Evangelicals who take an interest in the life of the mind inevitably encounter two types of fundamentalists. Although the two types are similar, they are easy to distinguish. Both types believe that their views of the scripture, creation, and/or history are the only legitimate interpretations and condemn anyone who disagrees with them and their preferred “experts.” But the first type filters their beliefs through the KJV while the second type filters their beliefs through the NYT.
Karl W. Giberson and Randall J. Stephens are the second type of fundamentalists. Yesterday, they published an embarrassingly simple-minded op-ed in the New York Times decrying the “simplistic theology, cultural isolationism and stubborn anti-intellectualism” of evangelicals who hold beliefs that differ from their own. It was the type of sophomoric, bias-confirming piece that no reputable publication would touch. Naturally, it was a hit with Times readers.
According to Giberson and Stephens, you might be an anti-intellectual fundamentalist if you are an evangelical who: dismisses evolution as “an unproven theory”; deny that “climate change is real and caused by humans”; think that “the founders were evangelicals who intended America to be a Christian nation”; defend spanking children; believe in traditional roles for the sexes; think that reparative therapy can “cure” homosexuality; and/or oppose gay marriage.
Most evangelicals who read that list would agree with some and disagree with others. The responses would vary because most of us evangelicals have been taught to think for themselves. Unlike Giberson and Stephens, we don’t simply outsource our thinking to whatever experts have been approved by the New York Times.
Had they bothered to think for themselves (or at least do their homework) they would have found, for example, that Dr. James Dobson is correct: The American Psychological Association did dismiss reparative therapy because they were caving in to gay pressure. The American Psychiatric Association admits on their website that the decision wasn’t based on clinical evaluation: “To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of ‘reparative’ treatments. There is sparse scientific data about selection criteria, risks versus benefits of the treatment, and long-term outcomes of “reparative” therapies.” Despite any clinical evidence for or against the therapy, the APA denounces such therapy because, “In the current social climate, claiming homosexuality is a mental disorder stems from efforts to discredit the growing social acceptance of homosexuality as a normal variant of human sexuality. Consequently, the issue of changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized.” Yeah, no kidding. The APA helped to politicize it.
However, for open-minded researchers, the efficacy of repartive therapy is still open to scientific investigation. Recently, Stanton Jones, a psychology professor and provost at Wheaton College, and Mark Yarhouse, a professor of mental health at Regent University, published a study in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy that showed that some homosexuals who seek to change their sexual orientation may be able to do so with the help of religious mediation. Will that cause the APA to reconsider their position? Of course not. The APA is not an organization to be swayed by empirical results.
Perhaps it will come as news to Giberson and Stephens, but the idea that counseling groups like the APA have been mau-maued by homosexual activists isn’t exactly news. The American Psychiatric Association’s decision to declare that homosexuality was not a mental illness was entirely based on political considerations. This fact is so established that NPR’s This American Life even devoted an entire episode about the event. The point isn’t that homosexuality is a mental illness (it’s not and should have never been classified as such). The point is Giberson and Stephens simply don’t know what they’re talking about. They are simply parroting the liberal secular line because it will impress readers of the NYT.
The irony is that Giberson and Stephens are denouncing their fellow evangelicals when they themselves are as “anti-intellectual” as Ham or Barton. But while the Hams and Bartons of the world may be merely annoying, the Gibersons and Stephens are completely insufferable. Before they claim other evangelicals have “rejected” reason, they might want to show they are capable of a rational evaluation of their own biases.
See also: I’m thankful Rod Dreher has taken on their ridiculous “argument from silence” so I don’t have to. Seriously, if you are going to accuse people of being against “reason” you should at least refrain from making simple logical fallacies. Could they not find a freshman student to proofread the piece for them?
October 19th, 2011 | 9:48 am
[...] piece that no reputable publication would touch. Naturally, it was a hit with Times readers.via A Different Type of Fundamentalist » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog.Tagged as: evangelicalism Cancel replyLeave a CommentName *E-mail [...]
October 19th, 2011 | 9:57 am
(H-160.991), the American Medical Association:
“opposes, the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”
October 19th, 2011 | 10:09 am
One wants to read the study itself, but here is some information from the authors’ web site:
October 19th, 2011 | 10:51 am
[...] see that Joe Carter, Rod Dreher, and Alan Jacobs make similar points in their reviews of the [...]
October 19th, 2011 | 11:17 am
The American Counseling Association (ACA) recently passed a resolution opposing the promotion of reparative therapy for homosexuals at there annual meeting in San Diego.
They join the following other organizations who issued similar statements on reparative therapy:
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Federation of Teachers
National Association of Secondary School Principals
The Interfaith Alliance
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
National Education Association
New Ways Ministries
People for the American Way
American Medical Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
The Interfaith Alliance
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Social Workers
October 19th, 2011 | 11:25 am
delio They join the following other organizations who issued similar statements on reparative therapy:
People for the American Way? National Education Association?
Notice what all of these organizations have in common? None of them based their decision on empirical evidence. Every one—every single one—took their stance because they caved to homosexual activism.
October 19th, 2011 | 11:35 am
[...] facts and truth are subjective matters of opinion By Fred Clark, October 19, 2011 11:34 am TweetJoe Carter of First Things is horrified that Karl Giberson and Randall J. Stephens would dare to besmirch the honor of [...]
October 19th, 2011 | 11:54 am
Carter: You don’t think that any of these organizations, some with major peer-reviewed research journals, have done any actual studies on this matter?
The AMA caved under the relentless pressure of an army of activists?
It’s all a grand gay conspiracy? I find that hard to believe.
October 19th, 2011 | 11:58 am
The American Psychiatric Association’s decision to declare that homosexuality was not a mental illness was entirely based on political considerations… The point isn’t that homosexuality is a mental illness (it’s not and should have never been classified as such).
So, just so I’m clear, the APA came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons?
October 19th, 2011 | 12:01 pm
And then there are these observations by John Smid, the former Executive Director of an “ex-gay” ministry called Love in Action:
•NO ONE CHANGES: “One cannot repent of something that is unchangeable… I also want to reiterate here that the transformation for the vast majority of homosexuals will not include a change of sexual orientation. Actually I’ve never met a man who experienced a change from homosexual to heterosexual.”
•NOT JUST BEHAVIOR: “I used to define homosexuality or heterosexuality in terms describing one’s behavior. I thought it made sense and through the years often wrote articles and talked from that perspective. Today, I understand why the gay community had such an issue with my writings. My perspective denied so many facets of the homosexual experience. I minimized a person’s life to just their sexuality but homosexuality is much more than sex.”
•GAYS CAN BE CHRISTIAN: “I hear story after story of men and women who accept themselves as being gay, in Christ, and finally find that life makes sense to them. Many are able to then nurture an authentic relationship with Christ because they are being honest and authentic with themselves and finally are able to accept His love unconditionally which changes the dynamic of their understanding of Him. Far too many homosexuals who are seeking Christ perceive that they cannot come close to Him if they remain a homosexual. In this mindset they search feverishly for change that will not come to them.”
