In a follow-up to Peterson Toscano’s post outlining the various types of harm someone may experience through ex-gay therapy and ministries, he has posted a blog entry that asks those involved what it means to them. He puts out specific questions and suggestions to other ex-gay survivors, to current ex-gays, to ex-gay providers and promoters and to those who are friends, family and allies to ex-gay survivors.
For people who run ex-gay ministries, provide ex-gay counseling, promote ex-gay experiences and refer to people to ex-gay programs, to folks who, like Warren Throckmorton, who are trying to come up with therapeutic guidelines for those who want to suppress their sexual orientation, you need to sit down, shut up and listen.
I don’t mean to be rude, but too many of you have immediately gone on the defensive and shut your ears. Warren Throckmorton, Alan Chambers, Jason Thompson, PFOX and Focus on the Family have each publicly downplayed the harm that ex-gay survivors say they experienced. Some say that no scientific proof exists that harm occurs. That is because no one has taken the time and the care to effectively study the harm. The recent study by Yarhouse and Jones fails miserably.
Source: Peterson Toscano’s Blog
I mistakenly placed Jason Thompson in with a list of people who “have each publicly downplayed the harm that ex-gay survivors say they experienced.” Actually Jason Thomson is one of the few who have publicly acknowledged possible harm and showed some compassion towards ex-gay survivors. In his August newsletter he writes,
I had read the newsletter when it was published after Jason e-mailed me about it, but since then in writing this post, I remembered only the part where he gave his definition of ex-ex-gays, a definition that seems both simplistic and inaccurate of the ex-gay survivors who attended our conference. He wrote:
Jason also acknowledged harm in the form of a public comment he left on Ex-Gay Watch. In prefacing a point about Ex-Gay Watch he states, “It is evident that ex-gay ministries have harmed many.”
Although Jason and I can disagree on several items, he has publicly shown his willingness to consider the harm that ex-gay survivors say they experienced. I apologize for overlooking Jason’s previous comments.
I’m glad that Jason Thompson, at least, is willing to look at what you present, Peterson.
I interviewed him several years ago for an article for a LGBT magazine, and I found him very reasonable and personable. I’m glad that unlike some people, he hasn’t grown out of that. (Well, he doesn’t get help from Focus on the Heterosexual Conservative Christian Nuclear Family, so that probably helps.) He’s not rejecting his own position, but he’s willing to consider evidence…okay. I can deal with that.
As for the ones who won’t consider, well, I’m not at all surprised. Think I’d actually pass out from shock if they did consider. I don’t even think of messages like yours as potentially reaching them, though of course you can’t completely shut the door on possibility. I think of them more as reaching people on the fence, such as parents who don’t like their kid being gay and wonder if these ministries really work, or self-loathing LGBTs themselves.
As a former participant of his ministry, I can say that Jason Thompson has been very open about receiving negative feedback about his ministry. After I publically spoke out about my experience at his ministry a few years ago, Jason invited me to discuss (and vent) my experiences. We had a thorough two-hour conversation. While I can’t say we came to any profound revelations, I did feel that he heard my complaints.
While Jason and a few other ex-gay leaders seem to be sincere and reasonable people, it’s hard to reconcile why they continue to undermine their message by associating themselves with Exodus, FOTF, etc.
I want to add to the voices that distinguish Jason Thompson and Portland Fellowship from other anti-gay elements within the ex-gay movement.
I too have found Jason to be approachable. While we disagree in many areas, I think he is sincere in his efforts and does not see ex-gay ministries as his foothold into political power.
Recently someone inquired as to who is truthful and honest among the ex-gay movement and I responded that many of the individual ministries are genuine and sincere (though inclined to believe what anti-gay activist feed them). Jason was, among others, instumental in influencing this opinion.
There is no such thing as harm, only dissatifaction and treatment failure. This is true of ALL THERAPIES for ALL CONDITIONS. Peter, does nothing more than promote propaganda to help him deal with his own failings. He talks a so called good talk, but can substantiate nothing in the final analysis. His followers’ anecdotes are just piggy backs of his own despises. He claims 17 years of attempting to get so called help himself, but is so vague about it all, even in a personal conversation with me, I still could not figure out anything substantial. That is, what he went though looked nothing like any process of those whom I know have succeeded, including myself. You would think someone so intelligent would have had a clue prior to “wasting” 17 years! Face it, Peter is an actor, and that’s what he does best. Maybe that’s what he did those 17 years? He’ll never change until he takes off the mask of the false self and stops surpressing his own heterosexuality.
Jim, perhaps your counseling might be more effective if you were observant enough to at least use the correct name of the person about whom you are speaking.
As to the rest, after observing your responses over the past few weeks I’m not terribly surprised that you have absolved yourself of all responsibility for any harm that may come to your clients.
Sorry, I eliminated the “son” from Peterson, horrible sin, and harm, I’m sure.
He’ll never change until he takes off the mask of the false self and stops surpressing his own heterosexuality.
