“Can Sexual Orientation Change?” by Mark A. Yarhouse and Stanton L. Jones, Christian Counseling Connection, Vol. 15, Issue 3, 2008.
“Good from bad” by Lynn Vincent, World, February 9/16, 2008.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
While still refusing to admit the immutability of sexual orientation and the inherent harm of trying to “change”, Yarhouse and Jones are backtracking a bit from earlier advocacy of “ex-gay” promises. Though still trumpeting their 2007 book’s mere claims of “change” – they actually gathered no objectively verified data – and though Yarhouse has already published his own downscaling of counseling goals with gays (see Review, Winter, 2008), these two psychologists write: “We believe clients ought to be informed that some people have reported harm from making a change attempt, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts”. “Some people” would be some too many. But since virtually all who try to change their homosexual orientation admit that they fail to change, unless they change their minds about the need to change orientation, most – not “some” – experience depression over their failure and anxiety – no, terror! – of going to hell. Many attempt suicide. And some do kill themselves. If Yarhouse and Jones bought into the notion that, unless they change their sexual orientation and, failing that, unless they permanently refrain from sex, they’ll go to hell, would they experience some “depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts”? Isn’t this a question to be asked and answered by anyone who would live the Golden Rule – demanding of themselves what they demand of others?
The authors admit: “We do not believe that everyone who attempts it will be able to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.” They warn: “Strong assurances that change to heterosexuality is always assured are misguided.” But using such dodges as “everyone” and “always assured” covers up the utter failure of attempts to “change”. In their book, hardly anyone even claims to change without adding caveats of continuing same-sex attraction and behavior. Is this change?
They advise: “We do not read Scripture as promising that people who attempt change will be able to always do so.” They note: “Becoming a ‘new creature’ does not mean for everyone to be heterosexual; rather it refers to the process of sanctification, of being made holy. It means moving toward a life centered on Jesus, and we believe that such a life is much more valuable to the believer than change of sexual orientation.” They add: “holiness should not be confused with heterosexuality in these discussions about attempting to change. We do not want to discourage people who are in the change process, but we also do not want the bar raised so high for them that they feel they cannot live a Christ-centered life in the context of their current experience of attraction.” But as this is so, is demanding lifelong celibacy for all Christians of a homosexual orientation really any more realistically conducive to a Christ-centered life than demanding lifelong celibacy for all Christians of a heterosexual orientation? Does same-sex orientation include the gift of celibacy? The evidence says it doesn’t.
The features editor of World, a Religious Right newsmagazine that’s more of the world than in it, isn’t even as realistic as Yarhouse and Jones. Loaded with wiggle words, Vincent pitches programs of both Christian and Jewish “healing options [for] ‘ex-gay’ liberation”. We’re told that, through a Jewish nonprofit based in New Jersey”, Orthodox Jews “can find … alternatives” – whatever “alternatives” means. We’re told that a Catholic group in New York City offers “a support group for Catholics who want to disconnect from homosexuality” – whatever “disconnect” means. And we’re told that more parents are attending this group’s summer conferences – however otherwise engaged their gay offspring may be. We’re told that a “Stephen” from Nashville “walked away from homosexuality” – whatever “walked away” means.
Then we’re told that “in decades past, men and women routinely brushed off fleeting thoughts of homosexual behavior” but that “now, though, gay activists have succeeded in planting a seed that says people not only can but should follow such thoughts with exploration and action” – as though gay activists could fan someone’s merely “fleeting thoughts” into his going full speed ahead into “a gay lifestyle” against all familial, societal and ecclesiastical rejection. And we’re told that even those who have never “acted out” [sic] and never even fantasized same-sex behavior are “obsessing about the idea that they must be gay because society is telling them they must be gay”. Huh?
A year before publishing “Good from bad”, World ran Vincent’s cover story headed: “Hope or Hype?” Entitled, “Just how pro are these pro-lifers?”, Vincent expressed doubt over the pro-life claims of some Democratic politicians. How about a World cover article on “Just how ex- are these ‘ex-gays’?” Just how heterosexual are they? This question is a responsibility of Christians who push the “ex-gay” claims. And, as Augustine cautioned, it is not our calling as Christians to lie for God – not even to fudge the evidence, to overlook the data, to keep quiet about all the scandals of the movement and all the continuing same-sex attraction experienced by even “ex-gay” leaders, and all the tragic stories of former “ex-gays” – now disillusioned and disgusted – who have “walked away”, “disconnected,” and found “alternatives” to the empty promises of the “ex-gay” movement.
Vincent approves of “Stephen’s” saying: “churches are now realizing that the way they’ve handled this issue in the past is not the God-intended way.” But what “Stephen” and Vincent mean is that churches shouldn’t “berate people or shame them”. That’s true. But churches should not lie either. It’s not that those who honestly examine the evidence can honestly hold out hope for change. Those who honestly examine the evidence but continue to hold out “hope” know very well that they’re holding out hype. As I’ve said before, let the advocates of the “ex-gay” movement be as overjoyed by their own daughter’s upcoming marriage to a nice “ex-gay” man as they’d be overjoyed by her upcoming marriage to a nice man who’s never struggled with homosexuality and the “hope” they promise others will be revealed to be hype.
But these days, the economics and politics of evangelical publishing can’t afford the biblical mandate for a straightforward “yea” or “nay” – at least not yet on this subject.