•I AM HOMOSEXUAL: ”I would consider myself homosexual and yet in a marriage with a woman. My sexual desires, attractions and lifelong struggle with common factors relating to homosexuality are pretty much all in the classification of homosexual. I tried my hardest to create heterosexuality in my life but this also created a lot of shame, a sense of failure, and discouragement. Nothing I did seemed to change me into a heterosexual even though I was in a marriage that included heterosexual behavior. Very often when I am in situations with heterosexual men I clearly see that there are facets of our lives that are distinctively different as it relates to our sexuality, and other things as well.”
October 19th, 2011 | 12:07 pm
delio You don’t think that any of these organizations, some with major peer-reviewed research journals, have done any actual studies on this matter?
Nope, I don’t. In fact I know they haven’t. The APA admits that fact.
The AMA caved under the relentless pressure of an army of activists?
You find that surprising? The AMA is not a scientific organization. They are mainly just a lobbying group for their constituency. When they make a determination like this it is based on the opinions of their members, not necessarily on empirical data.
It’s all a grand gay conspiracy? I find that hard to believe.
Then where’s the evidence that these groups based their decision on peer-reviewed research studies? Surely if so many groups agree then it must be easy to find, right? I encourage you to take a look for yourself. I’d be interested (as I’m sure other readers would) in hearing what you find.
Also, it’s not much of a “grand gay conspiracy” for liberal organizations to agree with the pet liberal cause du jour.
October 19th, 2011 | 12:11 pm
Joe Carter says:
I am wondering how Joe Carter arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality is not a mental illness and never should have been classified as such. Clearly he doesn’t believe the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and so on, all of whom “have been mau-maued by homosexual activists” into saying homosexuality is not a mental illness. But according to Joe Carter himself, it isn’t a mental illness, so all of the medical associations have caved in and told the truth, but apparently for the wrong reasons.
Here is statement from the AMA provided by delio above:
So the AMA has been “mau-maued by homosexual activists” into opposing therapy based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder—which we seem to agree it is not—but apparently they are wrong to take such a stand not because it is in error, but because they are doing it for the wrong reasons.
If homosexuality is not a mental illness or a psychiatric disorder, I am wondering what the argument is in favor of psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and other medical professionals trying to help homosexuals change their orientation.
October 19th, 2011 | 12:13 pm
Chuck Anziulewicz And then there are these observations by John Smid, the former Executive Director of an “ex-gay” ministry called Love in Action:
Do you think that those who provide personal, anecdotal evidence that disputes Mr. Smid should be given equal consideration?
Ray Ingles So, just so I’m clear, the APA came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons?
Yes, that is correct.
October 19th, 2011 | 12:33 pm
David Nickol I am wondering how Joe Carter arrived at the conclusion that homosexuality is not a mental illness and never should have been classified as such.
Because I disagree with the current model in which a “mental illness” is simply whatever gets voted on to be put in the DSM. I don’t think that people who engage in homosexual behavior have some sort of brain disease that causes them to act in a way that they cannot control.
But according to Joe Carter himself, it isn’t a mental illness, so all of the medical associations have caved in and told the truth, but apparently for the wrong reasons.
Yes, that is correct.
So the AMA has been “mau-maued by homosexual activists” into opposing therapy based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder—which we seem to agree it is not—but apparently they are wrong to take such a stand not because it is in error, but because they are doing it for the wrong reasons.
First, the AMA is knocking down a strawman. ‘Reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy is not “based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder.” It is based on the idea that a person has the self-evident and inalienable right to change one’s sexual adaptation.
Second, they are doing it for the wrong reasons because they refuse to even consider empirical evidence that contradicts the idea that “sexual orientation” is immutable. When it comes to this issue, they are “anti-science.”
If homosexuality is not a mental illness or a psychiatric disorder, I am wondering what the argument is in favor of psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, and other medical professionals trying to help homosexuals change their orientation.
The argument is that a person has the right to seek treatment for unwanted same-sex attraction. So far, the American Psychiatric Association agrees. (Maybe they learned their lesson about trying to politicize psychological conditions.)
October 19th, 2011 | 1:22 pm
If the APA had somehow managed to categorize religious belief as mental illness despite evidence to the contrary, wouldn’t it be appropriate for activists to get them to correct that mistake?
October 19th, 2011 | 1:26 pm
“Notice what all of these organizations have in common? None of them based their decision on empirical evidence.”
How do you know that?
October 19th, 2011 | 1:28 pm
TooManyJens If the APA had somehow managed to categorize religious belief as mental illness despite evidence to the contrary, wouldn’t it be appropriate for activists to get them to correct that mistake?
Yes, it would. The issue is not whether the APA did the right thing in changing the classification of homosexuality. It did. The issue, the reason I mentioned it at all, is that the authors of the article I was talking about seem to think that some scientific finding was the impetus for the change rather than political pressure. It wasn’t. But they didn’t know that because they just assume the APA is a reliable “expert” source.
How do you know that?
Because there have been no studies that support their claims. As I mentioned before, even the APA acknowledges that fact.
October 19th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
the authors of the article I was talking about seem to think that some scientific finding was the impetus for the change rather than political pressure.
I’d argue that it was political pressure to get them to accept the science that they had been rejecting, but OK.
Because there have been no studies that support their claims.
That depends on what their claims are. If they are claiming that there is no evidence that “reparative therapy” can turn gay people straight, and thus it shouldn’t be promoted as though there is, that’s empirically true.
October 19th, 2011 | 1:41 pm
TooManyJens That depends on what their claims are. If they are claiming that there is no evidence that “reparative therapy” can turn gay people straight, and thus it shouldn’t be promoted as though there is, that’s empirically true.
No, that’s not empirically true. In fact, the empirical evidence shows that some people with unwanted same-sex attraction can be change who they are sexually attracted to.
October 19th, 2011 | 1:47 pm
The issue is not whether the APA did the right thing in changing the classification of homosexuality. It did. The issue, the reason I mentioned it at all, is that the authors of the article I was talking about seem to think that some scientific finding was the impetus for the change rather than political pressure. It wasn’t.
That’s not true – the triggering paper that started this policy change was Evelyn Hooker’s 1957 paper “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual”, wherein she found there was no statistical correlation between homosexuality and mental disorders.
October 19th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
As you quoted the APA: “To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of ‘reparative’ treatments. There is sparse scientific data about selection criteria, risks versus benefits of the treatment, and long-term outcomes of “reparative” therapies.”
So you’re arguing that they’re wrong and there are scientifically rigorous studies proving that RT works as promoted? The study you linked shows “shifts along a continuum” (perhaps for people who are bisexual?) for a small minority of clients. It was also just published, so even if it’s the most rigorous study ever done, you can hardly blame anyone for not having taken it into account.
