Image: Truth Wins Out
In 2001, psychiatrist Robert L Spitzer claimed highly motivated gays could successfully change their sexual orientation. In 2003, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published his study — without peer-reviewing it. And in 2012, after over a decade of ex-gay groups such as NARTH, PFOX and Exodus International citing his research to prove their message that “change is possible,” Spitzer publicly apologized and announced he wanted to retract the paper.
Now the New York Times has profiled the story on its front page with the headline “Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay ‘Cure'”:
The study â presented at a psychiatry meeting in 2001, before publication â immediately created a sensation, and ex-gay groups seized on it as solid evidence for their case. This was Dr. Spitzer, after all, the man who single-handedly removed homosexuality from the manual of mental disorders. No one could accuse him of bias.
But gay leaders accused him of betrayal, and they had their reasons.
The study had serious problems. It was based on what people remembered feeling years before â an often fuzzy record. It included some ex-gay advocates, who were politically active. And it did not test any particular therapy; only half of the participants engaged with a therapist at all, while the others worked with pastoral counselors, or in independent Bible study.
By almost any measure, in short, the study failed the test of scientific rigor that Dr. Spitzer himself was so instrumental in enforcing for so many years.
âAs I read these commentaries, I knew this was a problem, a big problem, and one I couldnât answer,â Dr. Spitzer said. âHow do you know someone has really changed?â …Â It took 11 years for him to admit it publicly.
Spitzer has written to Kenneth J Zucker, the Toronto psychiatrist who published the study in Archives of Sexual Behavior. In a draft of that letter obtained by Truth Wins Out last month, Spitzer wrote:
I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some âhighly motivatedâ individuals.
Update: An earlier version of this article gave the name of the journal that published the Spitzer study as the Journal of Sexual Behavior — it is the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
I didn’t think Spitzer’s study had an impact on me but it did. It comes down to being “highly motivated.” Was I willing to give everything to follow Christ no matter what the cost? Only after realizing that my exgay identity was making me a hate filled bigoted jerk did I realize that this eternal suffering and self loathing was not being “highly motivated” or committed it was hate, and it masked other serious issues I had to face.
I applaud the apology. I am truly sorry that the immature Christians used the study to abuse the LGBT.
However, IF the Body of Christ had understood the ‘impartiality’ of the wisdom of heaven (James 3), and handled both the verses that promised healing AND the verses that showed God may deny the desired healing (Isaiah 57; II Cor 12), then much less damage would have been done. Likewise, the Body should have impartially presented the scriptures concerning corporate conscience and individual conscience – for it is possible to have a clear conscience and yet not be innocent of breaking the Law [I Cor 4].
We LGBT that believe are also part of the Body of Christ. It is up to us – the mature LGBT that believe – to present the fullness of truth, and the fullness of overwhelming mercy from God.
What if a new study suddenly appears? It should not matter. God will not always ‘accuse’, He may still simply give peace to the contrite, and heal them according to His definition of ‘healing’… not our definition [Is 57]. God may deny our fervent prayers for ‘healing’… and show us that His grace is so sufficient, that one day, we will boast of our ‘weakness’ rather than hide it behind a facade of acting [II Cor 12]. God may simply give us a clear conscience, even though we break the Law of Moses [I Cor 4]… and appoint such a person as an apostle of Jesus Christ.
The above are the verses we give to those that divorce and marry another woman, and thus deserve a sentence of death [Luke 16:17-18; Deut 22]. We share these verses with those that are not a virgin when they marry, even though only death is their ‘just penalty’ according to the Law even if they have repented or forsaken their sinful way [Deut 22]. We share these verses with the man that marries a divorced woman, and thus commits adultery-by-remarriage [Luke/Deut].
We need to learn to share those verses with our LGBT youth that are searching the scriptures, as well.
God will judge His believers by ignoring their offerings and prayers – not for homosexuality – but due to divorce [Malachi 2]… how was it that our family of evangelicals ignored such a scripture, or perverted it to say ‘God will judge our nation for homosexuality’?
Nor should we, the mature LGBT that believe, ignore Malachi 2… but we should say, “It is true that God hates divorce… but He will have overwhelming mercy on the divorced… how much more shall He have overwhelming mercy upon us, the LGBT?”
“If they continue in their lifestyle of divorce, will He always hate them? of course not, for ‘He will not always accuse’, and He loves His creation. How much more will He no longer accuse you – the LGBT – and pour out His love upon you even if you continue in your ‘lifestyle’?”