I wonder if there is a single ex-gay or ex-ex-gay for whom that sentence makes sense. I wonder if there is a single stuggler that is “surpressing his own heterosexuality”.
But what does one expect from someone who just ignores you when you itemize and illustrate harm? Condescention and arrogance.
Well, Jim, I knew we had differences but you made it clear that they are huge.
No harm?! Juries and licensing boards have been fooled then for quite some time. How about this video clip of rage therapy? You think maybe people describing Genesis Associates were just dissatisfied or failures?
Hey, note the description of rage therapy in the Genesis link: “…”rage therapy” which included beating pillows while screaming.” Does that sound familiar?
Telling people who live morally pure lives that they are sick or evil because they are attracted to the same sex seems harmful to me. Telling people they need to have demons cast out to heal seems harmful to me. Telling people that they need to give up “feminine” pursuits such as playing piano seems harmful to me. Promising orientation change and then shaming persons when they do not change seems harmful to me. These practices and many more go beyond dissatisfaction and treatment failure.
So much more to say about this, so little time…
Someone PLEASE take away that man’s (JP, that is) license before he can make any more “dissatisfaction and treatment failure.”
Thanks, Warren (aka Dr Blog). Those two people on the UTube video were not in therapy to heal homosexuality were they? The other things you describe are not kosher to the therapies me or most other reparative therapist conduct. Why would anyone tell someone to stop paying the piano (that’s ludicrous), unless of course they were absolutely horrible, then in that case you would have to break it to them gently?
A see a growing trend among folks who provide and promote therapies and ministries that seek to help people overcome or find freedom from or suppress same-sex attractions (lots of phrases describe the work).
When confronted with the harm that some of us say we experienced as ex-gays, the ex-gay provider reacts, Oh, I don’t do those crazy things! It sounds to me like a defensive move to deflect the blame all the while removing the responsibility to consider the practices that the ex-gay provider does offer that may cause or contribute to the harm, (even when the therapy/ministry is offered sincerely in love and faith).
Maybe I should be clearer: It is not the therapy, in and of itself that is harmful, rather, the misuse of the therapy. Sorry, I stand corrected.
Jim: No, the people on the video were not trying to change their attractions. But what difference does it make regarding the harm inherent in the approach?
I suppose it is not inherently harmful to beat a pillow with an object. However, to tell someone that doing so will lead them to awarenesses that they cannot gain in other ways is to increase the likelihood of implanting an explanatory framework that is not the clients. And it is hard for to see how that does not increase the risk of harm.
Peterson: Is there any stance that a therapist could take whereby the therapist collaborates with the client to live in contrast with same-sex attractions that would not be considered harmful by you?
Let’s avoid comments like that please. We don’t call LaBarbera “porno Pete” here either — it’s a matter of venue and this isn’t the appropriate one for that. Thank you.
Warren, I wish I could answer your question easily and simply, but in talking to a many people who represent diverse ex-gay experiences, I know that multiple factors add up to producing harm–some of it directly from the ministries, therapies or theories they consumed and that consumed them.
I often encourage ex-gay survivors to take responsibility for their own role and faulty thinking that helped contribute to the harm. This doesn’t let the ex-gay providers off the hook for their parts, but it helps survivors see how they were willing participants (unless they were forced as youth) and therefore can help them more past anger and unforgiveness.
As you have pointed out before, not enough research has been done to helps us understand the various harms people have encountered along with their causes and influences. Sadly the dialogue up until recently has been in answer to questions like “Is Change Possible?” with disregard to the costs associated when people pursue and are aided in changing and/or suppressing their sexual orientation.
Peterson – I am not asking for specific techniques or approaches. I am wondering if there are any objectives besides living as an out gay/lesbian that you find acceptible for clients and therapists to pursue?
Timothy on this blog listed three objectives (correct me Timothy, if I am incorrect, I cannot find the comment): 1. come out as gay/lesbian, 2. celibacy & 3) if heterosexually married, work toward keeping the marriage intact, especially if children are involved.
Do you believe therapists can ethically support clients pursuing those goals, assuming the therapeutic approaches to do so are valid and the client has given informed consent?
Dipping into this chain of comments after catching up on another chain in which I’ve been engaged in a discussion with Peter Ould. And in light of that conversation, I just want to express a bit of appreciation for Jim Phelan.
At least, Jim, you don’t pretend to be tolerant!
Thanks, NickC.
Dr. Throckmorton, when people on the other side of this debate support my right to be happy in my relationship with another man, and cease trying to prevent me from joining him in a civil marriage (we already have a religious marriage from a church that believes differently than most), I will have no problems with reaching across the aisle and supporting people who are attracted to the same gender but choose to live a celibate life or be married to a woman (so long as they are honest with themselves and with her).
