“Developmental and Ethical Issues in Homosexuality: Pastoral Implications” by Enos D. Martin and Ruth Keener Martin, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Spring 1981.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
Repeatedly attacking those who, concerning homosexuality, do not look to the established church as “traditional interpreter of spiritual values” – a strange approach for two Mennonites who trace their own spiritual values back to the bloody sufferings of the counter-church Anabaptists – this couple (he’s a psychiatrist; she’s given no clinical/research identification) argues for “conform[ing] to the church’s teaching” and not “distort[ing] traditional biblical values”. Excommunication is suggested for those who do not conform. (Mennonites suffered more than that when they did not conform.) The Martins seem to forget that while appealing to the teaching of today’s established church, they are son and daughter of what church historian Martin Marty has called “’the free spirits’, the radicals who formed the left wing of the Reformation” and of Menno Simons and his own “seeming departures from historic Christianity”. And they evidence no awareness that church tradition on homosexuality, as historian John Boswell has shown, has not been only one tradition.
This article (in the journal of the Rosemead School of Biola University) gives an incomplete picture of church history and exegetical literature. The authors fail to mention, much less interact with, Boswell’s research. They say that there is only a weak argument for a hormonal etiology but fail to mention, much less interact with research by Dorner, Rhode, Stahl, Krell, Van der Wiele, Nillius and Wiede, Tsai and Yen, Bidlingmaier, Knorr and Neumann, Brodie, Gartrell, Doering and Rhue, MacCulloch, Feldman and Waddington (to name some of the scientists who have found otherwise). Nothing is said of John Money’s research so the Martins tend to an etiologically unreasonable dichotomy between nature and nurture. Even though they do admit, rather disconnectedly, that homosexual orientation is “multiply determined and includes a complex interplay of existing bio-psychosocial factors”, they do not consistently follow through with the implications of this. In fact, though they repeat the “bio-psychosocial” concept later in the article, the “bio” part is dropped from “psychosocial origins” in their final summary. The only explanation of this can be that their suggested solution to the problem of homosexuality –“church fellowship” – could not do anything to change biological contributions.
They seem especially taken by the non-research writings of Charles Socarides, a crusader in organized psychiatry for the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder. He is referenced more than anyone. Nowhere in their discussion of psychosocial studies do they even mention the large scale studies of the Institute for Sex Research (in particular, the massive work of Bell and Weinberg). Thus, they rely on the old Bieber psychoanalytic material without benefit of the very serious doubts now cast upon it by the more recent and broadly-based research of Bell, Weinberg, Hammersmith and others.
Having dismissed the possibility of a “monogamous, lifelong homosexual relationship” as an “ethical alternative”, the couple posits that the only ethical alternatives are forced celibacy or orientation change “if that is possible”. Curiously, what the Martins present as “clear scriptural precedent” for forced celibacy of others are Paul’s words about the sometimes temporary gift of celibacy he himself freely accepted. On “potential for change”, the Martins say: “True change means not just a cessation of homosexual behavior alone, but a lasting emotional detachment from homosexual identity with same –sex dreams, fantasies, and impulses largely [?] replaced by heterosexual dreams, fantasies, and impulses.” They cite the report of another couple, the Pattisons (cf. REVIEW, Winter 1981] as proof that the “ex-gay” approach works. They speak of men “who had been exclusively homosexual [who] became exlusively heterosexual as a result of their religious conversion”. This is not what the Pattisons’ data show. They also cite a Charismatic pamphlet as proof of change, taking no note of such typical expression in it as this: “He has not changed his sexual preference [but] God has given me the faith to believe that David will be healed – eventually.” The Martins list “ex-gay” organizations but they fail to say that the founders of several of them are no longer involved in the “ex-gay” movement. Being yet homosexual, they’ve been replaced in leadership by those who have always been heterosexual.
The Martins make several naïve suggestions for prevention of homosexuality. They advise, for example, that parents should watch out for a child’s cross-dressing, as though this were relevant to homosexual development. They tell parents to “emphasize the unacceptability” of homosexuality in order to aid the adolescent who’s “in conflict over whether to accept a homosexual object choice” – as if the adolescent has an option to choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual.
As REVIEW goes to press, I received a letter that reads, in part: “I was heavily influenced by a Charismatic prayer group … and as a result, I was thoroughly uncooperative with you [in counseling]. … I’m writing, first, to tell you that bitter experience has shown me that you’re right in your ministry and your practice. Had I not been so stubborn and self-righteous, I could have spared myself, and others, much grief [marriage to a heterosexual woman]. Unfortunately, I had misplaced my faith, and it took the Lord a while to get through to me.” Articles such as the Martins’ insure that there will be more such tragic detours.