We – the believing LGBT – need to show our youth that the weightiest matter of the Law is ‘mercy’ [Matt 23:23]. For our evangelical family has given mercy to many, but not to the LGBT. They gave mercy to their sons and daughters that divorced and remarried, but drove away any son or daughter that was ‘gay’, or ‘trans’. They welcomed the divorced and remarried, and said that God would always hear their prayers – but our LGBT ‘lifestyle’ would make our offerings and sacrifices unacceptable to Him… thus creating partiality, favoritism, and perversion of the full gospel.
The full gospel always gives truth with mercy. Full mercy includes peace with change, and peace with no change.
I offer that the words of Jesus are true, “Do not condemn. By whatever measure you use, it shall be measured back to you.” [Matt 7:1]. Our Lord Jesus has measured back to the evangelicals the very disgrace they measured to the LGBT believers – they have lost an entire generation, and we have gained them. Our Lord turned the heart of a President around, so that His mercy would be announced in defiance of their lack of mercy. Our Lord has given to us the very mercy the evangelicals have denied us.
I offer that we should forgive the church-people that sinned against us and who sinned against the Lord Jesus. They are like the two sons that wished to call fire down from heaven upon the Samaritans – and our Jesus rebuked the two sons, not the Samaritans.
And yet, we should also stand firm in the full truth and in the fullness of mercy upon us, and upon them. We need to be mature; we need to forgive the immature. We need to train the LGBT youth that hold to the Word of God to hear the whole truth of the scripture – mercy triumphs over judgment, always, always, and always. Pray for change if you wish, and if it comes, then rejoice! But, if the change does not come, then rejoice as well, for His strength is made perfect in weakness, and He has given you peace. And if God gives mercy to those that live in adultery-by-remarriage (forbidden in the 10 commandments!), how much more shall He give mercy to you that live in a same-sex marriage.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
Wow Caryn, get that dissertation published! If Romans 1 can not be literally true then we must have a radical new look at Scripture and it’s interpretation. And Romans says people become gay because God is punishing them for idol worship.
@Mike
You sound like me đ
Romans 1 is a huge issue. It is the verse that clearly condemns homosexuality and it is not true, unless God is a radical Calvinist that simpy deems some “reprobate” If Romans can not be taken literally then what in the Bible can?
Mike, when I was wrestling with coming out the Romans 1 passage hung me up for months. Over time, I discovered some interesting things that I’ll share with you. First, the context says that idolatry, as you pointed out, was what got the ball rolling. Anyone that knows LGBT people know that many of them knew early in their life that they were gay. Far earlier than they could have been aware of rejecting God. Second, the behaviors being described were common practice in the day in pagan temples. That context is important, because it’s narrowing the scope of the subject being discussed. Third, the text clearly states that the men and women involved in this “exchanged” relations with the opposite sex and began having relations with the same sex. No person that I have ever met who was gay or lesbian has ever at one time been a heterosexual and then made a decision to be with the same sex instead. Paul says that they were given up to their lusts. Again, anyone who knows gay and lesbian couples can clearly discern that they have the kind of love described in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. Finally, in 1 Corinthians 11 Paul uses the term translated “natural” to refer to men having short hair. No one today thinks it’s a violation of the created order that men grow their hair long (which assures me that I am not a reprobate lol). The word means that which is customary or commonplace. It’s like saying that it’s “natural” to want to grow up and get married someday. If someone were to say that, no one would think the comment applied to everyone alive or that it was part of creation that everyone would want to grow up and get married. After all, Paul himself was not married and celebrated it (1 Cor 7)! What the person means is that it is a common thing among humans to want to grow up and get married. Since it is not common (natural) for people who are lovers of the opposite sex to choose to be sexual with someone of the same sex, the word choice is the right one. Paul also may be referring to the customary gender roles of the day where men were seen as the dominant player and penetrator in a sexual encounter and women were the passive, receptor of the male organ. Even rape was called “natural” because it preserved the gender roles even though it was condemned as a crime and immoral. “Natural” (the Greek word physikos) does not have an inherent moral connotation to it. Thus, you can take it literally and at the same time conclude that Paul is referring to a common religious practice of the day that resulted from idolatrous hearts. It has no bearing on the biological origin of sexual orientation or the practice of loving, self-giving gay relationships (and completes a theme throughout the Bible where same sex prohibitions are almost always in the context of pagan worship practices). I hope what I wrote makes sense to you. đ
Thanks! I am getting there.
Part 1 of 2.
Thomas is correct, in my opinion. I will say the same thing, only in a verse-by-verse manner. This is long. Hope you do not mind.
We first propose that Romans Chapter 1 shows the cause of homosexuality and strongly implies a chain of cause-and-effect. This will be our initial thesis.