Ah, heck, who am I kidding? This is America. They have every right to try and live their life in either of those ways and it is my duty as an American to support them in that right so long as they are not harming others in the process (for instance by lying to their spouse and living a double life). It’s just a little bitter to understand that the others on the other side of this debate will use these people as an example of why I should be denied the ability to lead a happy life with the man I love.
The ultimate answer with regard to causing harm in the context of a relaionship between a psychologist/therapist/couselor/religious organization and a gay person who is unhappy with their orientation probably starts with planting the false hope of sexual reorientation.
Helping the individual make peace with themself and find a way to live an honest life that they can be proud of would be a fitting goal. Stringing them along with the promise of heterosexuality is a disservice the individual and likely to distract them from the real issues they need to face.
Warren, I do not believe it is wrong or sinful to have gay sex or to identify as a gay man. I believe a person needs to be authentic about who they are. Now I am friends wtih at least four people who have a same-sex orientation who now live in a heterosexual relationship. They seem happy and well-adjusted. (I also know of some gay Christians who choose to be celibate.)
These folks have not needed therapy or ministry to help them fall in love and maintain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. In fact, for some I would say that the therapies and ministry they received actually made their lives more complicated and interfered with their sexual and personal development. I have met people (mostly women but men too) who identified as lesbian or gay most of their lives and then opened up sexually and emotionally to partner with someone of the opposite sex. (and I have also heard of stories about straight women falling in love with other women and moving into a romantic and sexual relationship with their new loves.)
Most of these folks though did not look to religion or therapy to do this. They simply grew as people and fell in love and partnered in a way that felt authentic to them. In some cases some of these heteosexually partnered individuals still identify as gay or lesbian because they still are primarily attracted to people of the same sex.
It is beyond my expertise to advise someone as to what is the correct path for them. Lots of people just want to feel normal. I understand this. But some of us are wired differently and the dream of a heterosexual life is not in the cards for us. For some it turned into a nightmare. Part of the journey is to embrace the life as queer folks as being normal for us. For people wtih same-sex orietation this takes courage in the midst of a society that almost exclusively celebrates, represents, and rewards heterosexuality and can punish people severely for deviating from this norm.
What I do know is about the harm that can come from trying to suppress our same-sex orientation as well as trying to change it. Stuffing it down and trying to live someone else’s life does not seem healthy to me or holy. For too long I coveted my straight neighbor’s life.
Over at Beyond Ex-Gay (bXg) on our homepage, Christine Bakke and I state,
I have met many ex-gay survivors. I seek to help raise awareness about the difficulties they have encountered through their efforts to change or suppress their sexual orientation as well as affirm the new healthy lives they have worked so hard to achieve.
On another note altogether: You all will not hear too much from me during the month of November. I am in the last stages of creating a theater piece that looks at gender-different people in the Bible, those folks who transgress gender yet remain some of the most important people in the stories in which they appear. (Wanna know who? Wait to see Transfigurations!)
In meeting and speaking with transgender folks this past year, I have grown to understand levels of oppression towards them perpetuated by straight people who represent the gender-normative society as well as by gay and lesbian people who also demand gender-normative presentations. I view the Bible as a mirror to help us see each other and ourselves in a way that can and should transform our thinking.
And for non-trans folk (gay, lesbian, bisexual and straight) in regards to trans folks, I see that the challenge is to no longer conform to the pattern of this world but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This process so often comes through listening. The same challenge exists for many people of faith who support and promote anti-gay worldly values in the name of religion.
Peterson, while we appreciate your efforts (and you know we do!) — I’m only glad you also have the patience to stick at as you do. G.O.K. where you find it.
Here’s a few words to ponder… maybe not for you, as such, but have them anyway 🙂
Guess. Who.
One wonders: could this be the same person who has always demanded to be shown the harm, and then is told it, and now says “I am not asking for specific techniques or approaches”…
(excuse me, but what bought about that change of heart??? Prior to Beyond Ex-Gay you at least pretended to care about “specific techniques or approaches”. AKA Richard Cohen et al.)
Ultimately there is but one single source of The Harm — a religiously inspired viewpoint that deems some people as automatic sinners, guided-by-satan, and deserving nothing but condemnation and abuse. Not Of God, yet, so they are secondary. We may harm them. And as they grow, knowing we hate “their sin”, we shall claim they will destroy the rest of us.
Until — until — gay men and women are free of that sort of abuse, even from the mouth of a professional therapist who gives more credence to religion than psychology … there will also continue to be people who seek to be cured their imposed “illness”. God hates me, I’m gay.
You grow up and you adopt that sort of attitude… and we all know where that will end.
In many ways “you” are those people thrown into the volcano, to appease the god, and save the rest of them from punishment.
They threw you down into the fire, and they block their ears to your cries. And they still live, blessed by God. Even as you perished.
That proves sacrificing people into volcano works, right?
Doesn’t it???
A god of Love, or a god of Spite? So difficult to chose, but some of us must.
Others do not need to chose. And isn’t life so simple for them.
