Convicted Civility

Here is an excerpt from my new book, Understanding Sexual Identity: A Resource for Youth Ministry. The book can be pre-ordered here and will be available from Zondervan in October.

Several years ago I came across a phrase that has helped me in my professional role as a psychologist who studies sexual identity issues from a Christian worldview. The phrase is “convicted civility.” It comes from Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary. I recently spoke at Fuller and had the opportunity to talk with Mouw at length. He credited Martin Marty for the phrase. Its origin was tied to the observation that we have far too many Christians who are strong on convictions but do not represent Christ in a way that is respectful of others. At the same time, we have Christians who are so concerned not to offend anyone that it is hard to know what they hold convictions about. So the phrase “convicted civility” reflects a balance between holding convictions as a Christian and communicating those convictions with civility.

Given the controversial topic of sexual identity, I’ve adopted “convicted civility” as my professional brand.  This has helped me make decisions about speaking engagements, consultation opportunities, writing projects, bridge-building, working with others to meet superordinate goals, and so on.

For example, a few years ago I was presenting data from a seven-year longitudinal study that considered whether sexual orientation could change through involvement in a Christian ministry. This is not a question that is of interest to the mainstream field of psychology; and it is a question that is offensive to ask within the mainstream of the LGBT community. But for some conventionally religious people, such as conservative Christians, it is a relevant question. So I was co-principal investigator of a study that examined the question of change and also of harm. It was published in book form in 2007 and as a peer-reviewed journal article in 2011 (Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy).

When I was asked to present the findings at a colloquium at Regent several years ago, a local person who identified himself as an activist, put out a call for others in the LGBT community to join him in staring down this “son of a [gun]” in protest of the study. The stage was being set for a rather heated encounter.

What does someone who is committed to “convicted civility” as a brand do in these moments?

I called him.

We spoke by phone a couple of days before the event, and I invited him to be my guest. (He was coming anyway, so extending an invitation did not seem too risky.) We shook hands and met before the presentation, and I met several of the other protesters. The filled the first couple of rows and indeed did stare at us as my co-presenter and I went through the data and implications for those in attendance.

We spoke again immediately after the presentation and actually several times after that. I’ve also met with others who came that day. Those exchanges led to an invitation to speak in Norfolk to a gathering of LGBT individuals on the topic. In the intervening weeks, I remember having coffee with one of the other protesters. He said, “You are nothing like what I expected. From what I had heard about you, I expected to see horns growing out of your head, and I thought you might have steam coming out of your nostrils.” He smiled. No steam here.

This exchange, and many others like it, is the fruit of convicted civility. If we agreed on everything, we would have nothing to talk about. We would likely try to find another common enemy. But in disagreeing on some topics, we can still communicate about the nature of that disagreement. That is only achieved by treating one another with respect, by being civil in our exchanges.

I am not particularly invested in the question of whether sexual orientation can change through Christian ministries. In my own clinical practice, I do not provide reorientation therapy; rather, I help people explore their sexual identity so that they can live a life that is consistent with their beliefs and values. Also, most of my research is centered on how sexual identity develops and how people navigate the conflict they sometimes feel between their same-sex sexuality and their religious faith. By far, most of my research is on the experiences of sexual minorities who are navigating that terrain.

However, I am committed to identifying and researching topics of importance to the Christian community. We need psychologists who will ask the questions that are of concern to the Body of Christ. We cannot expect the broader, secular field of psychology to ask those same questions or have those same interests. Further, we need to ask those questions using the methods and procedures used by our peers in the mainstream of psychology. We have to allow good research to help us translate Christian considerations into meaningful points of dialogue with those in the mainstream of psychology and also the broader culture.

My point is this: How we discuss Christian considerations will be just as important as having those distinctively Christian questions and convictions. “Convicted civility” is one brand that might help us do just that.

___________

Adapted from Understanding Sexual Identity: A Resource for Youth Ministry. Pre-order your copy today!

