The men who seek help from evangelical counselor Warren Throckmorton often are deeply distressed. They have prayed, read Scripture, even married, but they haven’t been able to shake sexual attractions to other men — impulses they believe to be immoral.
Dr. Throckmorton is a psychology professor at a Christian college in Pennsylvania and past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. He specializes in working with clients conflicted about their sexual identity.
The first thing he tells them is this: Your attractions aren’t a sign of mental illness or a punishment for insufficient faith. He tells them that he cannot turn them straight.
But he also tells them they don’t have to be gay.
Sort of interesting the different take on the same thing by USAToday and WSJ. One aspect of this coming from the APA, a largely irreligious, secular outfit, is surprising
Perhaps the WSJ version offers a more nuanced approach for TEC. So far, TEC seems to insist on one, and only one, approach–people experiencing same-sex attraction should affirm and act out the urges. But APA suggests that there is an alternative, without endorsing therapies to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. Surprisingly, the APA seems to allow that a viable alternative is to “suppress” homosexual urges–i.e., not giving into them.
One of the problems I see with TEC today (and really with society in general) is that it does not offer support to single men and women. Oh, sure there are often in larger parishes a “singles group” which seem largely to be designed to be matchmakers, or else comprised mostly of elderly widows. But what efforts are made to give support to single men and women to live chaste lives, either for a time or forever?
It seems to me that the early Christian Church (contrary to revisionist history) did value, encourage and support marriage, and not just as a safe outlet for sexual desire. But the early Church also did value, encourage and support the single man or woman, and not necessary in terms of monasticism.
Perhaps churches could offer an alternative to the “gay life”. Perhaps churches could offer single men and women disciplines (prayer and active service come to mind) to help them combat the “sinful desires that draw you from the love of God”.
We have all sorts of urges which we suppress–the urge to steal, to murder, to gossip, to lie, etc. If I have the urge to have sex with my neighbor’s wife, I do not have to act on it. And there are ways to suppress the urge.
There is a lot of pain and deception underlying same-sex attraction and the resultant behaviors. A lot of pain and harm always follows this because when we sin, we harm ourselves and others.
All true therapy and pastoral care and the journey of discipleship ordained for Christians is reparative.
Dr. Nicolosi and other reparative therapists have had a lot of success in treating the painful underlying symptoms and positive emotional and behavior changes result. There is really no such thing as sexual identity or orientation. Scripture does not recognize it. We are all disoriented apart from God. I Corinthians 6:9-20. The journey of healing is the same journey of discipleship and sanctification that we must all take. It is painful and difficult – repentance, confession, discipline is not painless or easy; crucifixion of the fallen flesh hurts at times, like surgery or dental work. (Galatians 5:24)
Discipleship is a painful, but glorious journey and Jesus is with us. And, afterward, ‘it yeildeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness.’ (Hebrews 12:11)
I recommend Dr. Nicolosi’s and Janelle Hallman’s books and the other resources that are available at the NARTH site.
Temptation is not necessarily sin. If that were so, we would have to adopt Bennison’s (and other’s) contention that Jesus sinned.
I don’t know whether “reparative therapy” works or not. I gather that in some cases it may, in other cases it doesn’t.
My point is simply this: there are ways in which the Christian can resist temptation. The Church can help teach us those ways.
Sometimes God answers prayers with “yes”, other times the answer is “no”. (See St. Paul on this subject–for him answer to the prayer to remove of the “thorn in the flesh”, whatever that might be, was “no”. Someone may pray that God cure his cancer; he may seek human therapies to cure his cancer. It doesn’t always work.
Holy singleness isn’t a sin, and it may well be what God intends for some people. Marriage isn’t necessary for everyone, nor is it necessary for salvation. For those who are called to marriage, it is a blessing. For those who are not called to marriage, marriage is a curse. All I am suggesting is that the Church can and should be more helpful to those who either temporarily or permanently not called to marriage, deal with those “sinful desires that draw you from the love of Godâ€. Or, if you prefer the older language, “the flesh”.