(cheers mate, and keep at it! We guess it’s bad luck to wish you thespians a good season, so… we will not. Urgh, break a leg, umm, and all that.)
Grantdale has cut to the chase. Is it inherently harmful to believe that same-sex attractions should not be expressed in action? This is what I wonder specifically from Peterson since his attention has been focused on ex-gay ministries and those who counsel people who have a religious worldview which forbids homosexual behavior.
By saying that grantdale has cut to the chase, I am not agreeing with his characterizations of God in those religions (e.g., God hates SSA people).
If you believe that living in contrast to same-sex attractions for religious reasons (note I did not say denying desires or changing orientation) is inherently harmful then our discussion about what is or isn’t harmful within that framework is probably going to be confusing and may not find much common ground.
While we may agree about certain specifics (e.g., the potential harm of whacking pillows while screaming emotionally), we may be starting from fundamentally different premises when it comes to how to work with clients of either therapy or ministry.
Harmful to whom?
The question is, what is the inherent harm of the action that the belief is based upon.
What’s the worst that could happen?
Not so fast Warren. We are not a client, and we can express ourselves well enough without your interpretation.
This has nothing to do with a mature adult deciding, calmly, how they wish to live their life; although you present this as if it is. You pretend this is what it’s about, but it’s not; ultimately. So, we’ll say it even more clearly:
Forget about the “sin” angle. That’s just another way of saying “bad”, without needing to show any evidence.
So… children are raised, before they know their sexual attractions, to think that some attractions are “bad”.
Most don’t turn out to be in conflict with that opinion. Some do. This occurs without any rhyme or reason — in the best of families, the worst of. Black, white and brindle. Christian, or the other 80% of the World. North and South of the equator. Vegan, Vegetarian and carnivore. City and rural.
No rhyme or reason. It just is. It just does. Nobody has ever influenced this fact of life.
But any therapist who refuses to acknowledge what raising children in a deliberately anti-gay way, and what that environment will surely do to some of them is … wilful.
We have been really unhappy about your attitude toward Peterson, et al, and Beyond ExGay on this issue, Warren. You have a perfect opportunity to learn, and your first response has been to question this as an attack on Exodus and to besmirch the motivation and the history of ex-ex-gay people. You have a blind spot, with such people.
Talk to them, properly. What’s the harm?
After you’ve done that, you will then be in a position to rewrite your guidelines. And, hopefully be, at that point, able to include all people in conflict with anti-gay opinions.
If, on the other hand, you merely wish to become an expert on techniques to help people force themselves to have sex with people they aren’t really much attracted to… jeez, do you have any idea how much you could be otherwise earning in parts of California or Nevada?
Your promotion of anti-gay social norms is at odds with your otherwise expressed concerns.
Talk to Peterson et al.
Let’s back off a bit here. I’m not sure I see anything improper about Warren’s original question of Peterson:
Before we assign ulterior motives, etc., perhaps we could hear the answer? I’ve certainly asked similar questions of Alan Chambers, Warren, etc., without a dark or nefarious motivation. If two people are discussing an issue without any common basis for understanding, then the discussion will most likely be long and contentious, without resolution.
Let’s find out what common ground exists, if any, before we get lost in the debate.
Peterson and grantdale suggest that I conflate religious disapproval with social disapproval; that I refuse “to acknowledge what raising children in a deliberately anti-gay way, and what that environment will surely do to some of them.” On the other hand, I do not believe I do that. I have not experienced anti-gay feelings first hand, but I have talked in depth to numerous people — gay, ex-gay and ex-ex-gay — who have experienced hatred due to their desires. In contrast to the statements of grantdale and Peterson, I do believe we take the real existance of this reality into account in our framework. Perhaps we can express it more clearly but our framework is written with the aim not to stigmatize either same sex desires or conservative religion in our framework. For the professions, clients must set the value direction.
In addition to clients who integrate spirituality and same-sex attractions, what the framework takes seriously is the fact that people who are same-sex attracted can reason through all of those issues and still come to the conclusion that, although they are gay in their attractions, they do not believe it right to engage in homosexual behavior. My question that has not been addressed that I can discern is: for those people, is there an acceptable therapy and/or ministry? Does any therapy that supports those people then become inherently homophobic and unacceptible? This is my ongoing question to you all and to those in the mental health professions. If therapists support their conservatively religious clients in pursuing congruence with their faith, are they, then, by definition, doing something harmful?
Further, is it spiritual violence to believe homosexual behavior is wrong or raise your children to believe this? It appears to me that dialogue must start with assumptions presented clearly. My question to Peterson on my blog came from this belief. If Peterson, grantdale or whoever believes that therapists should not work with people to align themselves with their belief that homosexuality is wrong, no guidelines or framework seems feasible. Essentially then, therapists would be required to attempt to persuade clients that their religious beliefs are harmful. To me and the lion’s share of my evangelical clients, this position is a non-starter. At least this is where I am stuck in my reading of Peterson’s and grantdale’s criticisms.
david — we understand your concern. I don’t see anyone having a go at anyone here, as such, if that’s what you mean. But I think it is important that Beyond Exgay (ie not just Peterson) have a fair push forward. These people are the other side, the majority, of what the exgay groups “achieve”.