Sexual Identity & Youth Ministry

Here is an excerpt from my forthcoming book, Understanding Sexual Identity: A Resource for Youth Ministry. The book can be pre-ordered here and will be available from Zondervan in October.

I share the following story in the opening chapter to set the tone. My argument is that compassion is an important starting point for youth ministers. The importance of compassion is underscored in later chapters as I will draw a contrast between various competing groups. For now, let me share the opening story:

Several years ago my wife and I attended a meet and greet luncheon for adoptive parents in one of the suburbs of Chicago. While I was parking the car, my wife went in to find us a spot at one of the tables. She sat down with a group of women and didn’t give that fact much thought. When I joined her and the other guests, we realized that I was the only guy at the table. Then it dawned on us that the women at our table were all same-sex couples, and we were the only heterosexual couple at the table. It was a little awkward at first; we felt we had crashed the party, or at least I had. However, as prospective adoptive parents, we sat with the women at our table and the many other couples in the room who shared a similar interest in learning more about the process.

After the luncheon was over, we went out to our car only to find that it wouldn’t start. It wouldn’t turn over. As a man I had been taught to lift up the hood and take a look, but I didn’t really have any knowledge of what to do after that. So after assessing both the situation and reflecting on my overall competence with automotive repair, I proceeded to give the universal sign for “help” by leaving the hood of the car up.

The next several minutes were interesting. I looked under the hood occasionally—just because it was something I could do to retain the impression that I knew something about cars. I moved some things around, and I was beginning to suspect it was the car battery. Other luncheon attendees walked by us on their way to their cars. Let’s just say that there was a steady stream. For several minutes nobody stopped. Then a guy walked by with his wife, and I asked him for a hand giving the battery a jump. He actually said, “Oh, sorry, I have to get to a meeting at church.” Um, ok, what?

Then one of the lesbian couples from our table walked up to us—the one woman offered to take a look. She quickly confirmed that the problem was the battery. “I agree; I think you just need a jump,” she said. “Let me get our car, we’ll put up right here and take care of it.” And they did.

I couldn’t help but think of the story Jesus told of the Good Samaritan. It is recorded in Luke 10:25-37. My pastor recently put it this way: God puts in our lives people each of us has a hard time picturing God loving. We have a hard time seeing them in all of their complexity because of positions the church holds. For many in the church today, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are the “other”, the group of folks who are difficult for us to see with compassion.

Before anyone runs with the analogy between ethnicity and sexual identity, I am not saying that just as Jews of that day thought of Samaritans, Christians today think of gays. However, we have a cultural context today in which we have local communities of faith in which the climate is such that young people who are navigating this terrain cannot find any compassion. In fact, we may inadvertently push people toward the mainstream gay community precisely because we share the same tendency to reduce complexity to culture war. There are times we appear to prefer politics to pastoral care.

___________

Adapted from Understanding Sexual Identity: A Resource for Youth Ministry. Pre-order your copy today!

The Barna Group on Attitudes Toward LGBTQ Rights

The Barna Group recently reported on changes in attitudes among Americans over the past 10 toward LGBTQ rights. They looked at attitudes from 2003 and then again in 2013, just after the Supreme Court rulings on DOMA and Prop 8. The hold outs on rights appear to be practicing Protestants more so than any other group. Barna also asked about what people think are the goals of the LGBTQ community and equal benefits and gay marriage topped the list.

When asked about marriage, most Americans (52%) in 2003 viewed marriage as defined by one man and one woman. In 2013, the shift was to 48% of Americans holding that view. That may not seem like much of a shift, but it is important, particularly when you look at the differences by age range, where only 39% of Americans under the age of 40 define marriage as between one man and one woman. Most practicing Christians still hold to this traditional view as well.

