with a twenty-something woman who had recently told her family she thought she was lesbian. Her parents had responded negatively (to put it mildly), kicked her out of the house, and refused any further contact with her. She had moved in with her grandmother, who asked me to intervene. (The parents had only a very tenuous connection to Christian faith or to “church,” so I’ll let you judge the faithfulness of their response.)

    Family relationships were so broken that they wouldn’t even agree to meet together all at once. At my first meeting with mom and dad, they asked me to “make her” do things their way, which I told them I would not – and actually could not – do. Mom had arrived angry and left even angrier at that. My prayer afterwards was that God would soften their hearts so their relationship with their daughter could be reconciled and healed.

    I saw the young woman twice before referral. I told her that I thought she had three basic options: 1. to work with someone who would be inclined to affirm her lesbian identity and behavioral choices – not hard to find in our very gay-friendly beach area, or 2. to work with someone with a Christian worldview who would help her sort through the confusion, honoring whatever choices she ultimately made – a bit harder to find, or 3. to work with a Christian counselor who had experience with resisting and overcoming lesbian attraction and behavior – nothing close by, but could be done.

    She chose option 2, and since she was so early in the “figuring it out” process, it was a choice I could heartily affirm. Had she chosen option 1, I would have been very sad, and would have explained that sadness, but I would have also tried very hard to honor her choice. Had she chosen option 3, I wouldn’t have tried to dissuade her, but I would have wanted to make sure that the counselor was compassionate, wise, and non-condemnatory in practice.

    I don’t know the ultimate outcome as I moved while she was still in process. But I would have been personally happiest if she had drawn closer to Christ, and I would have trusted the Holy Spirit to move her in the right direction.

  59. No, Michael, my remarks don’t ‘hint’ at anything. I spoke truthfully and candidly about ‘many ex-gays’ just to expound a bit on the fact that sometimes their incongruence ran a little deeper than just ‘that still small voice’.

    I actually had a few clients who weren’t convinced that homosexual behavior was sin but who recognized that their own personal homosexuality was in violation of their personal ethics. A few maintained that they sought us out because they had a hard time finding help within the gay community in their quest to live a gay life that matched their ethic. (I’m sure that help is there but I conceded that it wasn’t available as often as it should be.)

  60. Eddy,

    There is a great deal of addictive behaviour involved in what you are describing and contrary to what some may want us to believe, it is not that uncommon. Unfortunately, that uncommonness is not limited to those practicing it in the gay community. Because of our over sexed culture it is also quite prevelant in the straight community. What is truly unfortunate is that it is often glorified.

  61. Eddy’s remarks seem to hint at an underlying belief that ALL homosexuality — at its roots — is immature and deeply faulted. I think that’s just human nature and has little to do with which gender they are attracted to.

  62. So, even if SIT is a good balance in light of the environment of the APA, and even if it offers the conservative Christian community therapeutic tools to move forward in an increasingly gay-affirmative atmosphere, I guess I’m curious how many people fully endorse the ethics of it…. or if they turn to it because reparative therapy is out of style.

    These are really interesting questions, Alan, and I hope that Warren will address them further.

    I can’t pretend that I have a full understanding of SIT beyond what I have read about it, but I agree with Mark’s statement that I quoted above. SIT has its place as a tool for folk who want to take that approach, but is not and should not be the only option.

    Perhaps my perceptions of SIT are wrong, and if so, I will happily be corrected. But as a pastor – who has been trained to have an individual’s ultimate spiritual well-being foremost in mind – SIT’s major shortcoming will always be that it is almost exclusively client-directed (as are most other therapeutic models) with the counselor essentially “hamstrung” in regard to moral influence. Pastors have no such professional obligation, so there will always be a bit of a conflict in approach.

    In similar vein, regarding your comments about Sara Ahmed’s work … I can expand on this if anyone is interested, but classic Christian faith has always looked askance at most things that feel “at home” when it comes to our “natural” bents.

  63. Many ex-gays don’t believe it is quite simple as all that. In the homosexuality that they personally reject they see that it was pretty much about selfish pleasure seeking. They realize that did not have the desire or capacity for committment or monogamy; they realize that they were driven by ‘conquest’…’scoring’ yet another partner.