(As you well know, and I assume most do, we’ve never … urgh… been so much a nong to waste 17 years of our lives going the exgay way. Much as we’ve spoken and read from Peterson, and “get it”… we still don’t get it. Not sure we ever will. This isn’t about us.)
When Beyond Exgay announced their original launch conference — coinciding with Exodus’ — Warren was, to put it kindly, extremely rude and dismissive. Alan Chambers’ reacted like they’d appeared with Uzi’s.. For all that has ever been claimed by Exodus about “exgays are a threat to gays”… one had more than an insight into projection at that point.
Honestly, we don’t think this is a suitable forum for Beyond Exgay to open up and “discuss” their horror stories etc. Sorry. Much as we too would like to be voyeur… 🙂
They are better taken off line at this point, and that is exactly what we’d be encouraging Warren (as example) to do. Perhaps we should have said that specifically, but we assumed he would take us to mean he should contact Beyond Exgay directly. They’ve asked for it — and we think they deserve that, at least.
(No links etc deliberately… all concerned know exactly what we are referring to)
The other issue is more broad, and, we think, suitable for here. We’ll get to that.
Does that help split things?
Warren,
I think at the base of your question is a larger unstated issue: is homosexuality a sin or is it evil?
I apologize in advance for taking a winding approach to this, but I think it will help clarify my point.
I know it is orthodox theology to say that all sins are the same. But we all know that this is NOT how the Church, society, or any of us here really believe or respond to undesired behaviors.
When I was growing up there were a whole lot of things we didn’t do because “we were Christians”. Some of those were evil, some were sins, and some were just unholy behaviors.
For example, we didn’t go to movies or have a television. Women didn’t use much make-up. We didn’t go to bowling alleys or smoke. None of those things were sinful, necessarily, or would damn your soul to Hell, but they weren’t part of our Christian witness to the world. Some folks in the church did these things – but they were discouraged.
Then there were things that were universally bad for everyone: drinking, cursing, extra-marital sex. These were sins but we also knew and expected that sinners did these things. It didn’t make them evil people and we had acquaintences that did them. But as Christians they were forbidden to us.
And then there was evil: murder, rape, theft. Those who did these things were evil. You shunned them or jailed them but in no way did you associate with them.
You ask if there is a place for the church or religious people to declare their objection to homosexuality. Yes there is.
But that is not what the church has done. It has taken homosexuality from amongst those things that are “sin” (such as premarital sex or lying) and classified it as “evil” on par with murder and rape. And it has then declared that those who engage in homosexuality are evil on par with murderers and rapists.
This is what Peterson is talking about. Not the “we don’t do that” type of attitude, but the “you are the enemy of God” type of attitude.
When you ask, “Is it inherently harmful to believe that same-sex attractions should not be expressed in action?”, my answer would be, “That depends on what you mean by ‘should not’“.
Let me clarify what I see as the question.
All other things being equal, would any therapy (or ministry) which supports a client who considers acting on same-sex attractions wrong (even if only for themselves) be considered harmful?
If such a person seeks help in living celibate, for example, or emphasizing their opposite-sex attractions (if they have them), and a therapist assists them in this goal, would that always be considered harmful? Are there any circumstances under which this would be considered not harmful?
For any discussion about what is harmful, and how therapy can be made not harmful, this would seem to be an important context to understand from the start.
David and Warren, I’ve crawled out of my study to say that I disagree. For one I do not know of a method or therapy or theory that I can say does not contribute to harm.
No one knows.
I’m not saying one does not exist. The problem is no one has taken the time and care to explore the harm that many of us have experienced. How can one endorse or create a new approach until we better understand the factors that contribute to the harm? If not, you may end up recreating the wheel.
In order to seriously consider the harm that people experienced in therapy and ministry, you do not need me or anyone to state what might not be harmful. You need to look at the evidence we have, study it and hopefully then you will see where others have gone wrong in their theories and methods.
We launched bXg in April of this year and only have posted a handful of the narratives we have received. This new voice–those who have experienced harm– is new to the discussion but vital. It is likely that we represent the majority of people who have undergone ex-gay treatment in the past 30 years.
Warren perhaps one of the most helpful contributions you can make at this time is to conduct a study of 500+ ex-gay survivors who spent at least two years pursuing an ex-gay route and who say they experienced more harm than good. You can then better understand, from a research stand point, what harms exists and their causes. We can also consider the good that ex-agy consumers say they experiened to see if that could have been gain another way without the addition of all the harm.
I do not need such a study. I know about this first hand and daily interact with people whose lives have been negatively affected by ex-gay therapy (both Christian & secular) and ex-gay ministries.
