CONVERSION THERAPY: BANNED, BIASED OR ESSENTIAL

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York just announced a series of measures intended to eliminate so-called conversion therapy:

• Mr. Cuomo’s plan relies on economic incentives meant to discourage conversion therapy’s use on young people. Insurers in New York, for instance, will now be prohibited from covering the cost of such therapy for anyone under 18.

• That action… would prohibit the use of Medicaid to pay for conversion therapy. Centers overseen by the State Office of Mental Health would also be barred from providing conversion therapy to minors, according to the governor’s office.

How does Cuomo justify prohibiting the free choice of both parents and their children from seeking counseling for their unwanted same-sex attraction? Cuomo charges:

• “We will not allow the misguided and the intolerant to punish L.G.B.T. young people for simply being who they are,” 

Are the parents and their adolescent-teenage children “misguided?” Does Cuomo think he knows what is best for them? The horrific consequences for this lifestyle are undeniable – highly elevated levels of suicide, mental illness, depression, STDs, domestic violence, shortened life, and substance abuse. Could any therapy incur worse results!

Cuomo claims that those who administer such treatment are “intolerant to punish L.G.B.T. young people for simply being who they are.” But how does Cuomo know that they are “intolerant” rather than compassionate. He doesn’t. Instead, he has employed the carefully honed rhetoric of manipulation – tarring the opposition as “intolerant” or just haters.

Besides, are these youth really gay or are they simply going through a period of identity confusion? They is a lot of evidence that sexual attraction is quite fluid, rather than settled, at these ages. Why try to lock them into a lifestyle that dooms them to a life of self-destruction! It would seem that, in light of the horrific consequences, that almost anything should be tried to channel the youth into more a salutary lifestyle.

If there have been some therapeutic interventions that have been found to be unproductive or harmful, then make their failures known and explore or promote other more promising forms of therapy.

Instead, our pundits have condemned all forms of conversion therapy. It would be like condemning all forms of bipolar therapy because of the failure of one particular intervention. The fact that Cuomo wants to ban all forms of conversion therapy demonstrates, not a concern for the youth, but an entrenched political agenda. Instead, he should fund other more hopeful ways to address this horribly self-destructive lifestyle.

Cuomo’s sexually indulgent approach is also the approach of the Feds:

• Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president, described its [conversion therapy] “potentially devastating effects on the lives of transgender as well as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer youth.”

Their approach is to damn anything that might have the promise of helping youth to avoid a life of despair.

Last year, the New York State Assembly labelled conversion therapy a form of “professional misconduct that could put medical licenses at risk.” But is it misconduct or is it professionally responsible to help youth overcome what they regard as a problem? There are many indications that such therapy can be effective:

• There are two major studies most often cited to support the potential benefits of reparation [conversion] therapy. One, originally published in book form in 2007, was conducted by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. A follow-up to the study, which appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy in 2011, concluded not only that it was possible to change one’s homosexual orientation, but also that psychological harm was unlikely to result from the effort. (Salvo, Issue 22,34)

The Robert Spitzer study, published in 2003 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, also offers promise:

• After studying efforts on 200 volunteers who had experienced predominantly homosexual attractions for many years before beginning therapy, Spitzer found that, for all subjects, “there was a marked reduction [of homosexual tendencies]…not only on the three measures of overt behavior and sexual orientation self-identification…but also on the seven variables assessing sexual orientation itself.” (34)

Had Cuomo and others, who want to ban all forms of supportive therapy for those who have chosen to resist same-sex attraction, merely publicized against those interventions associated with negative outcomes, they might be more credible. However, they are not taking the middle road. Nor are they asking for further research to identity interventions that offer the most promise. Instead, they seek to ban all forms of such therapy, thereby revealing their own intolerance and disregard for the struggles of these youth.

Who is Saved: The Unrepentant?

 

There has been a lot of flap over reparative therapy (RP). Can it take away same-sex attraction (SSA)? Recently, the president of Exodus International, a ministry that helps Christians leave the gay lifestyle, has expressed his doubts about the effectiveness of RP in removing SSA. Alan Chambers instead prefers Christian discipleship programs focused on helping Christians resist various temptations.

No problem there. I too have my doubts about RP’s effectiveness in eliminating SSA. Although our Lord can easily remove our various temptations and weaknesses, He often leaves them for us to struggle through them (2 Cor. 12:9-10). However, this is no reason to dismiss Christian counseling. It might be helpful to understand the connection between their SSA and their early childhood influences.

However, knowledge doesn’t equate with cure. Through therapy, a female friend saw the connection between being repeatedly sexually abused by her father and her SSA. This understanding made her hesitate before plunging into the homosexual lifestyle. However, she still had the SSA and plunge she did. Consequently, she cut me off. (Despite all of the propaganda about Christian families cutting their children off as they take this plunge, I have no knowledge of such a family. Those Christian parents that I know have tried desperately to maintain a loving relationship with their wayward children. Instead, in every case of which I am aware, it is the children who reject their parents.)