We then examine Romans Chapter 1 in three sections:
Section One. Paul is offering a series of abstract statements, followed by a concrete vignette, that are quickly understood by the Roman readers of his letter: rejecting an ultimate God who left His evidence in the creation of the world (v20); refusing to honor or give thanks to the ultimate God (v21); becoming âwiseâ in our own philosophies (v22); and creating human, avian, quadruped, and reptile images to worship (v23). Therefore, God gave them over to same-sex acts (v24) because they honored a lie (v25, which summarizes verses 20, 21, and 22) and because they worshipped and served creatures rather than the creator (v25, which summarizes verse 23).
If Romans Chapter 1, verses 20-25, are documenting a chain of cause-and-effect, then all homosexuals (male or female) have created carved images and worshipped them as the creator prior to becoming homosexual. However, we find that not all homosexuals have worshipped carved images prior to âbecomingâ aware that they homosexual. So, we know something is wrong with our initial thesis.
Section Two. We then examine verses 26 and 27, âEven their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relationsâŠâ The Greek word we translate into âexchangedâ is metallasso. It is found only 2 times in the Greek bible. Therefore, scholars also look to the Apocrypha. Their consensus is that the word means to âexchange one thing for anotherâ or to âchange one thing into anotherâ. The word does not imply great time, deep struggle, or transformation â it implies an exchange that is fairly straightforward. For example, I go to my bank and metallasso my American dollars for Canadian dollars. A week later, I metallasso my Canadian dollars back to American dollars. You know, a bit of time at the bank, a bit of conversation, and done. This is fairly easy.
[Incidentally, the word is not metamorphoo, which implies much time, or a deep spiritual process, to transform/change into a Christ-like person: see Ro 12:2, and II Cor 3:18]
Of interest, the word we translate into ânaturalâ is physikos. That is, instinctual, and inborn.
If Romans Chapter 1, verses 26 and 27, are showing a cause/source for all homosexual orientation, then all homosexuals are instinctually heterosexual, and have exchanged their âinbornâ heterosexuality for homosexuality. Further, the homosexual can fairly straightforwardly âchange backâ to their former heterosexual self.
However, we find that very few individuals claiming homosexual orientation have been able to âchange backâ to their âpriorâ heterosexual orientation in a fairly straightforward manner â instead, we read of years of âstruggleâ and success for only 1/10 of 1 percent. Indeed, when we review surveys by noted psychologists, we find that highly-motivated homosexuals entering into heterosexual marriage and engaging in opposite-sex intercourse over many years fail to âmetallassoâ back to their âinbornâ and âinstinctualâ heterosexual self. It even appears that very few ever even manage to âmetamorphooâ back to their âinstinctualâ and âinbornâ heterosexual self. So, we again know something is wrong with our original thesis.
Section Three. We then examine the list of negative mindsets shown in verses 28-32. And, what a list it is, for we read that these people will become âfilled with wickedness, evil, greedâŠenvy, murder, strife, deceit, ⊠gossipers, slanders, haters of God, disobedient to parents⊠faithless, heartless, ruthless⊠[knowing] that those who do such things deserve deathâŠâ
If Romans Chapter 1, verses 28 â 32, are showing an âend game/end resultâ for all homosexual orientation, and if Romans Chapter 1 has any chain of cause-and-effect, then we just read an incredible list of mindsets that will overtake all homosexuals. However, we find well-adjusted homosexuals (male or female), working in industry and government, holding Top Secret clearances, raising children, and we also find that they are no more given to âgreed, envy or gossipâ than a heterosexual. So again, we need to change our initial thesis.
Part 2 of 2.
Conclusions: I have reasonably shown that (1) All homosexuals were not/are not worshipping stone carvings; (2) All homosexuals are not able to straight-forwardly change back to their âpriorâ heterosexuality; and (3) All homosexuals are not âfaithless, heartless, and ruthlessâ. Again, we need to change our initial thesis.
I offer the most reasonable thesis is that Paul is describing the pagan temple worship common among the Romans. In reviewing modern historical analysis of pagan temples, we learn of people that were âwiseâ in their own philosophies, as well as find strong evidence of worship of carved images of various shapes (human-like, bird-like, animal-like, snake-like). We also read that some ancient pagan temples provided heterosexual temple prostitutes (male and female), who then exchanged their instinctual opposite-sex attraction for same-sex acts during pagan worship ceremonies. Again, the most reasonable thesis is that Paul is describing an aspect of ancient Roman pagan temples, not homosexual orientation.