October 19th, 2011 | 1:51 pm
Caitlin Ryan and Ian Rivers, “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth: Victimization and Its Correlates in the USA and UK,” Culture, Health & Sexuality 5 (2003)
Robert L. Spitzer, “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 23 (2003)
C. Bright, “Deconstructing reparative therapy: An examination of the processes involved when attempting to change sexual orientation, Clinical Social Work Journal (2004)
Julianne M. Serovich, Shonda M. Craft, Paula Toviessi, Rashmi Gangamma, Tiffany McDowell, Erika L. Grafsky, “A Systematic Review of the Research Base on Sexual Reorientation Therapies,” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (April 2008)
Ariel Shidlo, Michael Schroeder, Michael Schroeder, eds. Sexual conversion therapy: ethical, clinical, and research perspectives (Haworth Medical Press, 2002)
October 19th, 2011 | 2:02 pm
Alex That’s not true – the triggering paper that started this policy change was Evelyn Hooker’s 1957 paper
First of all, Hooker wasn’t some disinterested researcher. She belonged to the homosexual activist group the Mattachine Society and all of her homosexual subjects were members of that group. The tests she gave them were the TAT, the Make-a-Picture-Story test (MAPS test), and the Rorschach inkblot test—none of which are sound empirical methods. So she used a flawed methodology on a biased group and managed to get the results she was looking for. Shocking.
Second, her paper was published in 1957 and the change in the DSM did not occur until 1973. Why the 15 year gap? Was it because researchers wanted to test other subjects to verify the results? No, the test was never given to anyone else. Was any other research conducted? No.
In other words, when the APA wanted a fig leaf to cover their decision they pulled out some ridiculous Freudian study by a homosexual activist to use as a cover. This is yet another reason why the APA should never be given the benefit of the doubt on anything.
October 19th, 2011 | 2:16 pm
delio,
Before throwing up a list of citations, you might was to see if they are (a) relevant or (b) support your position. Let’s take a look at what we can find from reading their abstracts:
Caitlin Ryan and Ian Rivers – the article is about victimization, not conversion therapy
Robert L. Spitzer – Here’s the last line of the abstract for this paper: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.”
C. Bright – This article does not present any evidence that conversion therapy is not effective.
Julianne M. Serovich, et al. – This article is review of the literature. It’s doesn’t cite evidence whether conversion therapy is effective or not, but merely states that “the literature base is full of omissions which threaten the validity of interpreting available data.”
Ariel Shidlo, et al. – This book critiques conversion therapy but provides no evidence that is it ineffective.
So the only relevant article you provide supports the claim that the APA, et al., did not base their decision on empirical evidence.
October 19th, 2011 | 2:19 pm
TooManyJens So you’re arguing that they’re wrong and there are scientifically rigorous studies proving that RT works as promoted?
No, I’m arguing that their position—that conversion therapy should never be done—is based on political motivations rather than clinical considerations.
October 19th, 2011 | 2:53 pm
Except that’s not their position. They say that there is insufficient evidence of RT’s efficacy and that mental health professionals should avoid misrepresenting the likelihood of sexual orientation change. They also oppose any kind of therapy that presupposes that homosexuality is an illness or disorder.
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
October 19th, 2011 | 3:13 pm
Joe: I thought you were trying to say that there were no studies that supported the fact that reparative therapy often doesn’t work. Do you think there are *no* legitimate studies or summaries of research that show that, in fact, reparative therapy often causes harm??
Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, 2009
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Therapies focused on attempts to change sexual orientation (reparative or conversion therapies).
“Ethical issues related to conversion or reparative therapy,” 05.22.06 By Joy S. Whitman, Harriet L. Glosoff, Michael M. Kocet and Vilia Tarvydas (ACA)
Tozer, Erinn E.; McClanahan, Mary K. (1999), “Treating the Purple Menace: Ethical Considerations of Conversion Therapy and Affirmative Alternatives”, The Counseling Psychologist 27 (5): 722–742
Gans, Laura A. (Winter 1999), “Inverts, Perverts, and Converts: Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy and Liability”, The Boston University Public Interest Law Journal
“Homosexuality and Adolesence” (PDF), Pediatrics, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 92 (4): 631–634, 1993,
AND
“Changing sexual orientation: A consumers’ report.” Shidlo, Ariel; Schroeder, Michael
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 33(3), Jun 2002, 249-259.
What motivates individuals to pursue conversion therapy and ex-gay groups? How do they perceive its harmfulness and helpfulness? In this study, 202 consumers of sexual orientation conversion interventions were interviewed to answer these questions. The results indicated that a majority failed to change sexual orientation, and many reported that they associated harm with conversion interventions. A minority reported feeling helped, although not necessarily with their original goal of changing sexual orientation. A developmental model that describes the various pathways of individuals who attempt to change their sexual orientation is presented. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)
October 19th, 2011 | 3:34 pm
delio I thought you were trying to say that there were no studies that supported the fact that reparative therapy often doesn’t work.
I would never say that. First of all, there is no therapy that always works. None Reparative therapy is no different. But the APAs claim is that it is never effective. This simply isn’t true.
Do you think there are *no* legitimate studies or summaries of research that show that, in fact, reparative therapy often causes harm??
No, I don’t think there are studies that show it often causes harm to those who seek it voluntarily. Should the therapy be forced on someone who doesn’t want it? Of course not. There are few times (maybe even none?) when behavioral changes can be forced on a person against their will.
However, I think the claims of “harm” are more often a way to try to shut down reparative therapy than an honest concern for a patient. What exactly is the harm that can occur?
October 19th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
Joe Carter,
I am trying to find the statement of the APA that says reparative therapy is never effective. Can provide it here or link to it?
October 19th, 2011 | 3:58 pm
David Nickol I am trying to find the statement of the APA that says reparative therapy is never effective. Can provide it here or link to it?
Here ya go:
I may be providing an ungenerous interpretation, though. Do you think that the APA thinks believes that reparative therapy can sometimes be effective? (I assume you do, since I can’t imagine why else you’d have asked me to clarify.)
October 19th, 2011 | 4:13 pm
“As these statements make clear, the nation’s leading professional medical, health, and mental health organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through therapy and have raised serious concerns about the potential harm from such efforts.”
There is not a single word in this paragraph that says that the treatment is never effective. Not one.
October 19th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
Chris Algoo There is not a single word in this paragraph that says that the treatment is never effective. Not one.
What the statement does say is that they never support efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy. From this I extrapolated that they assume it is not effective. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming they were taking a science-based position (since they are social scientists).
But you seem to be saying that while they may agree that it is effective, that it should still never be done. In other words, if a patient wants to be “cured” of a condition and an effective treatment exist, the APA thinks that (because they know best) it should not be supported. Is that what you think? And if so, how in the world could you support such a position?
October 19th, 2011 | 5:01 pm
I may be providing an ungenerous interpretation, though. Do you think that the APA thinks believes that reparative therapy can sometimes be effective?
Joe Carter,
From what I have read of both APAs (Psychological and Psychiatric), they do not believe a homosexual orientation is a mental illness or a mental disorder, so the idea of “reparative therapy” simply does not make any sense. “Reparative therapy,” by its very nature, seems to me to imply that sexual orientation is a disorder or a disease, and I think the APAs quite rightly take a philosophical and theoretical position that you cannot “cure” a homosexual of his or her homosexuality.
