The video below is of a speech by the President of NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) on what NARTH does and doesn't officially believe. I'm blogging about it because I had an extremely difficult time finding out just that: where NARTH officially stands on a whole host of issues but a couple in particular, one being whether or not NARTH has as its official position that homosexuality is a mental disorder. You may read about that struggle here: "NARTH's Stance: Answer/Solution Homosexuality" and here: "Where NARTH Stands and What Must Be Done: "Gay," Homosexual Culture."
Before you proceed to the video, I'd like to add to the "debate/controversy" not for the sake of sensationalizing or drumming up blog Internet traffic but rather to continue to encourage NARTH to heighten its clarifications.
On the issue of "pray away the gay": Dr. Christopher Rosik makes a simple declaration in his speech that NARTH does not believe that one may "pray away the gay." The problem here is that prayer is given short shrift. Praying away homosexuality is not necessarily as waiving a magic wand by or over one who has no depth of spirit (the softened heart; the Holy Spirit of the whole truth, God of Jesus Christ). Also, such depth of spirit is not evenly distributed within believers from one to the next. Two different people can have great depth that manifests in completely different areas of their respective lives. The degree and type of temptation and the struggle to overcome given temptations do differ from one person to the next. Where one will be greatly aided and even instantly by Christian prayer concerning homosexuality, another person of equal or greater Christian spirituality will struggle more and longer with the same issue. None of us is identical to the next until we are all fully one with God, as God and Jesus are one. So it is with these understandings that I take some exception to Christopher Rosik's short treatment of the issue.
I understand that he's addressing a large audience, many without the patience to develop definitions of terms such as "pray" or "prayer." Contrary to Christopher Rosik's and NARTH's statement, it is possible to pray away homosexuality when prayer is fully understood and fully done within the whole life style that is Christianity.
The next term is "choice." The same constructive criticism applies as with "pray." Homosexuality is a choice when that term is not overly confined. Given enough choices, I believe there is no person who inherently cannot change from homosexuality. There are many choices that are lacking due to bad societal prejudices leaning way toward anarchism (societal amorality).
Those things said, let me add that otherwise, I agree with NARTH and Dr. Rosik on the issues he presented.
Please also see: "Research Pertinent to the Boy Scouts of America Policy Change Debate": A National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality White Paper, by Michelle Cretella, M.D. and David C. Pruden, M.S.
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)