EX-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse (InterVarsity Press, 2007), 414 pp.
“Sexual Identity Therapy” by Mark A. Yarhouse, Christian Counseling Today, Vol. 15, No. 2. 2007.
Psychologists Jones, of Wheaton, and Yarhouse, of Regent University, pose two questions: “Is it ever possible for homosexual persons to change their sexual orientation?” and “Is the attempt to change harmful?” They offer this book as a “modest portrait of positive progress” at “change” and they discount all warnings of harm.
The book is based in the claims of Exodus-screened “ex-gay” clients. But during the period of their polling, a quarter of these “ex-gays” dropped out or disappeared. This left 73, of whom 11 are claimed for “conversion” – though the authors admit that one of these has recanted his claim and two others say they still struggle with homoerotic attraction. This brings the “conversions” (variously defined) to 8. Additionally, the “ex-gays” that say they’re committed to chastity are counted as “successful” – though many of these, too, admit to continued same-sex orgasmic fantasies.
Whether so few and such fluid “conversions” constitute a “modest portrait of positive progress” depends on expectations, definitions and rationalization. The Religious Right is already exaggerating the authors’ “modest portrait”. But all who tried and failed to change– and all the dropouts – had better change their minds about their need to change or else they’ll take their failures to mean “eternal damnation” and, in the meantime, a defensive rejection of a rejecting Christianity.
Though what amounts to face validity runs on for over 400 pages, there’s very little that’s rigorous research, much that’s naïve, and even the literature review is misleading. The authors insist, rightly but woodenly, that even one change can prove change is possible. But they do not prove change. They parrot claims of change. And even these are covered in caveats and cramped with complications.
Paraphrasing Jesus to the Pharisees: Which is easier: To change or claim a change? All it takes to claim a change is to claim a change – and, over and over, claims of even the leaders in “ex-gay” ministries have been recanted or proved to be false.
And which is easier: To corroborate a claim or merely communicate a claim? Claims, of course, can be expressions of cognitive dissonance, fear-driven white lies, omissions, exaggerations, denial, “name-it-claim-it” wishful thinking, merely nominal revisions of “identity”, etc. So much is at stake for those who attempt to change. They think they’ll go to hell if they don’t change. And so much is at stake for advocates of “ex-gay” change. Yet we’re all pretty bad at perceiving self-deception – in ourselves and in others.
But “ex-gay” claims could be tested. Scans by fMRI find that lying is linked with increased activity in cortical regions – at up to 90% accuracy. A penile plethysmographic screening can determine which sexually loaded stimuli prompt an “ex-gay’s” penile tumescence. A search of computer log-ins can reveal if an “ex-gay” has visited gay or straight porn sites and chat rooms. Savvy observation can detect which bodies at the beach grab an “ex-gay’s” attention. Checking the gender of any with whom an “ex-gay” has extramarital liaisons can be revealing (Do “ex-gays” ever cheat on their spouses with someone of the opposite sex?). Have these authors found any such verification for the claims of their “ex-gays”? They haven’t even tried.
Do the authors really believe what they’re pushing? Who thinks they’d be as thrilled to walk a daughter down the aisle to marry an “ex-gay” as they’d be to walk her down the aisle to marry an actual heterosexual? Yet they cheerfully load burdens of “complicated” marriages – not to mention lifelong celibacy – onto others that they surely don’t want for themselves or their own families!
All this straining over a gnat of anatomical correctness is reputedly rooted in the Bible – where polygamy is the common marriage model. At a recent infant baptism at a church affiliated with formerly segregationist churches, I noticed that half the couples with babies were interracial or interethnic – marriages that were once “unscriptural”. And all those formerly misapplied verses are still in the Bible. Earlier on, church authorities said that all marriages were less “spiritual” than celibacy. Obviously, the Bible hasn’t always “said” the same thing about sex.
The authors are cavalier in dismissing charges that the “ex-gay” movement is harmful. But what does one do with all the guilt over failure to change? What about all the failed marriages into which “ex-gays” were pushed and all the self-blame over now abandoned spouses and deprived children? What about all the suicides? What about all the ex-“ex-gays” who’ve now thrown out the baby of their Christian faith with the filthy “ex-gay” bathwater of false Christian promises? If but one example of “change” was supposed to have proved that change is possible, why is not one tragic failure proof of harm?
All who believe it wrong to act on same-sex desires must be supported in celibacy until they change their minds. But they should not be forced into surefire failure and futility.
EX-gays? was unveiled at Opryland this fall, at the 2007 meeting of the American Association of Christian Counselors. In the latest issue of AACC’s periodical, Christian Counseling Today, Yarhouse introduces his “Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT)”. Instead of seeking to change homosexual orientation, SIT reframes the person’s identity to bring it into “congruence” with the belief that homosexuality is sinful. “Congruence,” he says, “is achieved when a person is able to identify themselves and live in a way that reflects that identity and is consistent with their principles and values.” So successful “congruence” is identifying with what one’s supposed to believe, not with what one actually feels.
To paraphrase St. James’ parody on ineffectual, would-be “do-gooders’” advice to people in need of life’s necessities: “ ‘Good luck! Snuggle into celibacy or a mismatched marriage and have a nice life.’ … What good is that?”