I think we have to define the goals of whatever “therapy” those who want to help homosexuals change (like Exodus International) actually set themselves. Do they actually want to (or claim to) take a “Kinsey 6″ and transform him or her into a “Kinsey 0″? The passage I quoted above (October 19th, 2011 | 10:09 am) referring to the work of Jones or Yarhouse seemed to offer much more modest goals. I think probably a great many psychiatrists and psychologists would acknowledge that there are few people who are utterly and completely either homosexual or heterosexual. Probably with encouragement and support, many gay people could achieve some level of heterosexual functioning, and no doubt (if they sought to) a great many straight people could achieve some level of homosexual functioning. And if either a homosexual or a heterosexual person wanted to remain celibate, some kind of counseling could be helpful to them. But can a completely homosexual person become a completely heterosexual person? I think great skepticism is warranted. I am not sure it has ever happened. It is my impression that many “ex-gays” revert to being gay. And exactly what do we accept as proof that a homosexual has been transformed into a heterosexual. Is getting married and having kids proof? Are answers to questionnaires proof? It seems to me proof of a change in sexual orientation would need to be documented physiologically. Is an “ex-gay” no longer aroused by homosexual stimuli? I am perfectly willing to accept as noncontroversial the claim that someone who identified as gay may very well be able to function as a heterosexual, but I would be very much surprised if someone who was exclusively or almost exclusively aroused by homosexual stimuli could undergo “reparative therapy” and become someone who was exclusively or almost exclusively aroused by heterosexual stimuli.
It seems to me what the mental health organizations are saying is that if a homosexual comes to a therapist for treatment and asks, “Can you cure me of being a homosexual?” the therapist would have to say, “Well, you’re asking the wrong question. We don’t see homosexuality as a disease, so we don’t think we can cure it. But we are certainly willing to try to help you with what is troubling you.”
If a woman were to come to a therapist and say, “My husband and children were killed in a car accident yesterday, and I am devastated with grief. Can you cure it?” the therapist should say, “Therapists are not in the business of curing such grief as yours, which is by no means an illness, but I think I can help you.”
You seem to be totally out of sympathy with the American Psychiatric Association for trying to define and classify disorders and for voting on them. But it seems to me a wholly legitimate approach, as does declassifying homosexuality as a disorder by “politics,” which I put in quotes because I don’t think is an accurate description of what happened.
October 19th, 2011 | 5:12 pm
What they’re saying is not that they can prove that it’s never effective, but that there’s not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions about its effectiveness (and what evidence there is suggests that it is very limited). In the meantime, there are other therapies for people experiencing distress about same-sex attraction that have been shown to be effective, so they support those.
October 19th, 2011 | 5:24 pm
What the statement does say is that they never support efforts to change sexual orientation through therapy.
I think I have made the point in a previous message that even if a psychiatrist or a psychologist could do something to change sexual orientation, they would not consider it therapy. Behavioral techniques can be used to effect changes in people that are not “therapeutic.” Suppose a hit man found his work disturbing. A psychologist could no doubt construct a program of systematic desensitization that would make the hit man more comfortable with shooting people and accustom him to the sight of blood. The military basically desensitizes soldier to killing. It might be a necessary evil, but I wouldn’t call it therapy.
October 19th, 2011 | 5:56 pm
“According to Giberson and Stephens, you might be an anti-intellectual fundamentalist if you are an evangelical who: dismisses evolution as “an unproven theory”
How many Evangelicals consider evolution as an unproved theory? 90%?
October 19th, 2011 | 6:33 pm
“the APA came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons?”
Let’s return to the initial proposition that the People-We-Don’t-Like are unscientific science-haters. I read Mr. Carter’s essay as using this one instance as an illustration that the accusers were as much anti-science as they claimed the PWDLs are. That is, they reached a conclusion for emotional, political, and other non-scientific reasons. That doesn’t make the conclusion necessarily wrong; but it does make it non-scientific.
The essence of a scientific approach is not “to make a lucky guess,” but is precisely “to reach defensible conclusions for sound reasons based in evidence and logic.” Dean Swift wrote in Gulliver’s Travels that Mars had two moons. He was right, but was his conclusion scientific? The Pythagoreans said that the sun was in the middle of the world because fire was nobler than earth and the center was a more noble position; so the sun, being fire, must occupy the center. There are words to describe such reasoning, but “scientific” is not one of them.
I even recollect from my storied youth the news accounts of homosexuals storming the annual meeting of the psychiatric association, demanding that homosexuality be removed from the DMS. Whippersnappers may not remember.
Keep in mind, too, two additional points:
a) That a condition cannot be treated or changed does not mean that it is not therefore a disorder. Whether it is or not, the conclusion does not follow from the premise, and there are numerous counterexamples in actual medicine.
b) Psychiatry is not a real science, in any case. Certainly not in the manner that physics, chemistry, biology or medicine have been. Recall the notorious case of “Sybil,” recently shown to have been a fraud.
October 19th, 2011 | 8:40 pm
What “harm” would occur if a therapist used reparative therapy on a heterosexual who thought he *should* be gay, yet did not feel in the least like he was gay?
October 19th, 2011 | 9:35 pm
“Both types believe that their views of the scripture,… are the only legitimate interpretations”
I hope all Christians would stand on this statement. There is only one intended interpretation/meaning for any given text. No?
October 19th, 2011 | 10:28 pm
I think all of this misses the point: When we accept Christ and His atonement for our sins, the Bible says that the old man is passed away and that we are given a new nature, a nature that desires to turn from, repent, from sin! The Bible lists homosexuality as a sin that some ONCE WERE, before salvation and repentance of sin. Sins such as adultery, sexual immorality (including heterosexual sin outside of marriage, gossip, lying, etc. are ALL sins. The Bible discusses the warring of our sinful desires against the Spirit, and that we sometimes still choose to sin. However, when one has accepted Christ, the Holy Spirit WILL convict us of all unrighteousness.
This is not a fundamentalist issue, it is a Biblical one. I think that is they key to the entire article. From a Biblical perspective, it is clear that choosing to act on homosexuality is a sin whether someone still feels compelled to act on homosexuality. The Bible doesn’t say a person will no longer struggle with the desire to have sex with someone of the same sex anymore than it says a heterosexual will no longer struggle to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. The struggle remains, it is the CHOICE to honor God by resisting the temptation to have sex outside of heterosexual marriage that must change. It is not about a change in sexual orientation, it is about a change in obedience to God. It is no different than the struggle of every man who desires things that are not what God desires for us.
It is a heart issue: do we want to make excuses for our heart’s desires and use God’s grace as an excuse to continue sin “because he would want us to be happy, understands our struggles, and loves us just as we are”? Or do we seek FIRST God and HIS righteousness (right relationship with Him on HIS terms), above our own desires, seeking to please Him and in response to the fact that He loved us so much He was willing to send Christ to die for our sins and wash us whiter than snow? Our love toward Him and thankfulness for so great a salvation, DESPITE our sinful nature should compel all of us to seek to please Him be abstaining from those sins that so easily entangle us. That is Christianity 101, regardless of whether we are heterosexual or homosexual.
If we Evangelicals would quit politicizing and trying to be politically correct, fearing God more than we fear man, we would be standing for the CLEAR Scriptural mandate for homosexuals to abstain from homosexual sex, AND would also call those heterosexuals who are not married to do the same. And as we preach the Truth, we do so in LOVE. Explaining that we are no better than they are, and no more deserving of the Grace of Christ who gives salvation to ALL who genuinely repent from our sins and turn to the only one who can make us righteous before God. But we fear men far more than we fear God…and so we continue to pander anyone who disagrees with The Scriptures.
