The following is my reply to Exodus International is Right on Gay Reparative Therapy i | the long way home, by Paul, a "Mental Health Social Worker in Philadelphia, PA."
The theory behind the therapy–that male homosexuality was formed by a distortion of masculinity due to a failure of the man's father–made "sense". It had all the loose ends tied and–as a self-enclosed system–it "worked". And yet, there was this part of me that didn't fully buy in. Something seemed missing. It's only now, looking back, that I realize what it was:
It was a therapy built entirely around anecdotes and individuals' subjective short-term responses. As long as you stayed within that self-enclosed system, it all worked and made "sense". The second you emerged from that system, though, and went to live your life, it seems the "system" started to unravel, leaving people more messed up than if they had never undergone the therapy in the first place.
My reply to Paul's article:
You said it's subjective, but your own conclusion is subjective. My understanding from hearing directly from a number of people who have undergone the treatment desirous of change have not come out of it "more messed up than if they had never undergone the therapy in the first place." Also, Dr. Nicolosi has made clear that the treatment is not for everyone. It's for motivated clients who are not being coerced or the like. Those who begin perhaps disinterestedly or half-heartedly may very well leave more confused. That does not necessarily demonstrate that the treatment, per se, is bad. It happens to work for those for whom it is intended. Also, with an education in psychology, you should remember that often people feel worse before better. If someone mistakenly stops at a low point, that doesn't constitute reason for rejecting the therapy as inherently wrong.
As for your theological arguments, have your read Dr. Gagnon on the subject? http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexAlanChambersAtlanticInterview.pdf
Read the whole thing. I did. I'm not Pauline, but I can't argue against Dr. Gagnon's points for the Pauline Christians. The vast majority of what he wrote works for me anyway. Much of what he wrote is the same as what I've written elsewhere.
Also, do you really believe that males have never gone from exclusively interested in sex with females to exclusively interested in males and then back again? What about for other behaviors and attractions, such as for porn or any other addiction?
On one hand, you're claiming homosexuality is not a special case; but on the other hand, you're making out exactly as if it is. What's up with that? That doesn't make sense to me. I think it's worse than some things and not as bad as others depending upon the overall situation all other things being equal. I wouldn't argue that mass genocide of the innocent is a lesser sin than one act of male homosexual buggery; but that's a particular context, and we really are to watch out for the lesser commandments right along with the Greatest, which speaks directly to your claim that homosex is not a greater sin than any other (if that is your claim above – it appears so to me, but maybe you just haven't clarified enough yet).
As for adultery and the like, members of the Church are not to continue in it but rather repent and to do it no more. What it appears you are saying is that the same is not the case for homosexuals. What's the Church to do with a serial adulterer but subject that one to Jesus's progressive discipline and finally treat him as a heathen? I don't have a problem with that. Do you? If so, why? Where was Jesus wrong on it?
"...the drives themselves are not sinful, but their exercise goes against God's design for the world, and so, while no easy fix can be offered to "cure" those drives, grace and self-control must be sought to remain celibate to the glory of God–like so many believers before us have." Is that your view? What do you do with Jesus saying that the man that looks at the woman with sexual lust in his heart has already committed adultery with her within? I don't buy your idea that homosexuality itself isn't evil, whether acted out or not. It's better not, but it is still not good to even have in one's heart or mind.
Also, why are you so sure God can't or won't or doesn't heal people of same-sex desires? I don't believe you. Lastly, what makes you think Dr. Nicolosi isn't operating under God? I don't find Reparative Therapy to be inconsistent with such healing. I rather look upon it as a blessing for those for whom it has clearly worked and continues to work.
To all those who want to discuss genetics as an excuse of some sort, I would ask whether they are certain that none of the miracle healing by Jesus was of genetic diseases. I don't say that by way of lacking compassion but rather strongly to state that genetics does not automatically render a thing good and not an error to be overcome.
Also to everyone, is Alan Chambers saying that continually and even openly practicing homosexuals are not finally to be treated as heathens rather than celebrated, as the Episcopalians and some others are now doing – celebrating them as their Bishops and "married" to each other in their church buildings and by their priests, etc.? Has anyone asked him if practicing homosexuals who refuse to stop after undergoing Jesus's progressive discipline are to be treated as heathens and not members of the body of Christ?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)