Correspondence with Andrew Nunn, Archbishop of Canterbury's Correspondence Secretary

Mr Phelim McIntyre, who states he is ex gay, has published correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s office, raising concerns about the Archbishop’s policy of imposing Stonewall materials on children in Church of England schools and his subsequent concerns about gatekeeping and the policy of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his office at Lambeth Palace. It is important in itself, and we suggest stands on its own as a matter of concern without other issues raised in the article here

I have decided to post the original letter and the email correspondence between myself and the Correspondence Secretary Andrew Nunn …..

Your Grace

I am writing to you concerning your statement that the Church of England must “embrace” the revolution on human sexuality to express my concerns as to the inviting of Stonewall into Church of England schools to tackle homophobic bullying and to ask you to consider, what I believe to be, a much healthier anti-bullying program that is more in line both with the science and psychology around homosexuality as well as more in line with the position held by the Church of England.

As someone who has worked as a youth worker and a community worker with gay and lesbian special interest group and now amongst the ex-gay community, as well as from personal experience as an adolescent, I am aware of how damaging homophobic bullying is. While I commend the Church of England’s commitment to stamp out bullying I am concerned that by opening the door to Stonewall, the issue will not be tackled in either a healthy way or in line with the position of the Church of England on human sexuality. Stonewall, while not taking the view too publically, believes homosexuality to be biological in cause despite evidence to the contrary. Because of this by allowing Stonewall into Church of England schools they will be given to platform to proclaim the born gay myth. There is also the issue that they are militantly anti the ex-gay message, including giving an award to Patrick Strudwick for his “exposure” of this type of therapy which included the call to persecute those therapist who offer psychological therapy sexual orientation change and their nomination of Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joint, the former Bishop of Winchester, for the “bigot of the year award” for stating in the House of Lords that many people do not believe that science has proven homosexuality to be biological and that some people have successfully changed their orientation from gay to straight, during a debate in the House of Lords.

I also believe allowing Stonewall to bring their anti-bullying campaign into Church Schools because they are focussing on apparently homophobic behaviour at the expense of other acts of bullying. As a Cub Scout leader I know that children of primary school age use words without understanding their meaning. By allowing Stonewall or others to focus on homophobia we are allowing the children to be exposed to details that are not appropriate for that age, while at Secondary school age allowing the focus to be on anti-gay bullying creates an unhealthy hierarchy of bullying where all bullying is wrong.

Finally I also believe that the position Stonewall takes is unhealthy as it reinforces sexual confusion amongst adolescents encouraging them to take labels for sexual orientation. This then has the same result as homophobic bullying amongst the sexually confused, whose testimonies, from ex-gay leaders such as Andy Comiskey and Rev Mario Bergner through to the Stonewall young gay spokesperson , tell as how homophobic bullying reinforced their confusion and caused them to take the label of homosexual/lesbian.

I enclose an introduction to an alternative course from the USA entitled Acception. It is written by Christopher Doyle of International Healing Foundation as a more positive alternative to the pro-gay campaigns developed by Stonewall and their counterparts, and Mr Doyle has stated that this course could be reworked for the UK context. If you would like to discuss this or have any questions of my own esperience please do contact me.

Your faithful servant

(Phelim McIntyre)

Cc Rt Rev Tim Dankin, Bishop of Winchester
———————
Thank you for your 19 July letter to which I have been asked to reply.
Though opposed to same sex marriage for the reasons he gave in his speech to the House of Lords at the Second Reading debate http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5069/archbishop-justins-speech-to-the-lords-on-the-governments-gay-marriage-bill the Archbishop recognises that through Parliament society has made its view very plain that there has been a sea-change in attitude toward homosexuality.
As you say, the Archbishop spoke about this in his Presidential Address to the General Synod http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/5098/there-is-a-revolution-archbishop-justins-address-to-synod and called for the Church to be more aware of the trends in society and more alert to how our words and actions can associate us in other people’s minds with the kind of homophobia that is totally inimical to the Christian Gospel.
Elsewhere, but not in his address, he has mentioned a number of charities and organisations that do excellent work in school tackling homophobia and bullying. Stonewall is one among several such though a widely respected leader in the field.
Yours sincerely

………………
To: Lambeth Palace
Subject: Re: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)

Dear Mr Nunn

Thank you for your reply to my letter of 19th July. I am sorry to have to say that I am disappointed with it as it does nothing to tackle my concerns about Stonewall’s position on homosexuality that is contrary to the teaching of the Church of England, and their being asked to give advice on this subject when there are other resources available that are just as positive but not contrary to the Church’s teaching. I therefore need to ask for clarification on how the Church of England is going to handle the promotion of homosexuality as normal and unsinful by Stonewall in light of the document that came out under the Listening Process instigated by the previous Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yours sincerely

Phelim McIntyre
……………….
Subject: RE: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)
I think you’ve misunderstood Mr McIntyre. Stonewall is among a number of organisations that have been mentioned in connection with work in schools to tackle homophobic bullying. None of the organisations are being asked by the Church to talk about homosexuality. When it comes to bullying, who better to speak about it than someone who has been bullied for being gay?