October 19th, 2011 | 11:17 pm
Halleluja! We don’t need expertise – we can make up our own minds about all issues no matter how complex.
Fundamentalists are perfectly free to “filter their beliefs through the KJV”. The problem is when they filter data and facts through the same filter. To Joe, this is an example of egalitarianism in action – everyone comes to their own conclusion; the fundamental Protestant approach writ large to include not just religion but all knowledge.
This may work for simple things, but complex areas like evolution or climate change require a high level of expertise just to start the discussion. But this expertise is discounted and attacked – there can only be one version of Truth, and one source for that Truth.
If Joe is worried about fundamentalists being labeled as “anti-intellectuals”, Giberson and Stephens are not his problem. His problem is that filtering knowledge through the KJV and then thinking for oneself while ignoring the existing pool of expertise around you is intrinsically anti-intellectual and a serious problem for this country.
October 20th, 2011 | 12:02 am
That doesn’t make the conclusion necessarily wrong; but it does make it non-scientific.
How, exactly, do you determine scientifically if homosexuality is a disorder? It’s not a scientific question.
October 20th, 2011 | 7:27 am
Although it’s certainly not “anti-intellectual” to question the veracity of evolutionary theory, or whether the APA should categorize homosexuality as a “disorder”, requiring “treatment”, or whether climate changes are a result of human activity, (indeed, questioning these things, as well as other things, reflects a normally functioning mind), one has to ask: is the disagreement, or the skepticism, with regard to these things (i.e., that evolution is true, that homosexuality is not a disorder in need of treatment, the climate is being adversely changed as a result of human activity) a result of one’s assessment, to the best of one’s ability, of the empirical evidence, and deductive arguments, or, rather, a result of how one interpretes the Bible, and one’s belief that these things cannot possibly be true, in light of one’s Christian beliefs? If it’s the later, then, without a doubt, it could be argued that one is indulging in anti-intellectualism, with respect to these issues. Only the evidence and arguments can properly decide these issues.
So, for example, a Micheal Behe, for example, who has properly assessed all of the evidence, to the best of his ability, concerning evolution, and has honestly come to the conclusion that evolution, by natural selection, cannot account for what he deems the “irreducilble complexity” of the inner workings of the cell, is not anti-intellectual. He may be wrong, (and I think that he is), but not anti-intellectual.
Therefore, one can be very intelligent, and come to some rather unorthodox views, concerning certain scientific questions, but if it’s honestly studied, and one gives the proper respect, to the arguments and evidence, and does not have a preordained conclusion, then one is not an anti-intellectual. But, if one, despite the evidence and arguments, in favor of a scientific theory, still rejects this theory, on the basis of a particalr reading of the Bible, then one is being anti-intellectual, with respect to this issue. Note, that this is entirely distinct from being intelligent. One can be very intelligent, even more intelligent, than the person who believes a scientific theory on the basis of the empirical evidence and arguments in its favor. But this person, lacks the intellectual spirit, if you will. He or she, is using this formidable intelligence, to argue for his or her particular interpretation of the Bible, and the resultant rejection of evolutionary theory, or climate change, or homosexuality.
October 20th, 2011 | 8:48 am
Joe Carter: “I think the claims of “harm” are more often a way to try to shut down reparative therapy than an honest concern for a patient. What exactly is the harm that can occur?”
Delusion. Denial. Self-loathing.
October 20th, 2011 | 10:15 am
“However, for open-minded researchers, the efficacy of repartive therapy is still open to scientific investigation.”
Joe’s view on this topic is warped by his religious filter. He assumes, a priori, that homosexuality is bad (and a choice) and must be fixed. Therefore, any “therapy” that promises to accomplish this is reasonable and it is the job of the AMA to prove otherwise.
This is backwards. The onus is on those who propose a new therapy to prove that a) it works, and b) doesn’t harm the patient. The fact that this “therapy” has been in widespread use and we only now have a single study that attempts to evaluate it is unethical, and it is the job of those proposing to continue reparative therapy to study it first before inflicting it on more patients.
This is why the AMA and other groups have voiced their concerns – it’s the absence of hard evidence coupled with the climate this “therapy” is applied under and the anecdotal reports of possible harm to patients.
If Joe went to a doctor with a sore throat and the doctor proposed a new therapy involving gasoline and a flamethrower while assuring Joe that “it’s OK, the AMA hasn’t found anything wrong with it yet” I would suspect that he might voice some skepticism.
October 20th, 2011 | 10:33 am
Well written. The defenses of the gay rights default positions in this comment thread show that the decision to de-classify homosexuality was clearly a political one. So Carter is correct.
As for the article, I was amused to read that the Bible says “little or nothing about same-sex marriage.” The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. But one guesses that the authors feel that by not mentioning same-sex marriage specifically, the Bible leaves some room for doubt on that topic. The Bible doesn’t mentioned I-Pads or jet airplanes either, because like those products of recent history, even the idea of same-sex marriage would never have even crossed their minds. This lapse again proves these authors refused to be logical in writing the piece.
October 20th, 2011 | 10:41 am
Bret,
The issue is not as simple as saying that more Fundamental Christians (meaning those that believe in the Bible as Truth, not the negative “extremist” use of the term that Fundamental connotates today) ignore scientific evidence and just yield to “their interpretation of the Bible”. The Bible, although it has some passages that are difficult to interpret, claims to be THE Truth from God. Thus, for the Christian who believes the Bible to be God’s revelation of truth on the issues it discusses, the Bible MUST be the final authority on issues that it discusses. If there is a theory of man (which is all evolution is) that comes into direct conflict with what IS clear from the Bible, then the two theories must be either reconciled or one must be rejected as false. Despite the prevailing post-modern worldview that your truth is true for you and my truth is true for me, there can only be one Truth. It is up to us to find it.
On the issue of Homosexuality, as my previous post stated, the Bible is VERY clear. Some Christians can pander to homosexuals and try to equivocate on the issue, claiming that homosexuality as sin “is just an interpretation” of Scripture all they want. But even going back to the original language, it is clear that when Scripture is taken as a whole, it forbids man lying with man and woman lying with woman. It is clear that it is sin, just like it is clear that murder is sin or gossip is sin. And the Bible does have a clear Truth answer that can be reconciled with what we see in observing homosexual behavior and the struggle some have to “change”.
So a Christian does not ignore the intellectual evidence, rather we look to see if it can be reconciled with the Bible or not. A true Christian that is also a true intellectual does the hard work to form an opinion / understanding on what is true of homosexuality, without “assuming” that the theories of the day are true and the Bible is suspect. Rather, it is an issue of yielding to what we believe is absolutely, unquestionable True (the Bible). And I would argue that the issues of Homosexuality AND Creation/Evolution, and any other issue we argue today can be reconciled with the Truth of God’s revelation. We don’t have to ignore “evidence”, we have to test it and see if we can either disprove it or reconcile it with Scripture.
The bottom line is that those who do not believe the Bible is God’s revelation of Truth will never buy into the Truth claims of Christians who have shown Evolution to be false and ‘Global Warming’ to be something less that what its proponents claim it to be. And Christians who believe God’s Word to be True, will not accept pseudoscience and theories that have not been PROVEN to be fact if it does not square with God’s Word. We will continue to examine our interpretation of The Word, but not to try to change the Word to fit man’s agenda. That is what the difference is. Who’s “Truth” do we view as Supreme and give the benefit of the doubt to?
