Ex-gay therapist Dr Joseph Nicolosi will be speaking in London, England, later this month, in an event sponsored by Anglican Mainstream, CARE and Living Waters UK.
Interestingly, the former two conspicuously describe themselves as “mainstream“, when the decision to give a platform to the increasingly discredited Nicolosi is anything but mainstream. Even a group as conservative as Focus on the Family appears to be distancing itself from Nicolosi.
One wonders whether the organizers are aware of just how extreme Nicolosi’s message is. While the conference brochure tactfully uses the phrase “possibility of change” four times, for Nicolosi, it is more than a possibility – it is a certainty, given the right circumstances and/or therapy:
When [the guy with the homosexual problem] begins to trust men, his homosexuality disappears.
The organizers of the event appear to be aware of the potential for Nicolosi’s appearance to be a source of controversy. According to this brochure, venue information will only be disclosed to participants by email or mail two weeks prior to the event, and the organizers “reserve the right to refuse admission to anyone not in sympathy with the aims and nature of the event.”
Too bad Rudolf Hoss is not still alive. He certainly would not be turned away. Maybe Cameron could take his place?
I love the quote about male trust–I guess people into S & M community are all heterosexual.
Once again, lesbians are left out of the mix. Throw us a bone, people!
then again, maybe it’s better they keep the bone.
Aaron,
I was thinking the same thing about S&M when I read the male trust quote. Since this is a recurrent line for Nicolosi, he probably knows that some folks chuckle when they hear it coming from his mouth.
I also am still confused by the “trust” claim. Why would men want to date other men if they don’t “trust” them. I can’t speak for everyone but personally I tend to avoid and gradually disassociate myself with people I don’t trust, and I tend to prefer friendships/relationships with people I DO trust.
Once again, lesbians are left out of the mix. Throw us a bone, people!
What do we need with a bone?
Sorry, you just left it out there.
Nicolosi must have had an excellent Dad — to have turned out so trusting and well-adjusted and heterosexual and all… Wish I could have had a good Dad.
Mine just got medals in the Navy during WWII — jumping into flaming water to rescue other soldiers whose ship had been topedoed. And when he came home from the war, he only worked his ass off to support his family, built our house with his own hands, put our needs above his own and loved my Mom until he died.
He only took us camping, and taught me how to make a fire, and how to ride a bike, and most of the other stuff I know how to do by heart. He just taught me work hard, to be honest and to “do unto others as you would have them…” Sad. I turned out gay. Bad Dad.
People like Nicolosi will always go round in circles as long as they obsess about causation. Then again, I can’t imagine a man as arrogant as he appears to be admitting that he was wrong this far into the game.
What really amazes me is that otherwise intelligent people can listen to his theories and give them credence. I suspect he must be one heck of a salesman one-on-one.
I’ve spent the last several hours over at the Anglican Mainstream’s forum reading the threads and many of them in the UK are using the same “exgay” lingo that the ex gay organizations are using here in America. Some say that a gay orientation is a choice. After reading further I came to the conclusion they referred to “orientation” in the same way Exodus refers to “identity”. One poster claimed once a homosexual comes to Christ he is no longer homosexual but a new creation in Christ. So to label yourself gay or to have a gay orientation would be wrong in the eyes of God. So they refer to him as ex-gay since they no longer engage in same sex activity. Still others use celibate homosexual to describe non-practising gays. Strange as it may seem I didn’t read the words “gay lifestyle” once while I was over there either.
Sadly, when anal sex is mentioned the same poster simply refer to it as an act soley practiced by homosexuals and not something heterosexuals do since they are within God’s perfect plan for creation. How can this poster or anyone for that matter seriously accept this as fact is beyond me when I know full well I have straight friends that engage in this activity on a regualr basis.
Boy are they heavy on the far right links: NARTH, Focus on the Family, Desert Stream, Robert Gagnon….
Ken, Anglican Mainstream is extremely conservative, even by evangelical standards. As far as I’m concerned, they don’t represent mainstream Anglicanism at all.
If trusting men is the problem, wouldn’t a homosexual relationship be the cure for homosexuality?
Emproph:
Exactly. However, it is not a homosexual relationship that is formed – reparative therapists have their clients find “buddies” to develop non-sexual friendships with other struggling men. However, the obvious always escapes them – that the friendship will develop into a deeper feeling of love, and that gay men have as much ease having non-sexual friendships with other men as straight men. Often times these partnerships will develop into romantic relationships – ironically, many people have met loving partners at ex-gay retreats.
Anglican Mainstream is just a political pressure group and part of the culture war going on in the Anglican Church. They consider themselves “mainstream” because lots of African and some Asian Anglicans share their P.O.V. They certainly aren’t very mainstream in any developed country.
That would require Nicolosi to acknowledge that a gay relationship could be more than play-acting or a political statement. I’d be more than a little surprised if he ever made such a concession.
I met Nicolosi back in the early 1990s when he had an office in Encino, CA. I read his book on reparative therapy, which I found to be interesting but simplistic. I am very glad looking back that I couldn’t afford his ‘therapy’ sessions. I did enough to myself over the years without adding on psycho-babble to mess things up.
The “choice” talk is actually MUCH more important than the right would ever lead you to believe…. despite downplayed claims by some that genetic contributions are just “vulnerabilities,” the political stakes are high. The best kept findings in the poling and social psychology research show that American political attitudes on gay rights are almost entirely determined by whether or not they think people are born gay, or made gay.