There’s an interesting interview with Dr. Satinover in World Magazine on the same subject http://www.worldmag.com/articles/15721. A subscription is required to read the whole thing. Satinover makes the point that reporters and scientists generally say homosexuality is genetic, natural and unchangeable but when you look at the research articles and source documents the evidence and conclusions say the opposite. We see that happening with the USA Today article vs. the WSJ article.
He also says, “We like to think of professionals [in the psychiatric field] as a cut above the man on the street in terms of their fiduciary responsibility and independence of thought, but sadly it’s oftern the opposite. Professionals tend to be on average very influenced by social trends and fashions, especially if those fashions influence their ability to continue practicing and be a respected member of the community.”
#4 Sounds like belonging to the HB. I have never understood the genetic argument. If this is in fact true, Darwin got it wrong. I can not imagine a gene less likely to survive natural selection.
[blockquote]…Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA’s task force on the issue. “But we have to acknowledge that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else.”[/blockquote]
it may transcend everything else
Isn’t that the point of having a religion. Anything less is just a hobby.
#6 I had just copied that same quote. I thought that was a really welcome insight coming from the APA.
I think that the “gay is not mental illness” position has its limits. Just as there are “some people” for whom religious identity transcends all else, there are “some GLBT” people who are manifesting a serious problem. Growing up in L.A., I heard too many Lesbian speeches about how their sexuality was a “choice” (more accurately a reaction formation, perhaps) against abuse or other damaged relationships w/ men.
A teenage runaway who enters a gay subculture is not healthy. No, the gay sex might not be the biggest issue to confront. But there are issues. This is why the rush to ordain and bless is not consonant with religious identity, our actual understanding of GLBT (even the APA is in flux on this), ecumenical consensus or any number of other issues.
Some saner day, perhaps, a DSM will have a “Justice Histrionics Syndrome” or something to describe what we have on our hands right now.
#6 Or a “Bush Rage Syndrome.”
I don’t think sexual orientation is cast in concrete. Too many factors impact on an individual to posit “born/created that way” as sufficient cause. I found myself thinking last sunday that Gay Pride is really Gay Arrogance. What other Biblically condemned sinner makes a demand for “acceptance”, “inclusion”, “access”, “reparations”? Do idolaters, do sabbath-breakers, do blasphemers, do abusers of parents/children, do murderers, do adulterers, do thieves, do liars, do the covetous? (Covetousness seems to be our era’s favorite sin.)
There is nothing wrong with either heterosexual or homosexual persons choosing to live in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom and out of love for God. The suggestion to change churches if your church calls this sin a sin and condemns it shows a lack of perspective characteristic of relativism. The APA is a victim of 30+ years of Gay whining. How many people who had the possibility of change have lost that opportunity because it was considered unethical to support them in their quest for change. I’ve read the material available on the NARTH site and I think it should be given serious consideration.
Dumb Sheep.
One’s inclination to certain sin or one having trouble with a certain temptation is NOT a sin. But ACTING on a sinful inclination or a temptation is. The trouble is we live in a society that is far more Freudian than Christian when it comes to sex. We have been brainwashed to believe that “everyone’s just got to have IT” even if IT’s physically dangerous, bad for society, disease promoting, etc.
We are nothing but animals who MUST exercise our glands as regularly as our bowels or be miserable is the attitude. (There even was a pop movie directed at impressionable teen-agers recently: “She’s Just Gotta Have IT.”) I suspect there probably have been some, maybe many, saints who had temptations to homosexual activity, but until the modern Gay Rights scam to get churches to bless and society to approve of this particular sin–this temptation was treated as just another temptation some people have a problem with. Consequently many with this temptation–just like others with powerful temptations to different sins–found their salvation (and joy in this life) in obeying God and immersing themselves in God.