There is Truth, our job as man is to find it. And that takes both faith and intellegence!
October 20th, 2011 | 11:00 am
I was just pointing out that you were reading things in that paragraph that weren’t in the text. Incidentally, if treatment is shown to be effective but damaging, the APA should still not approve of it – assuming their goal is maximizing psychological health.
October 20th, 2011 | 11:55 am
Why, pray tell, are homosexual instincts biologically different from anyone else’s ? I know that what arouses me is different then what would have as an adolescent. I am pretty sure it is the same with most people. Why are gays different?
October 20th, 2011 | 12:23 pm
Well written. The defenses of the gay rights default positions in this comment thread show that the decision to de-classify homosexuality was clearly a political one. So Carter is correct.
Vincent,
I don’t think it’s anywhere near that simple. It’s a little presumptuous of me to make this case, because I have not read Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but it seems what happened in the APA was similar to what Kuhn calls a paradigm shift. A paradigm shift is a revolutionary advance in science (e.g., Einstein’s theories) that may take place not necessarily by the proponents of the new theory convincing everyone that the new paradigm is correct. As Wikipedia notes:
I listened last night to 81 Words, which Joe Carter refers to in his post, saying:
It’s a fascinating program, and I recommend it. I predict that those who listen to it who already agree with Joe Carter will find that it proves what he claims it proves, and those who disagree with him will will not. If you believe the younger psychiatrists who organized and prevailed in the APA were wrong, you’ll see their actions as politics. If you believe they were correct, the will look like pioneers who fought for what they thought was right and prevailed against the odds.
The difference is—as I have said before, and someone near the end of the program says—that whether or not homosexuality is a “disorder” is not really a scientific question. For example, if there is a “gay gene,” that doesn’t prove anything one way or another. There are genes for blue eyes, and having blue eyes is not a disorder. If people are gay because of the way they were raised, even if they were raised by close-binding intimate mothers and distant fathers, that does not prove homosexuality is a disorder. Interestingly, it turns out that the psychiatrist most noted for that theory of homosexuality (Charles W. Socarides, who died in 2005) had a gay son.
As Wikipedia tells it:
October 20th, 2011 | 12:40 pm
“Joe’s view on this topic is warped by his religious filter. He assumes, a priori, that homosexuality is bad (and a choice) and must be fixed.”
Precisely.
What are Joe’s views on chronic left-handedness? It is not acquired, can be “cured” in some cases, by reparative therapy that will allow the person to have an easier time in life from opening doors, buying golf clubs to firing an M-16.
However, the reparative therapy has such severe side efefcts that it’s not usally deemed to be worth the psychic costs for the very vast majority of the population.
I suppose there are some major league baseball players who wil attempt to swtch hit. Nobody denies those extremely rare and highly motiviated indivduals the right to left handedness repairative therapy. But for the vast majority of the popualtion–even if it works now and then–it’s simple not worth the side effects.
Same for homsexuality.
October 20th, 2011 | 8:46 pm
A friend of mine followed Dr. Dobson’s advice to spank her son with a wooden spoon, based on the biblical advice against sparing the rod and spoiling the child. My friend confided that, though she followed this advice to the letter, it did absolutely no good.
A little background: this woman’s son had recently been displaced by a new baby brother, and began acting out in an apparent attempt to get attention. Getting beaten with a wooden spoon wasn’t the best form of attention, but was better than no attention at all.
I didn’t know what to tell my friend. By following Dr. Dobson’s advice, this woman was actually reinforcing her son’s bad behavior. However, choosing not to use this negative reinforcement would have entailed using situational logic, which is often frowned upon by fundamentalists.
Had this woman relied on reason, rather than the magical thinking of an obvious quack, she might have prevented considerable suffering and possibly long term psychological harm for both herself and her son.
Based on the testimonies I’ve heard from those who’ve suffered through ex-gay therapy, the thinking isn’t much better than that applied to child psychology.
October 20th, 2011 | 10:49 pm
How, exactly, do you determine scientifically if homosexuality is a disorder? It’s not a scientific question.
It’s a philosophical question that depends upon toward which ends sexual activity is ordered. Anything not directed towards such ends is ipso facto disordered. To the extent that the ends may be determined by observation the matter may be considered scientific; but to the extent that it does not extend man’s domination of the universe, it may not be scientific in the Baconian/Cartesian sense.
Why, pray tell, are homosexual instincts biologically different from anyone else’s ?
Ooh! Ooh! I know. I know.
Because they are not ordered toward propagation of the species. (You only asked how they are different.)
However, we do not know if they are “instincts” because you have not established that they are irrational, animal acts rather than rational, human acts.
Note: we are commanded to love everyone. That would include loving our fellow man as well as our fellow woman. As well as children. And animals. But the Late Modern disease of sexualizing love is not thereby entailed.
+ + +
it seems what happened in the APA was similar to what Kuhn calls a paradigm shift.
No. In the first place, it applies only to sciences, not to psychiatry. In the second place, Kuhn is overblown. A paradigm shift, such as it is, means that the same data is looked at in another way. In Kuhn’s philosophy, the new way of looking at the data need not be more correct. The paradigm was capable of shifting to a less correct position. But Kuhn thought “more correct” and “less correct” did not mean anything in the sciences, a position with which many scientists of all stripes take exception.
Mr. Carter’s primary point was that there was no empirical data that led to the shift and asked that if there were someone might supply it.
In my own lifetime, homosexual inclinations went from a mental “disease” to a lifestyle “choice” to an inborn “genetic” disposition; and in no case did the “science” of psychiatry need to show any actual scientific evidence for their decision.
October 21st, 2011 | 6:46 am
Hi Anna, thanks for your obviously well thought, and insightful reflections. You’ve clearly given these issues considerable thought.
Clearly, if one accepts the Bible as God’s word, it only makes sense that, if a scientific theory contradicts, or conflicts with God’s word, the latter has to be faithfully adhered to, and any scientific theory, which could be wrong, must be rejected, since God’s word, a priori, cannot be wrong, unless one believes that God tells lies, which, of course, no one can believe.
But, it really gets down to interpretations, of the Bible. The Bible requires a sophisticated deciphering process, to accurately intrepret its passages. And, as Giberson and Stephens point out, the Bible doesn’t contradict evolution. And, as they also point out, it doesn’t talk about same sex marriage.
It’s about interpretations. Some will derive the inference, that the Bible could not possibly endorse same sex marriages, or evolution, since we have passages that seem to clearly condemn homosexual activity, and God creates, which doesn’t fit with natural relection, and random genetic alterations. But what if this was how God chose to create? What if God is only condemning promiscuous homosexual activity, and would endorse monogomy among homosexuals?
Also, can the Bible be God’s word, but not be about telling homosexuals that they cannot marry, in the twentifirst century? Or, if it does, why can’t, as I mentioned above, it be interpreted to mean promiscuity, rather than a categorical rejection of all homosexual activity?
Can the Bible be God’s word, but not be meant to be a scientific text? the answer to these questions, can be yes.