And, anecdotally, I have spoken to a few modern prostitutes (they were/are my friends, btw) and reviewed some literature on prostitution⊠and, in my opinion, I find in prostitutes a breaking down of instinctual boundaries â they appear to become polygamous over time, develop same-sex attractions and/or desires, and/or totally withdraw from emotional involvement during sexual intercourse. Sexual intimacy without emotional intimacy appears to be the norm for the sake of mental survival.
In Europe, prostitution is business⊠but in my state-side friends, I also find deep âscratches in the vinyl recordâ of desperate greed for safety in income, a deep envy of others that are accepted without prostitution, a need to fight for peace as a norm (that is, strife), a bitterness and anger/hatred towards God, a rebellion against parents that is deep and driving, and/or even a suicidal tendency towards acceptance of death and/or self-worthlessness (fatalism). In short, I find bits and pieces of the âend gameâ Paul describes in Romans Chapter 1.
Prostitution is not love. At best, prostitution is business; at worst, prostitution destroys the mind more often than it builds character. [I recognize this is my opinion.]
Thus, none of Romans Chapter 1 reasonably documents the development of same-sex attraction (homosexual orientation).
However, Romans Chapter 1 does very reasonably document pagan temple worship. And, I offer that it also reasonably documents the mindsets that may devastate prostitutes over time.
In Closing: What then? Why would a reasonable mother seize upon Romans Chapter 1 when her only son says that he is âgayâ? Because Romans Chapter 1 is a passage that appears to offer a source (a cause), and the possibility of reversal. Romans Chapter 1 further implies an âend game/end resultâ that is frightening. Her world is shattered â and she wants her prior son back. She therefore abuses the scriptures.
One day she realizes that she never lost her son â she only lost an unspoken expectation.
What then? Why would a reasonable person that is LGBT hold Romans Chapter 1 like a whip, and beat themselves until blood drips from their back? Because Romans Chapter 1 is a passage that appears to offer a source, and the possibility of reversal⊠and the âend game/end resultâ is unbelievably dark. Our world was shattered. We want our world back. We therefore abuse the scriptures.
I offer that we forgive our parents, for all of us abuse scriptures when we are desperate.
I offer that we need to forgive ourselves, as well⊠we need to lay the whip aside⊠we have abused the scriptures upon our own self⊠we need to rest our head upon the chest of Jesus⊠we need to enter into the rest of His mercy⊠and then live within that mercy, as He applies the balm of peace to the red furrows in our skin.
Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn
@Mike
Sweet! Open-minded inquirers always warm my heart and remind me to always re-examine my own presuppositions đ
Your argument for Romans referring to pagan temple practices is sound. Most conservatives think “liberals” are looking for a way to corrupt Scripture to fit their own political agenda. Convincing conservatives that you are sincere is the challenge.
Thomas, I will have to make one correction and one addition to what you wrote.
I’ve known many people over the years who were at one time heterosexual and later came out as gay. What was true about all of them was that they knew they were gay, but had enough hetero-funcitonality that they could function as heterosexuals. But they were well aware that they weren’t really. That’s why they are called bi-sexuals.
Regarding romans, there are two important points in addition to the imprecision of the language. First, Paul’s letter seems to be a response to another letter, wqhicbh we don’t have, sdo we don’t know exactly what he was responding to. Second, The most important word in the whole letter is “Wherefore”, sometimes trasnlated as “for this reason”. The context is not only idolatry– obvious to anyone who bothers to actually read the letter– but that this change of sexual oritentation was a punishment inflicted by god for idolatry. Naturally straight people forced to be homosexual.
Any cgay person can tell you what a drag it is to try to be something you’re very clearly not. Punishment indeed,
For me, one of the basic flaws in this wildly flawed study was that âorientationâ was never defined. If we assume for the moment that weâre discussing only homo- and heterosexuality (which is of course is flawed to being with), we canât overlook the 2005 report from the National Academy of Sciences showing that self-identified homosexual males are aroused only by male pheromones. The response is governed by the hypothalamus, a part of the brain over which we have no conscious control. This would be my definition of orientation, which is hardly a choice and is certainly nothing therapy can change. Acting on the orientation, or behavior, is a choice, though I believe profoundly that itâs beyond irresponsible and certainly unreasonable to expect anyone to act contrary to their sexual nature with other consenting adults. But even if Spitzer and the âex-gayâ therapies would have homosexual men act heterosexually, thatâs not a change in orientation; itâs a change only in behavior.
A second basic flaw is that Spitzer didnât follow up with these individuals, as far as I can tell. With very, very few exceptions, in every report Iâve seen that monitors these âsuccessâ stories, individuals who claim to have been âcuredâ of homosexuality donât maintain this supposed change over time.