However, Chambers, speaking at the Gay Christian Network, a group that supports this lifestyle, stated “we’re Christians, all of us,” and “we all love Jesus,” despite the fact that he continues to maintain that homosexuality is a sin. (World, August 11, 2012, 13)

This is truly problematic. While we all sin, repentance (along with faith) and confession are central to forgiveness and a relationship with Christ. According to Him, without repentance, we can only expect judgment:

• Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. (Rev. 2:5, 16)

• Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you. (Rev. 3:3)

Jesus explained that without repentance, there could be no basis for eternal confidence. His disciples asked why tragedy had befallen a certain group of Galileans. Jesus answered:

• "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. (Luke 13:2-3)

Consequently, we have no Scriptural authorization to assure the unrepentant kidnapper or pedophile that they are Christians or that they are going to heaven as long as they merely profess a faith in Jesus. This isn’t a saving faith. It’s delusion. A faith that saves is a faith that repents. I cannot claim that I am trusting in Jesus if I refuse to do the things He tells me to do. This isn’t trust. If I trust in my doctor, I will do what he tells me to do. If I don’t do them, I really don’t trust him.

Although Chambers’ assurance to the Network was inclusive, it left God and His Word out of the picture. Sometimes love requires a warning and not a false but soothing word.

Chambers made a serious but common mistake. I pray that he will see that the approval of God is more important than the approval of men and that he will confess his mistake.

Christians have no Right to Speak

My Response to a Respondent Critical of the Christian Message Regarding Homosexuality:

I am glad that we can agree that it is wrong to prevent others from seeking help for their unwanted behaviors or desires. However, I think that you have characterized Christians in a needlessly negative and pejorative way. Personally, I can’t blame you. Western secularism surrounds us with the message that Christians are “bigoted,” “homophobic” and just generally intolerant. (Perhaps instead, it is the prevailing secular culture which is intolerant of Christians!) It’s hard to escape these characterizations. Even many of those raised in the church are now turning away or at least attempting to radically change the church into a form that might be more acceptable to society.

I also feel that pressure. However, as a Christian, my first calling is faithfulness to God and His revelation, even if it means loosing friends and social approval. Primarily, this means that I feel the responsibility to make a defense for the now widely despised faith, and to challenge those ideas that are now competing for the hearts and minds of our youth.

Although you probably genuinely believe what you’ve written, please understand that I have to challenge your characterizations:

• “Yet the fact remains that Christians (or a certain species of Christian) seems overly interested in the sexuality and sex lives of others and often spread slander and malice – in addition to a good deal of self-righteousness – condemning homosexual people.”

I don’t know of any true Christians “condemning homosexual people.” We are all sinners whose only hope is in the mercy of God. Consequently, we realize that we are in no position to look down on others. Therefore, our mandate to love includes all people, despite their sexual orientation or behavior.

In fact, the Christian faith does more to dignify the marginalized than does any other religion, even secularism. We acknowledge that the gay person is beloved of God and created in His image. In our view, he is, before all else, a precious human being and not someone to be defined by his sexual behavior or SSA.

In contrast to the image that materialistic secular humanism has carefully promoted for itself, it lacks any basis for valuing others beyond the material. The material world has no other basis for evaluation but the superficial and material – a person’s physical appearance, productivity, viability, and contributions to society.

Also, in the physical world, there is only inequality. There are the stronger and the weaker, the smarter and the duller, the educated and the uneducated, the upstanding and the criminal. Consequently, the secular plea for equality and human rights is both insupportable and hypocritical. While they base their claims on human rights, they really have no basis to believe in them. In the secular world, everything is alienable and changeable – merely a matter of molecules-in-motion.

You claim that “Christians seems overly interested in the sexuality and sex lives of others.” This is a charge commonly made against Christians. Instead, of dealing with the issues – and these never seem to find their way into the secular media – secularists find it more convenient, however illegitimately, to attack the person rather than the ideas. (I think that this is a poignant reflection of where secular morality is taking us.)

On another level, shouldn’t we defend ourselves against such charges? When we are called “hate-mongers” and the Bible is called “hate-speech,” shouldn’t we reply? And if we fail to do so, wouldn’t this silence be interpreted as agreement? Wouldn’t our youth then conclude that we have no answers?

When we see Christians loosing their jobs and being expelled from universities because of their beliefs, shouldn’t we speak up on their behalf and also about the truths that govern our lives? However, when we try to do this, we are accused with being “preoccupied with sex!”

You claim that Christians have failed to speak out against the corporate thieves. I think that you are greatly mistaken about this. However, if these thieves or adulterers began to demand an “Adulterer Pride Month,” and required the schools to carry texts and teachings on the “Virtues of Adultery,” I think that Christian protest would be more apparent.

You conclude with these words:

• “I think it is time for Christians to leave the subject of homosexuality for the time being and put their own house in order, before thinking they have either the right or ability to direct the morality of others.”

I hope you are saying the same thing to the media, to the universities, the public schools and, of course, to our government officials – all of whom are speaking forcefully in favor of homosexuality. I would imagine you have no problem with their talking on this subject. Why then the disparity? Why can’t we also talk on this subject?

I think that this reflects the growing intolerance of society. Only certain people – those who agree with me – are allowed to voice their opinions.