Andrew Nunn
Correspondence Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace, London, SE1 7JU,
……………….
Subject: Re: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)

Dear Mr Nunn, I think that you have misunderstood my concerns. As someone who was bullied for being gay and now receives weekly threats of violence (including death threats) because I am publicaly ex-gay I have a better understanding of what teenagers go through than many. I doubt that you have been to a Stonewall anti-bullying presentation or a Schools OUT presentation as within that they state that homophobic bullying is wrong because of the person’s sexuality and go further and state that people are born gay, despite there being no scientific evidence to support this position. This is part of their anti-bullying curriculum. The psychological evidence is that homophobic bullying reinforces sexual confusion, Stonewall ignores this to promote a “born gay” agenda.

As to listening to those who have been bullied for “being gay”, this is why I sent details of the Acception Course which includes testimonies of those who have been bullied for being gay but which does not reinforce the confusion teenagers feels.

I hope that this clarifies my concerns and why neither of your responses have been adequate.

Yours sincerely

Phelim McIntyre
……………
Well Mr McIntyre, since we’re putting cards on the table, I am gay and I have no doubt whatsoever that I was born this way. You utterly contradict my experience and that of the vast majority of gay men and women by promoting a specious theory that people can change their sexuality. All research shows that they cannot. There are doubtless some people ”“ and you may be one of them ”“ who are genuinely bi-sexual and able to chose a heterosexual or homosexual focus to a sexual and emotional relationship, but most people aren’t and can’t. Please understand that your experience ”“ which I do not deny or disparage ”“ is not typical of that of the vast majority of LGBT people.
As you will know, in the USA, Exodus, the Christian ”˜reparative therapy’ group that ruined the lives of untold number of gay men and women has shut up shop and its former leaders have publicly apologised for the terrible harm their organisation did to a large number of homosexuals. And not before time.
In the area of homophobic bullying, the Church must stop telling people what the answer is and with humility listen to find out what the question is. As far as the majority of gay people in this country are concerned, the Church is the problem, not the answer. Archbishop Justin is understandably concerned about that and anxious to listen to their experience and to learn how to move forward with them.

Andrew Nunn
Correspondence Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace, London, SE1 7JU
………………
Subject: Re: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)

Dear Mr Nunn. As to laying “cards on the table”, nothing in my email was not in my original letter which raises the question as to whether you read it. In the letter I commend the Archbishop of wanting to tackle bullying but raise my serious, experience based, concerns as to the involvement of Stonewall.

Contrary to your claims of being born gay, please may I encourage you to bother to read the scientific evidence as to the biology of homosexuality. Professor Michael King, founder of the Gay and Lesbian Special Interest Group at the Royal College of Psychiatrists and a practicing homosexual stated during a debate at the Houses of Parliament earlier this year that there is no evidence that homosexuality is biological in causation. The American Psychological Association, in their statement against Reparative Therapies, states that there is no evidence for people being “born gay”, as does the Human Genome Project. Both Simon Le Vay, who did the research into the difference in the hypothalmus in gay and straight men, and Dean Hamer, who did the research into the gay gene, also state there is no evidence that people are born gay, infact Dr Hamer has been involved with research that has stated there is no evidence for a genetic component in homosexuality. I can provide details of all the relevant research if you wish. Also, using the Twin Registers in Australia, research has been done into the levels of when, in monozygotic twins where one is gay the other is also gay. The concordance (rate) is 13%, if we compare this to issues where we see evidence for a biological cause, such as breast cancer, we get a concordance of 80%. This raises serious doubts as to your claim of being “born gay”.

As to my testimony – I came out at the age of 13 at at the time had no sexual feelings for females. Under the various definitions I was homosexual. By the time I was in my twenties I was in a gay relationship. Now in my forties, I have not had a homosexual feeling for over 10 years. I am not bisexual by any form of definition as I have no sexual feelings for men. As supported by psychological research that has been presented to annual conference of the American Psychological Association, such as the paper by Jones and Yarhouse, all of which were read for the Anglican Listening Project which I had the privilege to be part of, I have changed my sexuality and I am disappointed that the gatekeeper to the Archbishop of Canterbury would be so discriminatory to dismiss the testimony of healing in such a naive way. You claim not to deny or disparage my experience yet claim that I am bisexual. This shows that your words are not supported by your email.