    That’s a sad way to be gay. I can see why they became disatisfied with it. I call that “sex as sport”. I suspect that straights might also find that sort of lifstyle pretty meaningless after a while — but we don’t suggest they ought to become “ex-straight”.

    I know gays and straights who lived out their sexuality in that way until they decided to grow up. Their lives and richer and more meaningful now, but it didn’t change their sexual orientation.

  64. Oh, please…. you’re precisely in the same business, Warren. With equal credibility.

  65. Many ex-gays don’t believe it is quite simple as all that. In the homosexuality that they personally reject they see that it was pretty much about selfish pleasure seeking. They realize that did not have the desire or capacity for committment or monogamy; they realize that they were driven by ‘conquest’…’scoring’ yet another partner. Some are conflicted over how their desires are more centered on the parts rather than the whole of another…seeking in a partner only youth, good looks, genital size, etc. rather than that broader notion of loving a person and accepting some shortcomings. They identify these feelings, that at one time felt so natural, as immature and somehow faulted and wonder just how deep the immaturity runs and just how much is faulted.

  66. Sara Ahmed’s work on queer phenomenology discusses orientation in terms of “feeling at home,” “knowing where one stands,” and “having certain objects within reach.”

    Interesting. I wonder if she is describing her own personal experience of being “at home”, “standing” and “feeling that the object is within reach”? Ex-gays report still being not heterosexually but homosexuallly attracted (oriented) — but her phrases do not seem to describe their experience of their homosexuality very well.

    On the contrary, they seem to express that they are not at all “at home” with it. Something feels out-of-place to them. Many wish they stood somewhere else. That sense or experience of their homosexual orientation seems out of reach, uncomfortable somehow. A still small voice tells them it’s wrong — that some sort of change is needed.

    I believe that most English speaking folks think of orientation ONLY as a descriptor or which gender one is attracted to — male, female ot both — not as how they feel, “identify” or what they believe about that. Some are “at home” with it. Some are not. For ex-gays, it’s not “them”.

    I sure wish they would bring back the term “ego-dystonic” homosexuality to describe that inner strugggle against their homosexual orientation and the desire for change that ex-gays experience. Not as a “disorder” — but as a description of that sense of struggle or discomfort with their own “SSA”.

  67. We had ‘checked out’ several of the local gay-affirming churches and ministries and found one or two that were a ‘cut above’ the rest…less given to agenda and more focussed on the individual. We would refer to those ministries and to those specific counselors in general.

    The situations were those in which a person came to us, not out of their own sense of conflict, but at the urging (or insistence) of a family member. In one other case, I recall that the young man came in, having been raised in a conservative church…he was one of the most honest and open seekers I had ever met. He was re-evaluating his conservative Christian beliefs in a number of areas and had not yet come to personal resolve.

    Our feeling was that only God can truly convict of sin and that He is the enabler on our journey. If a person hasn’t sensed that conviction…isn’t sure that that’s the path to take, their journey is going to be fraught with problems. We felt, in all of these cases, that the individual needed to come to their decision personally. I personally felt that, if they kept their focus on Christ but felt the freedom to reject conservative notions, that would also put them in a place of being able to embrace those conservative notions…not because it was what their family wanted, not because it was what they were brought up in…but because it was what they believed.

    Some other ministers and ministries thought our approach was a bit ‘radical’ but a surprising number concurred with our approach and employed it as well.

  68. we referred people on to ‘gay-affirming therapists’ and/or gay churches if it was appropriate

    Thanks for that, Eddy. That is very interesting. What was the logic behind these decisions? When would it be considered “appropriate”? Was there sadness to these decisions, happiness, or both? Also, was there a relationship the ministry had with the gay-affirming places, or was it simply knowledge of them?

    However, I am not expecting it and have seen little of it in the sense that I now define orientation (basic set of attractions).

    To me, a demonstration of change depends on the definition of “orientation.” This is probably outside the bounds of what most people here might read, but I’ll bring it in anyway in case folks are interested. Sara Ahmed’s work on queer phenomenology discusses orientation in terms of “feeling at home,” “knowing where one stands,” and “having certain objects within reach.” Agency, for Ahmed, is never “in” the body, but a matter instead of how bodies come in contact with each other, and how those bodies come in contact with others. Thus, a situation where folks are urged to become heterosexual demonstrates its own unnaturalness: “choosing” heterosexuality must be instituted through social forces since such choices wouldn’t otherwise be made. This is not to say that people are victims of heterosexuality simply because it is “social,” but rather to “become straight” is to become subject under a law that decides what forms are “worth living.”

    I think a lot more conversation is to be had, particularly if some Exodus ministries are open to referring folks to gay-affirming environments if this will help them “feel at home.”

  69. Ann, the question was for Eddy. @ Warren:

    I don’t rule it out because that would not be a scientific stance. However, I am not expecting it and have seen little of it in the sense that I now define orientation (basic set of attractions).

    This is my position exactly, Warren. I do not rule out the possible existence of change of oreintation — or for that matter, a species we have never enountered before. But I have not yet seen Nessy. It would be really cool I suppose. Who knows? She may yet reveal herself. Life is full of surprises, so it would not be scientific to rule out the possibility entirely.

    So, you’ve got your memories of the flavor you once enjoyed and can’t fully fathom that which you haven’t yet experienced.

    I get the analogy here, but I think it’s a bit thin. I am not talking about remembering that you used to like strawberry ice cream and might stiill have some residual hankering for it . I am talking about the exclusive, persistent desire for it — never, ever for vanilla. I tried vanilla. It didn’t suit me. I could not learn or pretend to desire it. Eddy’s analogy seems to imply that he might like it if he tried it — but he’s not allowed to — so he’ll never know. Perhaps he would, who knows?

    That seems very different from what a straight man goes through. The self-indentified heterosexual men I have talked with or have listened to throughout my life seemed to KNOW (without a doubt) that they really like vanilla — and they tell me they craved it before they ever tasted it. They never had the exclusively strawberry orientation that I have had from my earliest memory.

    Of course, some people may be a bit more flavor-flexible. I guess I am not one of those.

  70. Alan,

    Even when I was director of an Exodus member ministry, we referred people on to ‘gay-affirming therapists’ and/or gay churches if it was appropriate. It didn’t happen often, as most of our clients sought us out already aware of such options.

  71. Hi Warren, I appreciate your response. If what you’re saying is indeed the ethics of SIT, then it doesn’t sound too shabby from where I’m standing. However, since I like to play devil’s advocate, I would note that many [conservative] Christian psychologists would never approve of referring a client to a therapist who is gay-affirmative. I’ve seen this move labeled as the ultimate harm, i.e, sending a client to be “homosexualized.” If the client is moving in that direction, a respect for autonomy probably demands the client-therapist relationship be severed, but I doubt most Christian psychologists even have one gay-affirmative psychologist on their Rolodex (if psychologists do indeed have Rolodexes =p). So, even if SIT is a good balance in light of the environment of the APA, and even if it offers the conservative Christian community therapeutic tools to move forward in an increasingly gay-affirmative atmosphere, I guess I’m curious how many people fully endorse the ethics of it…. or if they turn to it because reparative therapy is out of style.

  72. RE: SIT – Alan: I think you are correct, SIT could seem like gay affirming therapy because the therapist affirms the value position of the client but does not seek change of orientation in the direct sense. I think it would be very infrequent that the counseling would involve a direct change narrative (e.g., is the SSA less this week?). The client might experience things differently, but the therapist in SIT is going for value congruence and not change in orientation. The client might be hoping for that even with the informed consent but SIT requires an emphasis on value congruence.

    I don’t think Mark works with people to change but he will not rule out that change could occur in those therapies. I don’t rule it out because that would not be a scientific stance. However, I am not expecting it and have seen little of it in the sense that I now define orientation (basic set of attractions).

    Some SITherapists are only working on congruence with a evangelical stance and they might refer if the client goes in a gay affirming manner because their heart is not in it. I don’t refer but I believe therapists need to refer when they have such a value conflict that they are ineffective or harmful.

  73. Once again, I pretty much agree with Michael, although I have reservations about the real meaning of ‘orientation change’ and ‘amnesia’. If a behavior, a series of behaviors, or identification with a lifestyle brought pleasure, gratification and met emotional needs, why would we expect a person to NEVER feeling drawn in that direction again. They don’t have amnesia.

    I haven’t purchased vanilla ice cream in years having found numerous other flavors that I prefer. Yet, when I was out to eat the other night with relatives, my nephew ordered ‘apple pie a la mode’ and I found myself staring at that pure white scoop of vanilla ice cream on his plate. Does that mean it’s my ‘preference’?

    And, while growing up, vanilla was pretty much the only flavor we ever had in the house; it wasn’t until I had actually had the opportunity to taste other flavors that I realized that vanilla didn’t satisfy all my cravings. I remember not even being willing to try pistachio and avoided it for several years. When I finally rose over my objections, I tried it and found out that it was immensely satisfying.

    Sexual preference is far more complex than ice cream flavor preference and unlike ice cream, you don’t normally get to try or experiment with all the flavors. For a Christian, experimenting…even heterosexually…is taboo. So, you’ve got your memories of the flavor you once enjoyed and can’t fully fathom that which you haven’t yet experienced.

  74. Alan, Thanks. I am intimately acquainted with the issues here. As one who used to “identify” as “ex-gay”, I understand fully that the “change” they speak of is a sense of spiritual newness and a different life — not a change in sexual orientation — at least not for nearly all of the ex-gay men I have encountered over the past 30 years or so.

    By pointing that out (repeatedly) I do not mean to demean those changes that experiences them — or suggest that they are not significant changes for them. I just think its important to point out the difference between “identity” and behavioral changes fon one hand and orientation chande on the other.

  75. Just another quick quote from Yarhouse’s paper that I think again points to his “both/and” perspective …

    The findings from this study support keeping a range of professional and ministry options open to clients who experience same-sex attraction, are distressed by this because of their moral or religious beliefs, and who may benefit from hearing about a number of intervention modalities. Options may include change of orientation, integrating same-sex attractions into a gay identity, and options that focus more on identity and llving in ways that reflect one’s beliefs and values. We would do well to put as much information in the hands of the consumer so that they are able to make informed decisions and wise choices am ong treatment options.

    Alan, I don’t know how aware you are of Yarhouse’s other work and writing. I think the bulk of his counseling has been with people of faith who have not experienced substantial change in orientation but want nonetheless to live in congruence with their Christian beliefs. To that extent, in practice he probably leans more toward the SIT model.

  76. I recant: SIT doesn’t become gay-affirmative therapy, because the clinician is supposed to always take a “neutral” stance. What I meant is, if the client’s beliefs are pro-gay, then SIT ultimately becomes gay-affirmative therapy. But there isn’t really any way for SIT to become reparative therapy.

  77. Karen: Thank you for providing this info. If he has time, I would appreciate Warren addressing this notion of either/or and both/and of orientation/identity and it’s relationship to SIT.

    Mostly because I’m curious how much Yarhouse (and even Warren) work with clients who are interested in gay-affirmative therapy. From what I’ve seen, SIT is only for religious conservatives. This is because if one’s beliefs are “pro-gay,” then SIT becomes “gay-affirmative therapy” in practice. Thus, the notion of a “third space” between “reparative therapy” and “gay-affirmative therapy” seems questionable, because it is only a third space for a specific constituency. Then again, perhaps SIT was developed only for a specific constituency in light of the failures of reparative therapy.

    I wish we’d just start (or return to) communicating solely through the language of faith.

    I think there is a fear, or at least a concern, that the “pro-homosexual forces” will “win” unless theology and science work together, since science is a bridging language between people of faith and people not of faith.

    Now I don’t want to be discovered as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” so let me say that I also believe that the either/or, both/and situation applies to Christianity/homosexuality. A “Christian ethic” does not necessarily mean that homosexuality (attractions or practices) are bad. Not to keep harking on Yarhouse, but he uses words like “Christian,” when he really means “conservative Protestant.” Then again, I don’t want to limit people’s language, which is why I support Exodus using the word “change” if it does the work the organization thinks it needs to do.

    Michael: I appreciate your presence here. I’m here for research, but you seem here because you’re intimately tied to the work here, pointing out its assumptions and barriers as someone who has experienced those assumptions and barriers. Are you aware of Lisa Diamond’s work? Her work on women’s sexuality is interesting and I really appreciate her grasp of the nuances concerning the assumptions and barriers. =)

  78. The “truly gay” population experiencing the most significant change, the shift away from homosexual orientation being a separate process from the shift to heterosexual orientation, that most of the reported change happened early in the change attempt, disputing the claim that orientation change is a gradual process over an extended period of time.

    I find this fascinating. What is that “separate process”? Are we talking about a lessening in the intensity of attractions “early in the change attempt”? If so, we noticed that all the time. Guys reported feeling less homosexually horny, less compelled to think about sex, and less likely to act on their feelings.

    But, change in orientation from gay to straight did not seem to be taking place — except perhaps for some of the women and a few guys who already reported some bisexuality. They moved a bit closer to the “straight side” — as Joe Dallas once explained to Joan Rivers: “It’s not a change from one end of the spectrum to the other. We are all BOTH.” Of course, I disagree that we are “all both” — at least when it comes to males.

    Change in behavior, “identity”, life “style” were pretty common place, but that was never really the question. The question was “would they stop being homosexual and start being heterosexual in attraction?” The answer to that question was — and still is – “doesn’t seem like it”. That’s when many were told they didn’t have enough faith or didn’t want “change” badly enough. That guilt heaped on top of failure led many to doubt their faith in God, to become self-destructive or to give up their faith alogether.

    Others, like me, finally had to admit we were still “gay” (homosexual, “SSA”) and always had been. For some, this was a devastating self-realization. For others it was the first step towards their own sense of integration and authenticity. They were gay. Then, they had to fugure out how to live that out within what remained of their faith — to embrace both their true sexuality and spirituality.

    I have no doubt that others continued their “change attempts” and found their own peace with God. They found “freedom” from THEIR “homosexuality” — whatever that meant to them. With that in mind, I agree with Karen (and it seems, Eddy):

    our movement got in trouble when we started to “bridge with psychology.” I wish we’d just start (or return to) communicating solely through the language of faith.

    So do I.

  79. And Warren, whether intentional or not, I think the Core website is “both/and” in regard to its links and referrals. In your zeal to disassociate yourself from Cohen, would you also be be hindering possible connections with people you would be able to reach and help? People who are looking for just what you have to offer?

  80. Re: the comments about Dr. Mark Yarhouse. (Long post because I don’t have a lot to do on Saturday evening.)

    “In the beginning” seemed to be a joint effort between Jones, Yarhouse and Exodus according to the “Acknowledgments” portion of their book. Apparently they had an idea for that kind of study but couldn’t get it off the ground because of failure to procure grant funding. Bob Davies, Executive Director of Exodus at that time, “urged” (Yarhouse’s word) them to do the study, and the Exodus Board and some constituents provided some of the initial funding. Alan Chambers and the Board continued to support the project (don’t know if that meant money or not), along with their respective institutions – Wheaton College and Regent University. I believe Exodus wanted to “test the concepts and claims,” too.

    I heard Dr. Yarhouse speak this fall at a conference in Michigan. He delivered several of the keynote addresses, and distributed an 11 page paper that summarized the results of his and Jones’ research to date. (Sounds like it is similar to what Alan quoted, but perhaps an updated version.) He still asserts that they proved the absolutist claim – that orientation is utterly unchangeable – false, but the small numbers of those that achieved “success: conversion” made him question “whether this is an adequate outcome ratio for an individual to strive for change.”

    He also wrote that some of the findings had been surprises: the “truly gay” population experiencing the most significant change, the shift away from homosexual orientation being a separate process from the shift to heterosexual orientation, that most of the reported change happened early in the change attempt, disputing the claim that orientation change is a gradual process over an extended period of time. All of which lead him to conclude “It is possible that this data reflects both persons who experienced a more powerful change in orientation as well as persons who experienced a change in sexual identity … It certainly appears from this data that the process is complex and multifaceted.”

    He was also mildly supportive of reorientation or conversion therapy, or of at least looking at it with a less jaundiced professional eye. He refers to the many past studies (mentioned in their book on page 77ff) that challenge the again absolutist claim that such therapies are ineffectual, and suggests that his own research results “may and perhaps should open the door for a reconsideration of the efficacy of such therapies.”

    Finally, he acknowledges what for me is one of the studies major weaknesses – the inability to assess what he calls more “nuanced” or “sophisticated” research questions, such as the probability of change, the effectiveness of various strategies, or how change even comes about.

    I personally love Dr. Yarhouse’s open-minded approach, which I think Alan recognized isn’t “either/or” but “both/and.” I believe that’s also reflected in the current conversation (and possible paradigm shift) away from “ex-gay” and toward “post-gay.” I don’t know how much of that is due to Yarhouse’s influence, but for any of it that might be, I am very thankful.

    And, even though this all fascinates me, I also agree with Eddy that our movement got in trouble when we started to “bridge with psychology.” I wish we’d just start (or return to) communicating solely through the language of faith. Those who “have ears to hear” will get it. Those who don’t, won’t.

  81. Alan–

    I hear you. And conversely, when ex-gays hear gays or gay Christians describe their experiences in their words, they too process that through their filter and sometimes have unflattering opinions. I can live with that.

    It’s somewhat like gambling is to me. Never been an issue (I might play $20 in pull tabs a year) and being raised Catholic, bingo was even a part of my church life. But, if I have a friend who, for one reason or another, is convinced that gambling is wrong…and they tell me they ‘fell into it again’. I hear and understand what they are saying. I don’t give them a lecture about why I don’t see it as a problem…I don’t tell them to modify their language because it insults me…I manage to see them for who they are and hear them for what they are trying to say.

    Michael–

    I hear you and agree with most of what you’re saying. The exceptions I have are ones we’ve gone round and round about and I don’t see any value or purpose in raising them now. For now, I feel it’s extremely important that we recognize this issue of the terms and definitions and how they can become muddled–even quite by accident. It’s my personal goal to fix that…or, at the least, to make it so that it is clearly seen by both sides. Let’s let it rest there…I’ve got a lot of family matters that are demanding my attention and can’t afford to spend much time here for a bit.

  82. That certainly is one way of looking at it but the point I’m making is that the other way is also a valid way of looking at it…they are changed and it’s a night and day change.

    I have no disagreement with that. I have heard the testimonies. Some seem to be a lot happier living in congruence with their personal and religious beliefs. That’s not surprising. You don’t need research to prove that. There are many ways to be happy and healthy.

    I don’t think that has ever really been the question that researchers have been trying to answer when they ask, “can gays change?” They wanted to know if gays became straight. They have not been asking, “Can homosexuals live fulfilling and healthy lives without ‘idenifying’ as gay or having gay sex?” Perhaps someone should study that. But that’s a very different question and that question would yield a very different answer.

    The answer would be “Of COURSE they can, if that fits their beliefs better.” No big surprise. People ususally do feel better when they are living in congruence with their beliefs. And again, I have never, never claimed that “ex-gays” can’t “change” something or that the “change” was not very significant for them. We seem to be on the same page about that.

    “Ex-gays” have every right to use the words however they choose, and I have every right to point out that the way they use them can be (and often is) misleading — whether that is their intention or not. I know you disagree, but I think that it often has been the intention — if not to fool others, but at least to hide the truth that they were not really “former homosexuals” from themselves.

  83. Warren: From page 9 of the study: “It is possible that this data reflects both persons who experienced a more powerful change in orientation as well as persons who experienced a change in sexual identity.” From this statement and prose, as well as the conclusion, it seems clear to me that Yarhouse is not simply “reporting what people reported,” but also making conjectures about changed sexual orientation. Not as a possibility for all people, but for some people. One can be a champion of congruence, and still believe that folks are changing through the power of faith/determination/etc. I suspect Yarhouse fits this description.

    Eddy: In terms of bridges of understanding, it comes down to the idea of whether one believes homosexual practices are sinful or not. If you don’t believe it’s sinful, and someone such as yourself says “falls again into homosexual behavior…and the gratification isn’t what is expected,” what tends to get heard is “is convinced having gay sex is wrong, so is now becoming asexual.” In some ways, the opposing perspectives can’t be bridged. But I agree that better dialogue can happen.

  84. I maintain that only a few purposely tried to spin…the others simply used the word ‘change’ because they saw a night and day difference between who they used to be and who they had become…that’s change; it’s big change.

    But largely because of the animosity in dialogue…accusing statements such as “you use the misleading word ‘change'”, few took the time to examine where the confusion was rooted. Most weren’t trying to mislead yet they were being accused of it.

    It’s what I have been saying all along. But, no one seems to get upset when an “ex-gay” says it.

    Yup, we have simply got to take a slam. It wouldn’t be complete if we didn’t make some insinuation. Michael, I learned what I took back to Exodus in those long dialogues we had here re ‘change’, ‘freedom’, ‘ex-gay’. Often agonizing, annoying and extremely frustrating, we came to a ‘kum ba ya’ moment where we actually caught a glimpse of this confusion. While it was fresh and clear, I addressed it in a personal email to Alan. I’ve since reiterated the issue a time or two…especially when I see language that is confusing.

    There was another thread where someone referenced the misleading language on the Exodus homepage. I read and saw nothing misleading. But again, the commenter here seemed hooked on the Christian terms “change” and “freedom”, this caused me to read again, from that commenter’s perspective, and that’s when I picked up on the use of the word ‘homosexuality’ in tandem with ‘change’ and ‘freedom’…how that shifted the sense of their meanings.

    So, here we go again. You play the victim card…they don’t get upset when I say it but they get upset when you say it. But you didn’t have a goal of building a bridge of understanding, you simply insisted that they see it your way. How many times, ad nauseum, did you fall back to the same questions “but are they straight? are they completely free of homosexual thoughts?” That certainly is one way of looking at it but the point I’m making is that the other way is also a valid way of looking at it…they are changed and it’s a night and day change. Even those that may fall again into homosexual behavior often find that it doesn’t do for them what they thought it would…that the gratification isn’t what they expected.

    So, they’re going to try to use words like ‘change’ and ‘freedom’ more carefully. In personal testimony, a speaker isn’t going to try to pretend that they aren’t sometimes tempted if they are. I’m going to become a bit of a thorn in their side and watch for careless usage…most particularly calling ‘homosexuality’ sin (it isn’t…it includes temptation and temptation isn’t sin) and using the term ‘homosexuality’ in tandem with ‘change’ and ‘freedom’ as it alters the meaning of those words to many.

    At the same time, I’m going to vigorously defend their right to use the words ‘change’ and ‘freedom’ because they have experienced change and they have been set free. That’s something they share in common with all other Christians and those are the celebratory words most commonly used. But when they know that their audience is mixed or consists primarily of non-evangelicals, they need to be aware that these words can be misconstrued…for that reason, they must be careful in their usage and explain when necessary.

    While we’re trying to get this message to filter through the ex-gay community, it would be ever so nice if others would assist in the battle against the confusion rather than take us back to square one again.

  85. Alan – Welcome aboard.

    Mark Y has been a consistent champion of the congruence model but was involved in the Exodus study from near the beginning, if not the beginning because he wanted to test the concepts and claims. As it turns out some people reported some changes and he reported that. However, a careful read of the paper will indicate that more people are “changed” via a congruence with their faith than are changed in attractions. In other words, change means several different things and in the context of his study, he reported changes that the people reported. I also think there is a caveat in the paper about the changes being in sexual identity and not basic attractions.

  86. Yes, that was the conundrum…ex-gays experienced significant change; although they weren’t hetero, they were different than they once were.

    LOL! That has never been the question! Although many “ex-gays” have tried to “spin” it that way. We were never insisting that “gays” can’t “change” anything about their lives.

    Of course they can! Everyone can make significant changes in the way they live their lives. But, as Eddy rightly points out — in spite of whatever other changes they make, “ex-gays aren’t hetero”. It’s what I have been saying all along. But, no one seems to get upset when an “ex-gay” says it.