October 21st, 2011 | 7:01 am
[...] Joe Carter at First Things has some strong words for Karl W. Giberson and Randall J. Stephens, the two evangelicals whose New York Times Op-Ed recently condemned evangelicals’ rejection of reason. [...]
October 21st, 2011 | 10:50 am
It’s a philosophical question that depends upon toward which ends sexual activity is ordered. Anything not directed towards such ends is ipso facto disordered.
Statustician,
I’d say this is the Catholic definition of disordered, and it has very little to do with what should and should not be classified as a psychiatric disorder. Occasional masturbation or use of contraceptives would both be considered “disordered” by the Catholic Church, but they are not psychiatric disorders. Almost certainly most psychiatrists and other medical professionals would consider a certain level of masturbation normal and non-pathological. Oral sex used to be considered a perversion, but I doubt that you could find a psychiatrist who would treat a patient who enjoyed oral sex (although they might very well treat a heterosexual patient who could enjoy only oral sex and considered it a problem).
No. In the first place, it [paradigm shift] applies only to sciences, not to psychiatry.
I am not sure that is really true, but in any case I said “it seems what happened in the APA was similar to what Kuhn calls a paradigm shift.”
In Kuhn’s philosophy, the new way of looking at the data need not be more correct. The paradigm was capable of shifting to a less correct position. But Kuhn thought “more correct” and “less correct” did not mean anything in the sciences, a position with which many scientists of all stripes take exception.
This is just wrong. Kuhn believed that someone presented with a number of paradigm shifts in scrambled order could put them in chronological order, since he believed that each successive paradigm shift was a step forward.
October 22nd, 2011 | 1:34 am
Hi Bret.
Thanks for your thoughtful response! I have given these things much thought, as I have numerous friends and coworkers who are homosexuals and whom I care a great deal about. Because I care about them, I believe it is extremely important to get the answers to their questions about how God views homosexuality correct. If I believe God hates sin and that homosexuality is described as sin in the Bible, then I am much more loving to tell them that in the most sensitive, kind, straightforward way possible, with much grace and humility for my own sins and struggles than I am to back away from what I believe is Truth or to try to wrangle Scripture to please their ears.
I respectfully disagree that the homosexuality issue gets down to interpretations and that the Bible requires a sophisticated deciphering process to properly interpret it. This is the postmodern argument that says we can never really understand anything written since we cannot get into the writer’s mind, have our own worldview biases in reading anything, and have translation issues that prevent us from ever being able to interpret language with certainty. What our everyday lives show us is that, although some things CAN be read more than one way, most things are clear or can be easily clarified. If we could never trust language at all, we could not communicate. So we have to trust that the Biblical writers were very careful to articulate exactly what God had revealed to them, and more importantly that God is Sovereign and wise enough to know the people He is communicating to, to know all of the issues that man would struggle with in the future, to know all of the language and cultural experiences man would have over time, and STILL communicate in a way that is clear enough to man for man to understand Him and what He chose to reveal to us.
My 8 year old son can pick up a Bible and read it in context, and understand a passage in context. I am not saying he will instantly understand it all, but most of us have an ability to read things in context and surmise the meaning of any given sentence when taken in the full context of the thought, and within the context of the work as a whole.
People can (and sadly do) argue for or against all kinds of things they want to be true about the Christian walk, our relationships with God, and anything else the Bible discusses, by proof-texting. They search for a Scripture that might be able to be interpreted to say what they want it to say, when in fact it has nothing to do with that topic, and when taken in context clearly demonstrates another meaning. We have lost our ability and discipline to do the hard work of a Berean, to actually search the Scriptures to see what THEY say, not what we want them to say.
If Scripture is not God’s truth, there is no point in furthering the discussion, as Christianity can never express its arguments and win. However, if Scripture IS in fact God’s Word, than it IS Truth, and it does have meaning. It does not contradict itself when taken in context and as a whole. Our job is to find that one meaning. not try to force our ideas on to it.
There is enough revelation about life that the Bible says it is ALL we need in order to live a life of Godliness and Wisdom. If that is the case, than although the Scriptures do not speak exhaustively about every possible facet of life that we will ever experience (such as the internet), it does reveal sufficiently what we need in order to view anything we experience and to then determine whether such experiences would be God honoring, condemned (like looking at pornography on the internet) by God, or morally neutral (like whether I buy paperclips on ebay). It is when Scripture is completely silent on an issue and has nothing to say about it whatsoever, that we then have the freedom to make our own conclusions.
When it comes to same sex marriage, as you pointed out, people will use the argument that Scripture does not address same sex marriage because it didn’t become an issue until the 21st century. However, the argument makes no sense whatsoever when you view the Bible as God’s Word, revealing to us all that we need in order to live a life of Godliness. We must ask ourselves what God HAS revealed to us that can be applied to the topic.
When it comes to marriage, homosexuality, and human sexuality, the Bible actually has much to say. Throughout the Bible, God describes his relationship with man and mans submission to Him just like that of a heterosexual marriage, where the man protects his wife and the wife submits to the husband (See Eph 5:22-33). There is NEVER a reference to a marriage in God’s eyes, or even a condoned relationship, between same sex couples. In every passage on marriage, it is a man and a woman. And in every passage discussing sex that is allowed, it is between a man and a woman who are married. This is not because there were no homosexuals in Biblical times.
Rather, in EVERY instance where homosexuality is discussed, it is discussed as something that is an abomination to God. Leviticus 19:22 makes it clear, in a long passage detailing inappropriate sexual relations that “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.” Note that it does not say, “unless it is monogamous and loving”. It says DO NOT. Leviticus 20:13 says, “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Note that there is nothing here that is difficult to interpret. It dies not say that our desires make it OK, our civil union make it OK, our being made to have such desires, our genetics, our psychology, or anything else make it OK for a man to have sexual relations with another man. It says the ACT of sex between 2 men is detestable and warrants being put to death. There is no mincing of words, no confusion. Romans 1:24-32 says, “Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;…who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them”. Again, God has revealed that the passions between 2 men are vile and shameful.
Further, the argument that says “But what if this was how God chose to create?” does not stand the Biblical test for any sin. The Bible says that ALL men are sinners and do not seek God. It says that our hearts are wicked and deceitful above all things. We do not desire the things of God, because all of us have chosen sin. Only by God’s grace and our acceptance of His gift of forgiveness of our sins by faith and genuine repentance, can we overcome the stronghold that sin has on us. We ALL still struggle with things. A homosexual’s lusts and desires for sex are no different (in terms of sin) than a heterosexual’s lusts and desires for sex. It is not the desire for sex that it inherently sinful, it is the choice to act on those lusts and desires in a way that is condemned by God that makes it sinful. And neither the homosexual nor the heterosexual can stand justified by psychoanalyzing ourselves to see “why” we are the way we are. God made us all and God requires the same CHOICES and ACTIONS in response to what He has shown us to be sin…regardless of the reasons that might compel us to choose such sexual sin. The choice is not to commit heterosexual nor homosexual fornication, adultery, sex outside of marriage, sex with close relatives, polygamy, beasteality, nor any other forbidden sexual deviation from God’s design for sex between a married husband and wife. ALL other sex HAS clearly been spelled out in scripture as promiscuous, sin, and an abomination to God. The answers are there. Yet we “choose” to ignore them and continue to ask “what if” questions that are already answered right before our eyes in black and white, clear as day.
