Well, I don't watch TV, but this was recommended to me because I'm a NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) supporter.
Watch the video at this link, then read my take on Alan Chambers' statements.
Alan Chambers said residual attraction remains for many he's talked to. So what? How long does it take for the old neuronal pathways to completely atrophy and even perhaps disappear and for new pathways to completely reroute the mind from homosexual attraction?
He said reparative therapists use heterosexual porn. Which therapists? All therapists? With their clients? I don't believe it. Do you?
He said "could be detrimental." He didn't say is detrimental. Does he know anyone for whom it was detrimental? If he claims it, first let him define what is detrimental. Is getting up in the middle of uncomfortable therapy dealing with truthful issues in one's past the detrimental thing rather than persevering through the therapy to a breakthrough? I say it is.
He wants to remake Christianity rather than finish the work of healing within. "Jesus didn't say come to me and I'll make you straight"? Who says, Alan Chambers? Yes, he says that. I say that Alan is completely wrong about it though. Jesus raised the dead. He can't heal homosexuality?
Alan wants not to hurt people. Who's hurt by Christians telling homosexuals that they can change, when it is absolutely true that they can change? I know people who've change, many of them. Jesus didn't tweak the truth to avoid someone being offended. He called the Pharisees "serpents." They were so offended, they murdered him via proxy. We all know it.
As for the idea that homosexuality is treated differently from other issues. Each issue gets its own level and type of attention, but there are Churches that march against war and violate city ordinances against feeding the hungry. There are Churches that speak out against killing the unborn and against falsehoods, such as that homosexuality is immutable and that reparative therapy is harmful or dangerous over and above any other psychological treatments that go way into what many people may have been repressing for years where they have to revisit painful moments to confront the reality of how those events molded them into what they would not likely have been otherwise: homosexual in this case.
I have to say that the smile on Alan's face when he said, "What if he does?" looked to me a bit gleeful, hopeful, looking forward to it. He lit up there more intensely than at any other moment in the interview that I saw.
What is reparative therapy for the male? It is the rerouting of behavior and desires away from trying to fill a void with homosexual behavior, which void was often caused by a distant father and overly involved mother. It is rerouting behavior back to what it would have been had the father been engaged and the mother not been smothering. There's more to it than that, but that's the gist of most of it.
Right now in California, SB 1172 is working its way through the legislative process where if it ends up being signed into law and allowed to stand by the courts, it will be against the law of California for any child who has unwanted same-sex attraction due even to homosexual abuse (it's a cause) to receive treatment in California for that same-sex sexual attraction (arousal) by a licensed mental healthcare provider. Imagine leaving such children without trained professional help with their unwanted Same-Sex Attraction (SSA) brought on by sexual abuse and/or neglect, etc., possibly even at the hands of their own father or mother or both. What of the parents who want to do the right thing and help their child suffering from abuse and SSA but who don't know how or what to do? They'll not have any experienced reparative therapists or others dealing with SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts) to help them other than perhaps the occasional clergy with some in-depth knowledge of the subject. It would be unconscionable. Governor Jerry Brown most certainly should veto that bill if it reaches his desk. If he doesn't, the courts should most certainly strike it down.
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)