Let that sink in… all the best research says that it’s hard for a person to believe we should be second class citizens if we are born different, but the (generally geriatric) subset of the population that believes we should be hidden from view almost uniformally believe it’s either a choice or a disease. Wayne Beson did some great reporting in his book Anything but Straight, when he made the link between using anti-gay PR campaigns to raise funds, and the lack of funding that these extreme religious groups put back into treatment programs like Exodus. Follow the money… anti-gay claims make for great PR and fundraising, but not even the Right truly believes in change.
Dave Rattigan says:
Even by evangelical standards? I got the impression they were very conservative evangelical to ultra-conservative fundamentalist in thought. That would explain much of the anti-gay posts that I saw over there. Not just condemning gays but showing the same zeal of bible thumping their American counterparts like FOTF and AFT use against the GLBT community here.
Thanks for clearing that up for me Dave and toujoursdan.
On some level I can understand conservative Episcopalians joining like-minded independent Anglican churches, they believe homosexuality is sin after all, but Akinola’s C.A.N.A.?!? I find it hard to believe that the average layman amongst them know what life is like for gays & lesbians in Nigeria, let alone Akinola’s approval of the violent hostility towards them there. If they do then that violates the very command of Christ to love even one’s enemies and makes them accessories to the evil being done there — in the name of God of course. That’s what is so disconcerting about all of this. They’ll spurn us and turn their backs on us out of some misguided notion of ‘Christian love’, calling good what is evil. I fear that on the Last Day the very judgment they level on us will be returned.
Another thing I found out looking around the forum is that they believe that the definition of homosexuality is all about sex. One poster even claimed that the “orgasm” was superior to the Cross for homosexuals. In other words the orgasm was our God which I found highly offensive as being both gay and Christian. Of course as I said this is one posters belief.
I can somewhat understand where that belief is coming from tho. There are those that worship sex as a form of idolatry practice like those Paul was referring to in Romans 1. They are not worshiping idols made of stone or wood now of course but worship sex over God. But to say that all homosexuals are this way by default is not only untrue but offensive to those gays that are not shacking up with every drop of a hat.
Straights are not soley defined by their sexual activities. Gays should not be either.
The right wing Episcopalian congregations who are under Akinola in C.A.N.A. and the Rwandans in AMiA are in a marriage of convenience. It allows them to be in communion with the See of Canterbury which gives them catholicity and historical continuity, as the See of Canterbury has existed since the 4th century (becoming independent of Rome in the 16th) without being under the leadership of the “heretical” Episcopal Church.
Many observers wonder how long this relationship will last. The Africans are conservative on homosexuality but don’t tow the conservative Republican agenda on other matters (wanting things like more foreign aid from the developed world, increasing awareness of environmental stewardship and state intervention in the economy to help the poor.) So this marriage may not last long.
But I don’t think they are more conservative than most evangelicals. Most conservative Episcopalians in the USA and Canada probably believe that homosexuality is innate but that gay people should embrace lifetime celibacy, rather than the TEC blessing their relationships. And very few Episcopalians in North America embrace other conservative evangelical doctrines like Young Earth Creationism. (I was living in Dallas TX for a few years when openly gay bishop Gene Robinson was consecrated. Several parishioners left the Episcopal Church for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod only to return a few weeks later when they realised they had to embrace Young Earth Creationism and other OT stories as factual.) It may be different in the U.K. though.
One wonders whether the organizers are aware of just how extreme Nicolosi’s message is.
I’m sure that they are well aware of his standpoint. They are unlikely to find many (if any) ‘experts’ in the UK proposing such clear cut possibilities of change, so they are having to import one. Indeed they note in the brochure:
“…there are so few advocates or agencies of change in the UK”
That would probably be because the two biggest UK agencies that tried reparative therapy found it wanting. TrueFreedomTrust no longer sees orientation change as a primary aim, instead supporting celibacy. And CourageUK admitted that after ten years of promoting therapy, none of their attendees were really successful in that aim; re-orientation was elusive.
The flyer promises attendees:
“…an exceptional encounter with proven scientific theory and best practice.”
I hope that attendees get some appropriate and convincing peer reviewed proof before they attempt to inflict this therapy on any more people.
Unfortunately, this wing of the church is depending on the possibility of orientation change. It gives them the ammunition needed to treat gay people in the way it has been. If someone turns up who is dealing with these issues, they can be sent away to be cured. Problem solved in their eyes.
If they accepted that orientation change therapy didn’t work for many (if any), they would have to start to face up to how to deal with accepting openly gay people in the church. And that possibility raises just too many theological questions for this conservative wing in the church, and pushes too many church leaders beyond their comfort zone in this ‘hot button’ issue.
Once again we note the intimacy of the connection between “reparative therapy” and religion.
Why should there be this link in relation to what purports to be a clinical methodology? Does the Anglican church sponsor seminars on other clinical treatments? Would you expect to see them funding or hosting a seminar in London, England, on effective management of diabetes or clinical depression or some other condition for which people seek clinical therapy?
Really, is it not the case that what NARTH offers is neither clinical nor therapy?
(Notably, “Reparative therapy” is not availaible on Britain’s National health Service, which does its best to ensure that treatments given to patients have an evidence base of safety and efficacy)