Warren: Timothy is asking about ‘sin versus evil’, but my question is about Evangelical counselor/client relationships. I’m not trying to derail Timothy’s question (which I am interested in); but to ask for some additional insight from you.
“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” [I Cor 7]
This passage of scripture is fairly black and white. It is probably one reason why some Evangelical denominations will remove a pastor that is a willing party to a divorce; and also one reason why some teach that separation is a safety-net for attempting reconciliation (and not a stepping stone leading to divorce).
Case 1. Let’s say a Christian pastor wishes to discuss with you his impending divorce, and requests your non-legal therapy to help him cope with divorcing his wife. That is, he is determined to sin.
Case 2. Let’s say a Christian woman wishes to discuss with you her impending separation. During the weeks that follow, she states that she is not open to reconciling with her husband. Months later, she states that she is in love with another man, and wishes your non-legal advice to help her cope with divorce, and then, remarriage. That is, she is determined to sin.
Divorce is fairly common, even among Christians. It is ‘sin’ to many Evangelicals. You wrote previously that the client sets the moral direction of the counseling/therapy. I think you imply now, that Evangelicals will not endorse nor counsel someone that is choosing sin.
I am not trying to entrap you, but to understand where you believe the Evangelical therapists ‘draw the line’ or declare a ‘non-starter’ during their counseling partnership with their client that has (in the view of the client and therapist) chosen a lifestyle (or path or direction) of sin.
Sincerely; Caryn
Timothy’s post above on evil vs. sin is one of the best IMO I have ever read on this entire topic.
Ask a typical ex-gay minister if he/she believes that homosexuality is a sin as any other and he/she traditionally has pointed out, “yes”.
Watch what some of them do in regard to the culture war and the dynamics change to “evil” — otherwise the bill of goods could not be sold.
As far as the “church” in general is concerned, with the “traditional reading” of Romans 1 — it is no mystery how the concept of evil got plugged into a homosexual orientation and/or behaviour.
“Because of this” (God gave them over.) Because of what? Genetics? Poor environment? “Reparative” issues with one’s parents?
With Romans 1 looming in the background, it is no surprise that evil gets sliced and diced into the picture.
Bottom line: the church has trouble with homosexual *orientation*, not merely behaviour. Behaviour may be more offensive to them, but enter a gender “atypical” person into the congregation’s midst, and there is trouble afoot.
You hit the nail on the head: sin vs. evil.
Warren,
For all your words we have yet to hear you use the most important one, professionally.
Therapy.
As a professional, what is a the therapeutic value of what you attempt to do?
*** What are the psychological theories your practice is based on?
*** What are your outcomes?
*** If “client satisfaction” is your criteria, do you adjust for residual effects of transference, euphoria, wishful thinking or a desire to please outsiders? You measure this how, and when?
*** If you do not have any results to report — despite the apparent years of practice — what are you anticipating will occur and why?
*** How do you identify a suitable candidate, or an unsuitable one? A willing one, or an unwilling one?
*** Do you intend your “S.I.T.” efforts on the client to be temporary — i.e. to stabilise them for future work — or do you present this as the end-game?
We think better than to imagine that “people can do what they want to” is your basis for understanding either psychology or what constitutes a healthy life.
Indeed, “be what you want” is not an opinion we’ve seen from you about psychology or life except in regards to people attempting to be exgay. Pandering to people’s immediate expressed desires is not something, to us, that otherwise sits comfortably with your general opinions or behaviour.
Quite obviously you make an exception for ex-gay, and you should be able to explain why you do that: and in sound professional terms.
We’d also appreciate you providing details about the type of person that presents to you.
One could assume, from the way you talk, that these are mentally-stable, mature adults making a level-headed decision in full knowledge and without fear, delusion or superstition driving their motivation.
Are they? Some? Most? All?
Are these, as example, mainly adult homosexuals from Hindu, Muslin and Jewish backgrounds who have — independently — come to a rational decision they wish to live according to conservative Christian religious thought? People who simply chose you at random in the Yellow Pages?
Or are these people who have been raised within a highly anti-gay religious environment; fearful that if they do not conform to those notions they will burn in hell forever? And they sought you out because they knew your personal opinions?
(As example, consider Alan Chambers who claims to have been a 6 year old so disturbed in his sleep that he would visit his parent’s bed just to be assured that they hadn’t been “raptured” without him and left him to his wicked fate. If a six year old child behaved in such a disturbed way in other circumstances, and equally clearly out of an unwarranted fear introduced by adults hoping to influence the child’s behaviour, we don’t doubt you would have no qualms about examining the psychology behind those fears. Yet, one only need introduce “conservative religion” into the mix and you suddenly seem unwilling the psychological consequences.)
We realise you are somewhat in a quandary with regards to what you will want to say in public.
On the one hand you are personally invested in a religious mindset that views homosexuality as wicked and to be utterly rejected and discouraged. To disagree with it would run counter to your own identity. On the other hand you know that, psychologically, there is both no reason for such vehement opposition.
