Homosexuality: The use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse (InterVarsity Press, 2000), 189 pp.
by Dr. Ralph Blair
To the ” ‘can’t change’ argument of the pro-gay apologists,” the Exodus director Bob Davies concludes: “This book is the answer!” But he admits: “The process of overcoming homosexuality can be long and arduous, and, too often, defense of Exodus-type ministry appeals to simplistic arguments and weak research to make its case.” In this same issue of the Exodus newsletter, the front-page testimony of another “ex-gay” director admits: “I am still not sexually attracted to women [and] I find that, when I am sexually attracted to other men, it is more because of an emotional connection.” And that’s homosexual orientation!
In the Jones and Yarhouse chapter on “change,” the authors neglect to note that some of their cited researchers later rejected their claims of success. They neglect to note that other cited research has been discredited (e.g. the psychiatrist’s wife was the actual “researcher” and the already-failed “successes” were hand-picked by the “ex-gay” leaders). They cite a faith-based “change” ministry but neglect to note it’s been shown to be worse than fraudulent (e.g. the ministry’s founder was engaging in sex with the young men who were seeking his “ex-gay” solution).
Jones is a psychologist and Wheaton College provost. Yarhouse teaches psychology at (Pat Robertson’s) Regent University and writes a column for Christian Counseling Today. Last year, in CCT, Yarhouse reviewed some “change” research. He concluded: “These results cannot be takes [sic] as evidence that homosexuals change their sexual orientation; rather, these results should be viewed as support for the religious values and motivations in helping people who contend with same-sex attraction and behavior refrain from homosexual activity.” That was fair. But weeks later, he explained: “This [paragraph] should have read, ‘The findings should not be taken as evidence that therapy can produce such change, as no significant findings for professional therapy were reported; however, involvement in the ministry was associated with change of ‘feeling-based sexual orientation’ and behavior.” Nonetheless, here’s the book’s conclusion on what “change” means: “Christians who contend with homosexuality are not required to change their sexual orientation [but must] refrain from homosexual action.”
At the top of the first page of the first chapter, they begin with a decorative quote from Christian philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff. Two pages later, they footnote Wolterstorff after they assert that “our assumptions and presuppositions [are that] homosexual behavior is immoral” and after they state that “Science has nothing to offer that would even remotely constitute persuasive evidence that would compel us to deviate from the historic Christian judgment that full homosexual intimacy, homosexual behavior, is immoral.” But neither quote from Wolterstorff is about homosexuality! The authors assert: “Consistent with Wolterstorff’s exhortation we have aspired to have this book be a case study in good scholarship conducted ‘through the eyes of faith.’” They fail to note that Wolterstorff has warmly keynoted EC’s annual summer retreat for gay and lesbian Christians.
They posit that “Science has nothing to offer” that could possibly challenge their own opinions – an odd thing to say in a book subtitled, “The use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate.” They ignore the wisdom of Pascal, who argued that Christian interpretation of science must be informed by “the faithful report of the senses.” Pascal (citing Augustine) did so in order that those who know the science would not “laugh at our credulity with regard to [our] more recondite truths, such as the resurrection of the dead and eternal life” and (in the words of Thomas Aquinas) “render our religion contemptible.” Sadly, three decades of empty “ex-gay” promises have had just such effect in disillusioned souls who now want nothing more to do with Christianity.
They perpetuate the false accusation that the 1973 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual revision was prompted by “threats from gay rights groups.” The American Psychiatric Association revised the entire DSM by a two-fold scientific criterion: all psychopathology had to be, in its full-blown manifestation, subjectively distressing and socially disabling. Had homosexuality been retained, it would have been the only category failing to meet this standard
Jones and Yarhouse say “revisionists” choose science over the Bible: either “The Bible is wrong” or “The Bible is vague.” But what if it’s the Bible interpreter that’s wrong? They fault “revisionists” for turning to “their own experience or intuition.” What would they have said to Christians from Copernicus to Wesley to Harriet Beecher Stowe? Eventually they admit that “biases make it difficult to see the findings for what they actually are,” but they don’t apply this to themselves. They boast the Bible is “crystal clear” in support of them. Is that why an Old Testament scholar and president of The Evangelical Theological Society conceded that there is nothing in the Old Testament that corresponds to homosexuality as we understand it today? Is that why a leading evangelical theologian conceded that, for purely historical reasons, we can’t turn to the New Testament for specific data on homosexuality today? And they footnote this theologian in support of their calling homosexuality “defiance to God’s plan,” but they don’t quote his saying that homosexuality can be seen as a “talent” to be invested as per Jesus’ parable.