When it comes to whether Americans view same-sex relationships as morally acceptable, nearly half (47%) of Americans under 40 do, while only 30% of Americans over 40 see same-sex relationships as morally acceptable. Only 25% of practicing Christians under 40 and 18% of practicing Christians over 40 view same-sex relationships as morally acceptable (but both of these percentages are an increase from 22% and 11% ten years ago).

What about evangelicals? Barna puts evangelicals at 8% of the population “based upon their statements to various religious and theological questions, such as belief in the authority of the Bible, their rejection of salvation through good works, and their focus on talking about their faith in Jesus with others.” Apart from their more favorable views of gay adoption (12% in 2003 to 18% in favor in 2013), evangelicals have, if anything, been more opposed in some key areas. Here’s a quote from Barna:

Evangelicals remain very unlikely to favor changing laws to support LGBTQ lifestyles (declining from 12% in 2003 to 5%).

They continue to be extremely supportive of defining marriage as one man and one woman (inching up from 90% to 93%).

And they roundly reject the moral acceptability of same-sex marriage (up from 95% to 98%).

Here are some money quotes from Kinnaman, president of the Barna Group:

…the data shows that evangelicals remain countercultural against a rising tide of public opinion. If the sands have shifted under evangelicals’ feet in the last 10 years, we at Barna predict it will seem the ground has completely opened beneath them during the next 10. In part, that’s because the very belief that same-sex relationships are morally wrong is deemed by many to be discriminatory and bigoted.

The Christian response to these issues [marriage, ethics, human flourishing, and so on] has to be rooted in a deeply relational ethic—that sexuality is a relational and interconnected aspect of our humanity. That relationships matter, including those between people who disagree.

Our research on younger Christians shows many leave the church over questions on these complex issues. And unless they are given a robust and compelling vision for why they need to hold to those views—and how to embrace them in a humble-yet-livable way—we expect even more disaffection between young adults and the Church in the years come.

This last quote is particularly interesting to me. When I speak at different venues (a local church, a Christian university), I am often struck by how few people seem to be able to articulate why they believe what they believe. (Granted, I am not having that specific conversation often, but when it comes up in discussion…) This can be the case on either side of the moral debate about same-sex behavior, but I suppose I run into in a little more among traditionalists. That is, they do not themselves have nor can they articulate what Kinnaman refers to as a “robust and compelling vision” for a traditional sexual ethic.

I understand why people may not have thought through all of the details. After all, most Christians accept any number of doctrinal positions (e.g., the trinity) without personally studying the topic in-depth. They essentially trust that others who have expertise in the field have done that scholarship. But, as Kinnaman points out, there will be a need for a more compelling argument around a traditional Christian sexual ethic if younger Christians in the U.S. are going to maintain such a belief in the years to come. (I added “in the U.S.” because I don’t see this as the same concern in many nations around the globe where Christianity is growing and vibrant and the debates about sexual ethics are not nearly as controversial.)

In any case, I think there is interesting data here from Barna. Christians would do well to understand the findings, to recognize the trends that are seen in the data, and to prepare to engage a rapidly and dramatically changing culture in a meaningful way.

Once More on Exodus Closing

There is another news story up on the closing of Exodus. It’s the second one from CBN. It has an interesting segment in the interview with Alan Chambers. I haven’t watched all of his interviews, but something stood out to me. I know he is talking about the burden of one ministry organization carrying a message, but my first impression in this interview was that perhaps he was talking about his own personal burden of carrying that message. It’s interesting in that regard. Whatever you think about the decision to close Exodus, I did appreciate the emphasis on needing a broader response from the whole church rather than a focused response from a parachurch ministry (though both/and is also possible – rather than either/or).

You see, too, the different options that appear to be available for people who are navigating this terrain. You have the option of ministry that focuses on change of orientation, identity, and behavior, as seen in Restored Hope Network (RHN). The segment talks about RHN as picking up with the original mission of Exodus.

Then there are the various ministries that have been under the umbrella of Exodus. Before its closing, those ministries were focused less on orientation change and perhaps more on behavioral changes and identity considerations. That may still be held out as a point of focus for some ministries.

A third option I began to introduce in my interview but was not able to develop in the segment shown was that of someone who might focus on Christlikeness or sanctification independent of whether their attractions change. The discussion for these folks is more about celibacy and spiritual friendships or mixed orientation marriages (with full awareness/consent before entering into the marriage).

Where the church goes with all of this is yet to be seen. Perhaps seeing ministries as on a continuum will be more helpful than feeling one has to choose one over the other. The focus on bridge-building and creating safe spaces for people to engage and discuss these issues may also represent a place on this continuum to some; others might not resonate with it as a ministry to their conflicts with same-sex sexuality. In any case, we will have to see how all of this develops over time.

Back in Virginia Beach

I’m back from a week teaching up at Wheaton College. I was teaching a course for them on Sexuality & Sex Therapy. Sixteen graduate students from at least three of their clinical programs joined me in an extended discussion and examination of human sexuality and applied services.

We opened with four sessions that focus on essentially perspectives on matters of sexuality: theological, sociocultural, biological, and clinical. The last perspective serves as a transition to the rest of the week’s topics: sexual dysfunctions (e.g., painful intercourse), atypical sexual behaviors (e.g., the paraphilias), sexual addiction, gender dysphoria, and sexual identity concerns. Sexual identity issues are not pathology, of course, but they are not an uncommon presentation for counseling, and we explore good clinical practice in response to some of the more common issues that can arise.

Students also read chapters from a book I’m working on. It is a Christian integration textbook that could be used in a similar course. It is scheduled for publication in March 2014.

So it wasn’t the best week to have all of the issues surrounding Exodus International and the Supreme Court come up. Because the class went from 8am-5pm, there was not a lot of extra time to comment on these other issues as important as they were.

On top of that, I had agreed in advance to do a workshop for the Chicago Area Christian Training Consortium (CACTC) on working with sexual minority youth. That went very well. It was interesting to hear of a case presented briefly by someone who had provided Sexual Identity Therapy to a young person who was navigating sexual and religious identity conflicts.

On Thursday evening I also presented (via Skype) a talk to the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU). They had a session for their communications officers. In the photo above, I am in the little box on the upper right-hand side of the PowerPoint slide (speaking from Wheaton) and talking to those in attendance in Seattle.

Before I left, I did a brief interview with CBN:

It was an interesting interview. I got the questions about 3 min before we started, and I was surprised we were going to talk about reparative therapy. I tried to get the Christian audience to think about this: although their theology holds that God can do anything, there is a biblical precedent for a prayer going “unanswered” and that the person (in this case, the apostle Paul) found that God provided for him. Then I tried to focus on the study I worked on. The results of that study did not please anyone on either side of the culture wars. The findings challenged those who hold that orientation is immutable, but it did not provide as much support for change as I think proponents expected. We then discussed Alan Chambers, and we are all going to have to see how this unfolds, but I sympathized with his desire to acknowledge and apologize for ways in which people have been harmed.

I don’t comment much on political issues, so I am not going to get into the Supreme Court rulings. I’ll leave that to others in the blogosphere.

UPDATE: Another story on Exodus from CBN.

Additional Reflections

By now you have heard about the apology issued from Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, as well as the reactions from ex-ex-gay individuals featured on the special, God and gays. The clips from that show are worth viewing.

There is a tension that exists that I’d like to discuss: What does it mean when the flagship evangelical ministry addressing homosexuality closes its doors? Is it a failure of nerve to stand for Christian convictions in a culture that seems increasingly hostile to Christianity? That is what some evangelical leaders claim.

Is it a compassionate response to the lived experiences of folks who have been either hurt by Exodus or at least not experienced the changes they had hoped for? That is what others in the evangelical community are saying. (You’ll notice I am citing the same web site: CT’s range of reactions; mine apparently falls in between the “dismayed” and “joyful.”)

Alan Chambers has been on a journey in which he has entered into relationships with people who have said they’ve been hurt by Exodus. That process has been ongoing for several years, I think. I suspect he initially thought Exodus could be reformed in a way that would change the focus of the ministry away from the expectation of heterosexuality. Obviously, at the end of the day, I don’t think he believed he could re-brand Exodus to do the kind of ministry that resonated with him.

At that point, it seems he felt he had two choices: leave the ministry or close the ministry. Some people believe he should have done the former; they say, “Then leave! But don’t drive Exodus into the ground!” Others applaud him for what they see as the courage to make the tough decisions from within.

I don’t know how Alan processed all of that, so I am not going to pick sides in whether he did the right thing or not. Perhaps over time we’ll have a better sense for that.

On the ISSI facebook page, a comment was made about what this means to the average person in the church who is sorting out these issues. I commented that it might not make that much of a difference in the sense that member ministries were just under the umbrella of Exodus. They may continue to minister based on their own approach; they might joint the Restored Hope Network; or they might join another group. But that answer might be too easy. Maybe it does affect the person who is in the trenches, the person who is trying to navigate sexual identity and religious identity. I’m still thinking that through…

I just got done with an interview today. It was about the Exodus situation. I don’t think I communicated my thoughts and heart about this very clearly. (I often feel that sense of “I wish I had said that differently.” Or “I wish I hadn’t framed it that way.”) So let me say this: I don’t think there is that much research support for reparative theory or therapy, and that is not an approach I take in my work. But a reparative approach is not the only means by which some people attempt to change orientation. Many have entered into Christian ministries with the hope that they would experience a meaningful change in their sexual orientation. The research on their experiences is limited. In the study I worked on (where the focus was on whether orientation could change through involvement in Exodus ministries), the findings did not please anyone on either side of the debate. Some people reported meaningful change over time, and that change appeared to be change of behavior, identity, and self-reported attractions. But most did not experience as much change as they would have liked, in my view, and even the more successful experiences were still marked by some attraction toward the same sex. I think it is wise to have an honest discussion about those kinds of findings — about what that could mean in terms of informed consent to someone who is considering likely outcomes.

So…with the closing of Exodus, the Christian community is left with a tension: What is available by way of ministry to those who wish to pursue change? What are the expectations and how will those expectations be communicated? At the same time, how will the church respond to those who don’t experience as much change as they had hoped?

Exodus International Announces It Will Shut Down

Within hours of Alan Chambers issuing an apology to the LGBT community, it is being reported that Exodus International is going to shut down. Here is the story as posted on the Exodus International blog.

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, stated that the organization had become “the prodigal’s older brother, trying to impose its will on God’s promises, and make judgments on who’s worthy of His Kingdom.” In contrast, according to Chambers, “God is calling us to be the Father – to welcome everyone, to love unhindered.”

Tony Moore, board member of Exodus, stated: “We’re not negating the ways God used Exodus to positively affect thousands of people, but a new generation of Christians is looking for change – and they want to be heard.”

In the same story it was shared that the board unanimously voted to end Exodus and to start a new ministry focused on reducing fear (reducefear.org); however, the site was not working at the time I tried to visit it. I am sure there will be more news in the days ahead.

Alan Chambers Issues an Apology to the Gay Community

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, the flagship umbrella organization with affiliated ministries around the world, has issued an apology to the gay community. You can read it here.

A couple of points stood out to me. One was Chambers’ own contributions to the pain of others when he did not share that he experienced ongoing same-sex attractions: “There were several years that I conveniently omitted my ongoing same-sex attractions.” This seems especially important, as many people assumed that if Chambers married a woman, he no longer experienced attractions towards the same sex. Many people make that assumption when people who identify as ex-gay marry heterosexually. Or, even if they don’t marry, many people will assume that is what is meant when a person uses the term “ex-gay” to describe themselves.

Chambers shares that his feelings of attraction brought him shame (“They brought me tremendous shame and I hid them in the hopes they would go away.“), which is why he tended to omit that he continued to experience his attractions.The point about shame is really important, as shame tends to lead to isolation and can lead to presenting a false impression to others. What can a person do rather than rely on denial or minimization? Chambers says, “Today, however, I accept these feelings as parts of my life that will likely always be there.” I don’t know how other react to this, but I read this as more like how Christians respond to besetting conditions (or experiences that are ongoing and unlikely to change).

Interestingly, Chambers also shares what he is not apologizing for in this letter. Specifically, Chambers references his beliefs as a Christian about sex and marriage:

I cannot apologize for my deeply held biblical beliefs about the boundaries I see in scripture surrounding sex, but I will exercise my beliefs with great care and respect for those who do not share them.  I cannot apologize for my beliefs about marriage. But I do not have any desire to fight you on your beliefs or the rights that you seek. My beliefs about these things will never again interfere with God’s command to love my neighbor as I love myself.

At the end of his apology, Chambers points toward a future that will certainly be interesting to witness in the years to come:

Moving forward, we will serve in our pluralistic culture by hosting thoughtful and safe conversations about gender and sexuality, while partnering with others to reduce fear, inspire hope, and cultivate human flourishing.

When I think about what may be interesting in the years to come is this: Is there is room in a diverse and pluralistic culture for a Christian ministry to retain its beliefs and values about sexuality and marriage while moving away from the expectation of change (at least in the form of reparative therapy)? There will still be people offended by the teachings of such a ministry, so I don’t think we are talking about diversity that is not offensive to anyone. By definition, that is not possible in a diverse and pluralistic culture.

Also, what will that kind of ministry look like? What will it hold out as its mission? It’s goals? A ministry would then have to ask: Is there an audience for that kind of ministry when many people (most?) who come to a ministry want the very change held out as normative in reparative therapy? All indications are that the message will be that of Christlikeness (or what Christian refer to as sanctification), and, I would guess, that the focus on sanctification will be independent of the question of whether attractions change. Is there an audience for that message? Let’s see.

Paradigm Shift Initiative on Sexual Identity

Earlier today I participated in what we call a Paradigm Shift Initiative on the topic of sexual identity. These are discussion-based exchanges in which we explore as a group interesting and challenging topics. Today’s topic dealt with the legal case in Florida in which the parents of a 14-year-old girl filed charges upon learning about an inappropriate relationship with an adult. In some ways it is a straightforward legal case in Florida, as the youth was a minor and the other person was an adult.

However, the case took a dramatic turn in that a national campaign has come about to garner support for the 18-year-old female charged in the case (her name is Kaitlyn Hunt). In part because the adult is a female, several groups representing the gay community also weighed in with support for Hunt. The group anonymous has also weighed in to support Hunt. Some folks have likened Hunt to Rosa Parks; many have not found that comparison to be all that accurate.

So this case was the topic today. We had representatives from law, divinity, and psychology present, as well as students from those programs. Some of the discussion early on was about the legal perspective, about what prosecutors do in cases like this, and so on. One question raised had to do with the appeal by the gay community to an equality paradigm (for marriage equality); does that mean that when the law is broken, there should be equality in terms of consequences? That was interesting and would seem to be at the heart of the accusation that the case is one based on discrimination. Interestingly, not everyone in the gay community views prosecuting this case as discriminatory. For example, the Examiner is reporting that the Vero Beach PFLAG has not gotten behind the charge of discrimination.

We have not been able to find where the charges brought against this unfortunate young lady are inspired by homophobia, or are in any way anti-LGBTQ. The cry of discrimination, unless more facts come out, does not seem to apply here. Some very simple research yields cases where heterosexual kids have been arrested and prosecuted under the same law.  – David McKinnon (Vero Beach PFLAG chapter)

The discussion then turned to psychological and emotional considerations surrounding adolescence, including the differences in maturity levels between a 14-year-old and an 18-year-old. We also discussed milestone events in sexual identity development, and how experiences can shape a person’s narrative or storied identity, including attributions and meaning-making. This raises questions about what sexual orientation is — are we discussing it as a fixed reality that is discovered (based on essentialism) or is a linguistic construct fashioned by society to name/label preferences (based on social constructivism)? That has been a matter of debate for years now and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

There is also a clinical issue that arises in terms of working with a 14-year-old in a case like this. How does one navigate sexual identity questions in light of sexual experiences and meaning-making. The media attention would seem to only increase the challenges here. But even if that were not in play (the media circus), there would still be the question of how to provide services that allow a person to reflect on sexual identity questions in light of a range of considerations. One of the purposes of developing the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework was to offer some guidance in how that kind of exploration could be supportive with the goal mind of living a congruent life. In any case, time and patience are both friends of more mature decisions around sexual identity and behavior.

Then we turned to the church. The discussion included how youth ministry currently addresses this topic (or fails to address this topi). It was pointed out that when a church teaches, “Just stop being gay!” they end up making it very difficult for a sexual minority teen to know how to respond. To them, “being gay” is essentially having same-sex attractions or a homosexual orientation. They are unable to “just stop,” which often means their experiences go underground, which contributes to greater isolation and shame.

It was an interesting discussion, especially toward the end. As you can see, the Hunt legal case was really just the discussion starter, as we ended up taking it in a variety of directions that are relevant to church and culture today. We definitely needed more time to do the topic justice. I think they are planning on a Part B to follow-up.

Counseling Sexual Minorities

In a previous post, I mentioned that a second edition of the book, Christian Counseling Ethics, has just been published. This is a book edited by Randolph Sanders, former executive director of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS). I wanted to share a little from that book and the chapter I contributed on counseling sexual minorities. Before I do that, let me acknowledge how much I enjoyed writing this chapter, as I had a chance to work with one of my mentors, Stan Jones, and one of the grad students I had a chance to mentor, Jill Kays. Let me recommend collaboration whenever possible! It increases the chances someone will catch your blind spots, and there are always ways in which you can grow.

We first address the topic of competence by reviewing current research findings in four relevant areas. There are (1) prevalence estimates; (2) theories of etiology (causation); (3) mental health correlates (e.g., greater risk of substance use disorders); and (4) research on attempts to change orientation. We then discuss controversies and issues in treatment, including professional controversies surrounding efforts to change orientation.

The next major topic is understanding sexual minorities in the context of the multicultural movement. We discuss here recent attempts at developing counseling competency scales, as well as what we know in terms of milestone events in sexual identity development.

Next we discuss integrity and client well-being. There are a number of issues that can be discussed here, and we spend some time on the ongoing cultural and professional discussions about reorientation efforts in terms of how those efforts are seen by different stakeholders. This is also where we introduce the reader to the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework and to different ways in which Sexual Identity Therapy can be conducted to facilitate client well-being, recognizing significant differences in how people might prefer to achieve congruence between their identity/behavior and their beliefs/values.

We then turn our attention to client autonomy and self-determination. We suggest language that can be used in obtaining advanced informed consent to therapy that address sexual identity. The language provides examples for how a Christian counselor might discuss causes of sexual orientation, professional and paraprofessional options, and so on.

The last section of the chapter address value conflicts and referrals. This has become a major point of professional discussion and debate with the Julea Ward v. EMU case being recently settled out of court, as well as other major cases that have led to discussions of practice location, training, and so on. One regret is that I wish statement from The Board of Educational Affairs of the American Psychological Association (APA) had been available at the time we wrote the chapter. I had a post about that recently, and I think it would have enhanced the chapter even further.

So check out the chapter and the rest of the book. There are a number of great contributions from leading Christian psychologists and counselors on a number of important and interesting topics.