You are also aware, albeit rejecting of the implications, that the social environment — in large measure motivated by overt religious viewpoints — is one that inculcates pre-adolescents into the idea of homosexuality as wicked and to be utterly rejected and discouraged. And it does it long before they are aware of their own sexuality.
Overcoming those ignorant and negative opinions is a crucial and well-recorded part of growing up as gay or lesbian and becoming a mature, stable adult. We all must do it, with greater or lesser success. It is a particularly difficult passage for those people who have absorbed anti-gay opinions into another important part of their identity.
We wish it were not so. But it is.
The ultimate question for you is: as a psychologist, do you actually help people integrate themselves in a healthy and sustainable way? Or are you a proxy for a religious minister, simply prolonging and possibly exaggerating a conflict that has been introduced from outside?
————————–
ps: about your question, do we regard any approaches as both suitable and non-anti-gay for those in conflict: yes, of course we think there are.
We assume the question was rhetorical — you and we have discussed this many times before. Not sure why you ask, again, actually.
grantdale – I’ll start at the end of your comment:
I know you know this from reading the SIT Framework but we are not ministers. We help people integrate in ways in a healthy and sustainable way. I believe the available evidence is that for some, that may mean living in alignment with their beliefs which forbid any sex outside of heterosexual marriage. For others, it will mean embracing a gay identity and so on. It is not up to the therapist to set that direction, so SIT is not prescriptive. We say that clearly.
grantdale writes:
This over simplifies the value clarification process. We are aware that feelings change so we are not simply assessing how someone feels this session or that. Rather, we focus on chosen values and help people separate their beliefs and values from social pressure and/or other issues. I keep answering this question the same way so I assume no one believes this or perhaps, you do not believe this is possible.
Your questions about research and theory would be well addressed to gay affirmative therapy too. Much of what the professions have had to say about this arena have come from Shidlo and Schroeder — not an adequate base either. We do not have sufficient research on which to make enduring policy. We do know that a client centered approach is well received by clients and may be the most cautious approach in absence of clear evidence for the professions to favor a value position. We have begun a program of researching SIT and hope to have something to report over the next couple of years. I did a preliminary report on therapist helpfulness rated by clients undergoing change therapy but we need much more.
Caryn – Some evangelical therapists would refer in those cases and some would not. I probably would not. In the SIT Framework, there is an allowance for referral if the therapist feels the counselor-client pairing will not help the client. In such cases, informed consent should help resolve this before it gets to an impasse. In any event, therapists who are coercive rarely stay therapists.
Peterson wrote
The evidence we have is what people say. Where I feel you are at odds with me is that I am open to both the reports of those who say they were harmed and those who say they were helped. The evidence we have supports the view that some are harmed and some are helped. By agreeing that some people get exactly what they need from ministry does not invalidate that awful things are done in the name of ministry and that ok things are sometimes misapplied to cause harm. Regarding your suggestion for a study, it would take lots of money to do that properly. I would be happy to be on a team of researchers who were adequately funded to take a look at outcomes.
I never appreciated the word “some” before I saw how Dr. Throckmorton uses it. It can be used in almost any situation to cover almost any result, since most results of studies don’t show 100% or 0%.
For example: In the Jones study, some (11%) demonstrated some (going from a Kinsey 5 to a Kinsey 4) change in sexual orientation, and some (89%) didn’t report a change in sexual orientation. And some (about 25%) of the original participants dropped out of the study.
Really, some can use this tactic indiscriminately to muddy the waters of just about any debate. It isn’t exactly lying, even if it does give the wrong impression (i.e. some can equal 11%, 25%, 55%, 75% or even higher)
I have learned something new. I am just not sure that I would feel right using it myself, but I am sure that some will have no qualms about using it.
I can appreciate what you are saying John, but I’m afraid we would all be guilty of such if our statements were to be parsed so finely. I guess the best one can do is be specific when the data exists, and candid when it does not.
One need not be so coy Warren. It’s here.
We also had, several years ago, some rather pointed questions that you seemed unwilling to address at that time (let alone in the paper). And for very good reason:
And you know what we’re about to do now. We’ll ask again: if a positive client perception is your measure of good psychological practise, then you cannot possibly object to anti-gay viewpoints being promoted. In fact, hearing such opinions were “rated favourably” according to your study.
Other equally “helpful” approaches included the therapist being negative about “lesbian and gay relationships” and “not appropriately” supporting such relationships.
What these clients did not want was a therapist who “tried to help you feel good about yourself as a gay man or lesbian.”
I’m not sure why you’d point to your (admittedly small) study as in any way supportive of S.I.T. and it’s helpfulness — if anything it would merely confirm suspicions about what is actually going on.