Again, I am not one to lash out as homosexuals as any worse a sinner than I am. I don’t claim that it is not possible to be gay and a Christian. I do, however, claim that Scripture makes it clear that acting on homosexual desires for sex is sin and must be repented of and turned from in order to be obedient to and reverent of God. All the psychology and science we can come up with does not change God’s command not to act on the desires and tendencies for homosexual sex…any more than analyzing all the things that make me who I am justify the sexual and other sins I committed against God before choosing to turn from them…or the things I still struggle to bring under His obedience. Biblically, to me, this is not a homosexual vs. heterosexual issue, a scientific issue, a fundamentalist issue, nor an issue of Biblical complexity in interpretation. It is a simple issue of the sinful nature of ALL men and our natural inclination to enjoy sin and want to find an excuse and justification for it, rather than to submit God in humility and obedience.
P.S. The Bible also has much to say about evolution and creation, and many scientists who do not even look to the Bible for Truth have rejected the theory of evolution on many points based on good science.
October 22nd, 2011 | 9:23 am
[...] A New York Times essay criticizes the anti-science rhetoric of the Evangelical Right, while Joe Carter at First Things pushes back. [...]
October 22nd, 2011 | 2:56 pm
@David
1. Actually, Aristotle was not a Catholic. Nor is there any reason why a disorder of the will should be considered a mental “disease” any more than a rifleman who consistently hits high and to the right of the mark. A disorder is simply that: not ordered to the end. Whatever blame may be attached depends on numerous other factors, such as habits (which in this context includes cultural drivers and genetic predispositions, as well as personal habits).
2. Kuhn maintained that it was still possible to maintain that the earth was at rest in the center of the world in a letter to the NY Times (30 April 1981) and which he affirmed in private correspondence to William Wallace (12 May 1981). There is additional discussion here: http://nekhbet.com/popper/index.html
3. The point remains that what happened at the APA convention was force majeure exercised by obstreperous demonstrators who had physically entered the building. It was not a new way of looking at the old data, nor even a new way of looking at old data motivated by new anomalous data. There simply was no data one way or the other. That is, it was not in any manner “like” a scientific “paradigm” shift. (For a comment on Kuhn and paradigm shiftiness, see http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/galileo%E2%80%99s-great-bluff-and-part-of-the-reason-why-kuhn-is-wrong/
October 23rd, 2011 | 8:28 pm
Statistician,
I don’t think a discussion of Thomas Kuhn and the philosophy of science will really shed any light on the APA’s decision to remove homosexuality per se as a psychiatric disorder, although I continue to maintain that what happened was similar to what Kuhn described as a paradigm shift.
Although it will not add to the discussion about the APA, I am curious to know if you can produce the text of Kuhn’s alleged letter to the New York Times of 30 April 1981, since I have searched the Times and found no letter by Kuhn that day or even that year.
The point remains that what happened at the APA convention was force majeure exercised by obstreperous demonstrators who had physically entered the building.
I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean. There was no invasion of any APA body or committee actually working on the revisions, and the committees’ votes were taken in the absence of gay protesters. It is not as if gay activists invaded a convention where psychiatrists were voting on the matter and threatened them as they were voting. Also, opponents of the change managed to obtain a referendum of the entire membership of the APA on the question of homosexuality, with 58% of the 10,091 psychiatrists voting to support the deletion of homosexuality as a disorder. There was a great deal of campaigning by gay activists and supporters of the change, but there was no possible intimidation in a referendum conducted by mail.
The problem with saying that the APA’s decision was based on politics and not science is that science cannot answer the question of whether homosexuality is a “disorder” or not. There may have been no scientific reason for removing homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM, but there was no scientific reason for including it in the first place. It’s just not a scientific question.
October 24th, 2011 | 1:34 am
Anna:
“P.S. The Bible also has much to say about evolution and creation, and many scientists who do not even look to the Bible for Truth have rejected the theory of evolution on many points based on good science.”
I’m not aware that the Bible says anything specific about evolution. Furthermore, taking the Genesis account literally is not just a creation vs evolution issue – it’s creation against almost every branch of science: geology, physics, cosmology, history, archeology, etc. There are huge amounts of data in all these areas contradicting Genesis, and almost no data in support other than the Bible text itself.
And it may be worth your while to explore just exactly how many of these scientists ‘reject evolution on good science’ – you will find you’ve been led astray. The number is very small and their science is normally not good either. While you may prefer that evolution appear to be “in crisis” because it makes it easier to stick to the Biblical account, the data supporting evolution is stronger now than ever and continues to grow.
While you may disagree with evolution, you cannot disagree with the fact that it is the dominant scientific explanation and almost universally accepted through out the scientific community.
October 25th, 2011 | 9:25 pm
Hi Anna,
Thanks so much for your respense. I grateful for it. It shows that you’re willing to have a conversation, and are willing to not only teach what you know, but learn as well. This reminds me of Aquinas, who argued that, not only is it good to know, but even better, to convey what one knows.
I must, however, respectfully disagree with your assertion that the Bible does not require a sophisticated deciphering process. Since we rely on a modern english translation, and the Old and New Testaments were originally written in Hebrew and Greek, respectively, one would have to conclude that God produced a miracle for this translation to be absolutely correct. Although I certainly don’t dimiss this possibity in an a priori fashion, I consider it not to be believeable, unless there’s sufficient evidence, to support it. One cannot believe this on blind faith. If one accepts that God miraculously intervens, whenever a problem arises, not only is there no evidence that this occurred, vis a vis the Biblical translation process, but there would literally be no end in sight. After all, God could create miracles all over the place, and one could use this as an “explanation” when thinking and investigating, although much harder, is the better approach. I fear that intellectually lazy people (not you, Anna, you’re certainly not intellectually lazy) will use the “miracle” option, whenever a difficult problem, has no easy answer.
But there certainly are answers. I am skeptical that the translation process has rendered a modern english Bible completely free from translation errors, but I certainly have no sympathy for any form of Postmodernism. Truth is there, to be found, if not by us, a being with the requisite intellectual capacities. I suppose that I’m arguing for an agnostic position, concerning whether the Bible is correct in every way. Not only is it problematic that a modern english (for example; of course, the same principle would apply to any modern language translation, from an ancient language) could faithfully reflect the ancient Hebrew and Greek, but we’re assuming that no blatant forgeries, or just unintentional mistakes were made (after all, St. Jerome, for example, was human). Again, we have to invoke a miracle, to overcome these obstacles.
October 26th, 2011 | 1:25 pm
Joe Carter: “Second, her paper was published in 1957 and the change in the DSM did not occur until 1973. Why the 15 year gap? Was it because researchers wanted to test other subjects to verify the results? No, the test was never given to anyone else. Was any other research conducted? No.”
Why are you lying?
Hooker’s findings have since been replicated by many other investigators using a variety of research methods. Freedman (1971), for example, used Hooker’s basic design to study lesbian and heterosexual women. Instead of projective tests, he administered objectively-scored personality tests to the women. His conclusions were similar to those of Hooker.
In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact