Teresa: I am feeling well these days, thanks for asking. Recovery is going well.

On Hamilton, I agree she says things that sound like SITF. However, I don’t believe it. Reparative therapists need to acknowledge what they tell most clients instead of say what we want to hear from them.

Thanks for your response and so glad to hear your are feeling well.

As for theology .. medical analysis and theology are two different things. They are not related. The theological term “disorder” is a Catholic term. Catholics would call anything “disordered” that is not according to design. For example .. Using a form of birth control (other than the rhythmn method) is also disordered because it goes against God’s creative design. In other words .. their term has nothing to do with the psychological term. I know of celibate gay Catholics who are not too happy with the term “disordered”.

As a pastor (not a Catholic one) I don’t see it as disordered in either sense. It just is…like being left handed just is .. or like being heterosexual just is. While scripture does say that we can choose what to do with our desires .. it does not guarantee a change of desire. To claim that it does .. or claim any sort of moral imperative that a particular desire (in the case SSA) can and must be changed is to go outside of what scripture guarantees. These types of attitudes or ideals typically produce a lot of false guilt or shame that is not helpful to people. It is my personal opinion that groups such as these (reparative therapists) and others have built a house of cards based on certain assumptions they are making that are not biblical. I call it the Galileo effect .. re: where people take an assumed (but not true to scripture) idea and try to inform science with it.

Blessings,

Dave

I’ll need to explore some of this research and your previous article and get back to you.

Thanks,

Christopher

The point is Matt, licensed therapists have an obligation to ascribe to the DSM. If religious counselors, clinicians, spiritual directors are going to ‘therapize’ clients; then they’re obliged to state upfront that they are not licensed therapists following the DSM. This is perfectly OK to me.

These folks can’t have it both ways. They can’t claim to be in the secular licensed world; and, yet, mix and match when and how they want with their religious beliefs; and, then claim they’re victims.

NARTH is a religious organization. They have a belief that homosexuality is not God’s design. I’d be happy if they simply stated that; and, then went about their business in an honest way. They need to stop the appearance and camouflage of being a scientific organization.

They simply should state we’re not abiding by the DSM. We (NARTH) offer help to men and women with SSA that want to live chaste lives. If a client manages to develop OSA, and then marry … good for the client.

NARTH needs to follow the path that Exodus and the Mormons are now on.

I will add that disorder in the psychological sense does not describe homosexuality because the simple fact of being attracted to the same sex does not inherently lead to psychological distress or other problems in adapting to occupations or relationships. The one exception of course is the lack of interest in the opposite sex which leads to relatively low reproductive success. One might consider same-sex attraction to put one at a disadvantage if one wants to procreate in the natural way but it does not trigger the psychological definition of disorder.

Distress about one’s orientation has historically been considered an adjustment type of disorder. I don’t know if it still will be in the DSM-V.

1) There is obviously some contention about whether or not SSA is a disorder or not, but not necessarily a lot of clarification about in what way. To say that SSA is a ‘disorder’ psychologically means one thing; to say that SSA is a ‘disordering’ of the Creation order is another (in a philosophical-theological sense). Even if you don’t see SSA as a psychological or developmental disorder, do you see SSA as a disorder of the created order?

2) If so (if you do view it as an disorder of the creation order, a ‘fall’ from the original Creational intention for sexuality), why exclude the possibility that there might be a sense in which SSA is a psychological disordering, even if there is currently no consensus or conclusive research recognized by the modern psychological and psychiatric communities?

What I’m trying to get at is: it a conscious choice on your or others’ part to restrict the definition of ‘disorder’ to how the psychological community would define it (if indeed you would see SSA against the backdrop of a created order that dis-includes homosexuality). I am trained in theology, not in psychology, and want to understand and respect the discipline of psychology – even while knowing that Christian psychologists must live in the tension between their discipline’s framework and a biblical/theological vision of the world.

Ok, as usual, I am going to apply critical thought by asking this question – “what determines who you choose to believe and then subsequently write in factual knowledge about”?

So, here, what’s left for those of us who are minorities within a minority, therapy wise … very little. And, for therapists, also, who value truth and their clients, it must be somewhat of a nightmare.

Thanks, again, Warren for your wisdom, kindness, care for the truth, and just being overall a ‘voice crying in the wilderness’. It is Advent, after all.

Like Teresa outlines with NARTH .. there are plenty of groups putting out deceptive information pretending to be in line with mainstream mental health organizations. Again .. deception is *not* a Christian trait. The church/ Christianity can certainly put out beliefs concerning actions .. re: what is moral and what is not .. but I do not believe they/we are qualified to put out absolute statements about something that scripture does not guarantee. To use a different example .. do you think a church or denomination is qualified to tell a parishioner to go off their anti-depressant medications? I suspect your answer would be ‘No’. So why should they distort science here or assume to have scientific authority on something they have no authority on?

The church and para-church organizations (Exodus , Narth, et all) could embrace the most recent (unbiased) research regarding homosexuality while maintaining her moral stance. There is nothing in psychology that prevents her from doing so. Unfortunately the more typical response is the deceptions we have been talking about and the unbiblical guarantees along with false claims about the faithfulness of gay couples .. gay parenting and so forth.. I know many gay folks who are indeed celibate per their Christian beliefs. But they often do not find church to be very welcoming .. Not only do they fall into the lack of support that singles often find in churches .. they also often find themselves under the extra burden of being misunderstood and of being told they must change their orientation. They also end up being stereotyped and not regarded as unique individuals. The false ideology put out by NARTH, the ACP and Exodus .. does not help their situation. (I am assuming a conservative view here but I would also add that not all churches believe the same thing regarding the morality of same sex relationships and marriage.)

In short .. the church (IMHO) has made a mess of this situation using deception and slander to fight a political culture war while ignoring her mission to actually pastorally care for people. And I am coming to the place in my own musings of concluding that even if the church is silent on these issues of deception .. that silence is not neutral .. It is going to take major action on the part of church denominations to undo the damage that has already been done (ie. speaking .. not being silent). If we had stayed in our field of influence in following the great commission of Christ and demonstrated holiness and Christlikeness we wouldn’t (IMO) be in the mess we are now.

Blessings,

Dave