But who can tell?…
Still don’t know a theoretical basis for your S.I.T. Still don’t know what you actually say or do to clients. Still don’t know who those clients are. Or the therapeutic outcome. Does your claim of neutrality means you are therefore not being “helpful” in the ways your study (of 28 people) suggested you should be?
Frankly, making negative comments about the most common approach taken by therapists is no substitute for supportive evidence of your approach. Either stand or fall on their own merits, and I’m looking for your reasoning behind your SIT.
But on that: your comment about “much of what the professions have had to say about [GAT] have come from Shidlo and Schroeder” is simply too extraordinary as to begger belief. That is an absurd statement from you (not even sure Ariel Shidlo would appreciate or die laughing at such undeserved flattery.)
“Gay Affirmative Therapy”, as such, has been practised for decades. The literature is replete with discussion of it from a long list of distinguished authors, whether you care for their opinions or not.
Apart from a legion of positive and (now) long-term outcomes, GAT does at least have a solid foundation to begin with: that homosexuality is not an illness, and does not condemn people to any sort of life (let alone an awful one).
It follows and acknowledges — openly and honestly — the fact and the effect of negative social and religious attitudes, condemnation and anti-gay behaviour that all gay men and women have absorbed during their lifetime.
GAT is simply a counter-weight to those negative attitudes. It does not create a “sexual identity” (let alone a sexual orientation), and it is utterly non-prescriptive in terms of how people will live. People seem best able to determine a positive life if they are not driven by fear and ignorance and self-disgust, but you are welcome to present any evidence that The Gay is an exception to that observation.
But what is one to make of something that promises “sexual identity therapy”?
What is the therapy?
How would “identifying” with something one is not — if a client was to do that — differ from delusional thinking, and should the reinforcement of such thinking ever be considered a positive professional outcome?
Nobody needs spend $120 on a therapist to be informed “you don’t have to have gay sex”.
Send them our way. We’ll happily tell them that — for free.
Surely, there must be more to it than that.
Warren: thank you for your answer. I’ve come to look at the debate as four categories: National/Political, Church, Therapy/Counselor, and Individual.
You’ve greatly helped me to understand aspects of the debate within the Therapy/Counselor category, especially from the view of a Christian and therapist. This is very appreciated. May our Lord bless you for your honesty and willingness to dialog. Sincerely; Caryn
He killed himself… he was a young trans-person… Julie my friend wrote to me about the event a few days ago… he was only 16 years old… he was a Christian… Julie’s a Christian… I’m a Christian… yeah… maybe…
Julie attended his candle-light vigil on Friday… I talked to her today on phone… she’s doing ok. I hung up the phone. The ‘click’ sound and silence was a bit too much… I finally cried.
Maybe I’m finally lowering my guard… maybe… I can’t tell. Maybe I’m feeling….
But I can’t yet look in the mirror… because I’m afraid I’ll see a computer scientist, a student of scripture-reasoning, a person that is so damn curious about understanding… that I’ll forget I’m talking about real people that kill themselves.
No, I’m not saying he died due to harm from counseling… I can’t even enter the dialog tonight… he’s gone… Julie’s ok… and I can let go… and in the tears, I just feel very, very small.
I’m posting below what I wrote to Julie a few days ago. Maybe it’s like leaving some roses on the gravestone… maybe… and then, maybe I can look in the mirror tomorrow, and see a human being again…. Yeah, just maybe…. In tears; Caryn
***
Dear Julie:
Concerning the 16 year-old that took his own life… I too, am deeply saddened.
I think that no man really knows the rope-clay vessel that trans-persons are…
No man can see the fissures that are growing, hidden by deep glazes… no man can truly tell when the vessel is over-filled, so near to breaking from the weight within… and then, when the vessel shatters even in our own hands, and when no man can put the vessel back together, then all men weep over the shards left upon the ground.
And after the weeping, I think that Jesus comes by… and picks up every shard… the shard-echoes of his youthful songs in church, He sends to a friend to encourage her… the shard-memories of his stealing cookies on 5 year-old bare feet in the night, He sends to his parents to comfort them… the shard-joy of his laughter and humor He sends to school chums to heal their fears… but the shard of prayer, He keeps for Himself and takes it home to heaven…
And there, that prayer-shard is held by His nail-printed hands ever so gently… and as His eyes turn to flames, the prayer-shard becomes diamonds that glisten in the eternal sun… and the diamonds are placed into a crown of gold… and then that crown is placed upon the young man’s head by the very Jesus we adore.
“Welcome home,” He whispers so kindly, “I understand.” And then the young man hugs the One that truly understands the rope-clay, the fissures hidden, and the weight within.
Not a shard is wasted… not a bit of the clay of this life is lost… in the economy of God.
Sometimes, I like to think
that the proof of God’s love,
is not so much found in the glory of vessels unbroken
or even found in the magnificent treasure within,
But the proof of His love
is rather found,
I think
so often,
in His handling of the shards.
Much love always;
Caryn
Thanks so much for sharing that beautifuly tribute, Caryn.