    And Alan, I know that Wendy was concerned about many things: Yes, not focussing on “causality” but also sticking to “ministry” not Reublican political causes — and (quoting her now) dealing “humbly and transparently with the impression that we have lied” (about orientation change).

  87. Alan–

    Yes, that was the conundrum…ex-gays experienced significant change; although they weren’t hetero, they were different than they once were. Not only did they behave differently; they viewed life differently. What they didn’t realize was that others were hearing that word ‘change’ to mean something else. That’s what started me and some others into seeing where the miscommunications were rooted. It seemed to happen when the ministries bridged with psychology. Criticized…and sometimes rightly so…for speaking in Christianese, they started using psychological terms. But words like ‘change’ still had an authentic meaning and they just didn’t fully grasp that when mixed with the psychological construct, the meaning went awry.

  88. Otherwise, as Wendy Gritter once pointed out — it gives the “impression that we have lied”

    Yes, using the word “change’ can give an impression of lying, but Gritter is more opposed to focusing on causality than necessarily semantics about the word “change.” I’m convinced that “ex-gay” is a less politically useful identity in Canada anyway, which is probably why the “change” factor has dropped away there. But the point is, that “change” is attractive, and if the rhetoric of it isn’t about becoming heterosexual, but “holy,” then I don’t see “change” disappearing in ex-gay discourse for some time.

  89. These changes are even being implemented within Exodus (not, necessarily as an official policy)…i caution against using the word ‘homosexuality’ at all…and, if it is used, to not use the word ‘change’. Speak to all the other very significant changes for what they are, just don’t use the word ‘change’ in tandem with the word ‘homosexuality’. The coupling of those words was a chief stumbling block in the past and we need to distance ourselves far further from that usage before anyone, using either definition, couples the two words. LOL. At least that’s my preferred strategy.

  90. Many interpret ‘change’ as the absence of that condition AND the presence of genuine heterosexual feelings.

    “Change” for the ex-gay evangelical movement, for example, isn’t about “changing to heterosexuality,”

    I think those statements are accurate. All the more reason for “change” ministries and “reparative therapy” programs to make it clear that is not the “change” they are talking about. Yes, some improvements have been made by some in the “ex-gay” movement to make that somewhat more clear. Otherwise, as Wendy Gritter once pointed out — it gives the “impression that we have lied”. As I have said repeatedly, “Can gays change?” depends ENTIRELY on what you mean by “gay” and what you mean by “change”.

  91. I agree with the above comment. The word “change” itself versus “congruence” isn’t something psychologists have control over. “Change” for the ex-gay evangelical movement, for example, isn’t about “changing to heterosexuality,” per se. As well, it appears the CORE site is looking at homosexuality as a “gender identity” issue rather than sexuality. Different groups choose to draw these things along different lines.

    The other thing I’d say is that Dr Yarhouse isn’t exactly the best at promoting a “congruence” paradigm, especially in his article “Ex Gays? An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation” when he says things like “In conclusion, the findings of this study would appear to contradict the commonly expressed view of the mental health establishment that sexual orientation is not changeable.” Could you clarify this statement, please, if Yarhouse is indeed a “congruence” kind of guy? My research is on Mormons, and Evergreen International was quite pleased with Yarhouse’s article, citing it that sexual orientation is changeable: http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Evergreen-Response-APA-Report.html

  92. Warren: re their reference to SIT, is it under any heading like “Other Resources” or does the layout suggest some form of affiliation?

    Regarding your closing paragraph, I’ve recently had several conversations outside your blog (LOL, yes, it does happen!) re some emerging clarity…

    There’s another emerging paradigm that is trying to learn from the errors of the past; this group recognizes that the word ‘change’ is not constant in meaning. Ministries commonly use the word to describe changed behavior, response, self-image, worldview, values, etc.; when used with the term homosexuality (meaning ‘condition’) rather than speaking specifically to behavior, thought life and temptation, many interpret ‘change’ as the absence of that condition AND the presence of genuine heterosexual feelings. While it could be said that the aforementioned ministries are of the congruence paradigm, that paradigm, as described, focusses on behavior (life according to values) and disregards the many significant changes in self-image, worldview, values that accompany the change in behavior.

Comments are closed.