As to your statement about Exodus International, many groups within Exodus International disagreed with the statement that came from Alan Chambers and told him so, and I can provide links to these statements. These groups have since gone on to form Restored Hope Network and Hope for Wholeness – both of which have people with testimonies for change. It should also be pointed out that Mr Chambers never underwent any form of therapy to change his homosexual feelings so is not qualified to speak out in the way he did. Across the globe there are thousands of people who have been helped and healed by groups that came together under the Exodus umbrella and they are starting to rise up and speak out against the anti-ex-gay bigotry that they are experiencing. As to how harmful these things are, are you aware that the “research” that claims harm, from Dr King and from Schildo and Schroder, carry no psychologically recognised definition of harm and no recognised measurement of harm? That the research, such as Jones and Yarhouse, and Nicolosi et al, have included the issue of harm in the research and found this type of therapy to be no more harmful than any other psychological intervention. Would it shock you to know that the prefered type of therapy for unwanted homosexual feelings, as stated by the United Kingdom Council of Psychotherapy, British Psychological Society, British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, American Psychological Association and other “professional” groups – therapy to accept your sexuality – has no proper research into its safety and effectiveness? That the only papers published have been by the practitioners with no independently viable statistics? That in one case the “evidence” for the acceptance of the clients homosexuality include the person engaging in promiscuous, unprotected sex, the involvement with BDSM practices and the taking of party drugs? How about that the preferred psychological intervention with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in Health (NICE) for Myalgic Encephalomylitis causes serious harm in over 25% of cases, and NICE’s preferred psychological intervention causes serious harm in nearly 20% of cases treated for anorexia? This compares to less than 10% for Sexual Orientation Change Efforts. Even past presidents of the American Psychological Association who practice therapy to help people accept their sexual orientation support sexual orientation change efforts http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/

Please take the time to read the book that came out of the Listening Project of Human Sexuality “The Anglican Communion and Human Sexuality” (SPCK PUblishing ISBN 9780281059638) before commenting further.

In His service

Phelim McIntyre
(ex-gay and proud)
…………..
Subject: RE: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)
You write “I came out at the age of 13 at the time had no sexual feelings for females. Under the various definitions I was homosexual. By the time I was in my twenties I was in a gay relationship. Now in my forties, I have not had a homosexual feeling for over 10 years. I am not bisexual by any form of definition as I have no sexual feelings for men.” ”“ so do you have sexual feeling for women?

Andrew Nunn
Correspondence Secretary to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Palace, London, SE1 7JU,
…………..
Subject: Re: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)

Yes Andrew, I do have sexual feelings for women and none from men, unlike when I was in my teens when I only had sexual feelings for males and none for women. This reality is something that Peter Tatchell recognises as possible.

Subject: RE: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)
So you are heterosexual. Why define yourself by reference to something that you no longer are?

A
………….
Subject: Re: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)

Because this is my testimony. I was gay and now I am not.

I also need to clarify my concern about Stonewall. I am a qualified youth and community worker and, as part of my job and because of my sexuality at the time, I ran gay/lesbian/bisexual youth clubs and also helped with gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender support groups. I had a number of young people who were sent to the youth group who had expressed a concern that they might be gay who were sent to the youth club because they must have been gay, in a number of cases it was because they were sexually abused by men. Taking the time to talk with them, they had strong sexual feelings towards females and little or none towards men, but when they were molested had had an erection. I have since then talked with guys who have been told they must be gay because of the slightest of things (one got a slight erection when he was tested for bowel cancer). While a lot of teenagers may be sure of their sexuality there are others who are genuinely not sure, and the position that many people take traps some of these in a sexuality that is not theirs. We need to find away to support those who are sure of their sexuality, while not entrapping those who are not yet sure. While Stonewall’s position supports the former it does not help the later.

Phelim
………….
Subject: RE: A reply to your letter (Our Ref: 6965)

Well let’s not get into a discussion about abuse. I spend a lot of time here dealing with people who have been abused by priests and so know more than you probably think about abuse survivors. And as for young people being ”˜trapped in a sexuality that isn’t theirs’ ”“ well I’ve met plenty of homosexuals who have been trapped in a straight sexuality because of social pressure but never a heterosexual who has been trapped in a homosexual one – perhaps until now.
If you were once attracted to men and now are attracted to women, that’s fine; no one has a problem with that. There are undoubtedly a lot of people who could say the same, or the opposite. One need only think of circumstantial sexual attraction ”“ same sex schools, prison, the armed forces. What very few do however is to self-identify by reference to that historic change, rather than their current sexual preference. It is an issue because the ”˜ex-gay’ movement is so widely discredited and plainly has an anti-gay agenda. You spoke about being threatened and even receiving death threats. It’s not because you don’t fancy men any more, it’s because you identify with an American anti-gay movement that has done terrible harm to people, and which seeks to undermine the credibility of peoples lives and relationships. It is widely regarded (though not formally designated) as what the Americans call a ”˜Hate Group’. And by associating yourself with it, inevitably people will hate you. Sorry.

Andrew
………..
Sorry Andrew, rather than being the “hate group” that you speak of ex-gays have legally protected status against discrimination. Would a former head of the American Psychological Association speak out in support of the ex-gay movement if it was as widely seen as a “hate group” as you think?

As to abuse, I was sexually assaulted by a woman at the age of 9 and raped by a man when I was 16. As a counsellor I regularly deal with male victims of sexual abuse.

The threats I get are generally worded that I am telling lies because I claim to have changed my sexuality, that I am still/was never was gay, and if I continue to help others then they will use any means to stop me. My testimony frightens people, but that won’t stop me sharing it.

Phelim