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?

Ban on SOCE Blocked in One Ruling; Not in Another

A federal judge (Judge William B. Shubb) has blocked a ban in California that  made it illegal for licensed mental health professionals to provide sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) to minors. Here is the link. The ruling apparently only covers the three plaintiffs and not other mental health professionals. According to the LA Times, the judge noted that the ban was “based on questionable and scientifically incomplete studies that may not have included minors.” Here is the decision itself.

That was yesterday. Today, a different judge (Judge Kimberly Mueller) handed down a decidedly different decision (not to postpone the law) on a separate case brought by different plaintiffs – that story is here.

As I mentioned in previous posts available here and here, there are several problems with the ban, including the scientific evidence on this kind of therapy on teens, as noted in the first ruling mentioned above. As important as that may be, there are issues with venue, precedent, and scope in the language of the ban itself. In any case, it is interesting that the scientific evidence was apparently not a point of focus in the other ruling, and I am sure many stakeholders will be keeping an eye on the developments in this area.

On Warranting Equal Scientific Standing

A recent commentary in USA Today discusses the frustration felt by some folks in the social and behavioral sciences that their disciplines are not treated as though they were as scientifically rigorous as the hard sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry). The author points out two issues that drive the debate: money and politics. First, the money given to one study is funding taken away from another study. So there is a vested interest in limiting who is a viable candidate for limited funds.

Second, research can be political, and academics in the softer sciences are decidedly left of center:

A recent survey by economics professor Daniel Klein revealed that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a whopping 30-to-1 ratio in anthropology; 28-to-1 in sociology; nearly 10-to-1 in history; and nearly 7-to-1 in political science. In economics, which is widely considered “conservative” by other social fields, Republicans are merely outnumbered 3-to-1.

These ratios should get your attention.

A similar discussion takes place in several chapters in the book, Psychology’s War on Religion, edited by three folks, one of whom is Nicholas Cummings, past president of the American Psychological Association. I contributed the chapter on the battle over sexuality, which is on the front lines of the question of bias. I’ll come back to this in a moment. But first let’s discuss philosophy of science.

Several scholars have pointed out that research is value-laden – this is fairly well-established in the philosophy of science literature for the past fifty years or so. From the selection of the topic to the choice and operationalization of variables to the interpretation of data – make no mistake, science is value-laden. It is just clearer to see in the behavioral and social sciences. But that science if value-laden is true across the sciences. Perhaps the potential misuse of science is of greater concern in the behavioral and social sciences in light of the tendency to skew left of center which could keep researchers from holding one another accountable.  “Group think” about entire lines of research (let alone specific findings) can become a problem that translates into policy recommendations under the weight and auspices of “What science says…”

My experience has been that when other perspectives are brought up that go against the prevailing view (what is quickly defended as the “scientific consensus”), that other perspective (the counter-narrative, if you will) is ridiculed outright or simply left die a slow death by exclusion (from the broader “scientific” discourse).

There are plenty of examples to illustrate this point, and I offer several of them in the chapter I referenced above (in the book, Psychology’s War on Religion). One such area is the question: Can sexual orientation change? The answer “Yes” has become acceptable if it means through natural fluidity (among females) as reported by Lisa Diamond in her longitudinal work. If similar data (with more rigorous methodology) suggests “Yes” through involvement in Christian ministries, that line of research is dismissed outright as an outrageous consideration that does not even warrant discussion. It was interesting at the time of the original publication that the initial criticisms centered on who authored it, our institutional affiliations, and that it was published in book form (never mind that several studies have been published in book form and none of the early criticisms were scientific criticisms as such). Now that the study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal (in 2011, Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy), it is now facing that counter-narrative of exclusion (i.e., let’s ignore it) I mentioned earlier.

Of course, one study does not prove that change occurs, and we have offered several possible explanations for the findings in an attempt to be fair that multiple interpretations of the data are viable. But the findings themselves open a line of research that could warrant further investigation. I recognize that the question of change is not of interest to the mainstream GLB community, and that it is actually a threatening consideration, but the mainstream GLB community are not the only stakeholders in these discussions, and others are (and have been) asking what the can expect from involvement in Christian ministries. Rather than rely upon competing anecdotal accounts, empirical study can shed light on a question of personal relevance to conventionally religious people. (Now such purported “scientific consensus” is being used to advance legislation about clinical practice. The behavioral and social science community that recognizes that such a bill overreaches beyond the science stands silent or “neutral” on the matter.)

So, to return to the question of whether the behavioral and social sciences warrant equal scientific standing: I am unlikely to shed a tear for my colleagues who lament that the behavioral and social sciences are not seen as equal to the hard sciences. As a psychologist, part of me would like to see behavioral science findings valued, and in many (if not most) cases, this would not be an issue. But I see first-hand how the field functions within political space that warrants the criticisms we have received.

When we get our house in order, we will be able to have a legitimate complaint. Until then, the devaluing of the behavioral and social sciences can function as a corrective if we are open to constructive criticism.

Evolution, Adaptations, Social Pressure, and Pruning

As we have witnessed changes at Exodus International in their approach to ministry, their view of reparative therapy, and other developments, I want to reflect a little not on Exodus as such but on how Christians and various institutions and ministries evolve in response to a rapidly changing sociocultural climate. It is important that an organization is clear about what it believes and why, so that its primary motivation is to provide clarity about its brand.

One unintended consequence of organizations revisiting their brand is related to the positive feedback they receive from others. If that becomes the focus, they can get themselves into a dilemma. They do well to keep in mind that not everyone will support changes that fall short of a ministry reflecting a completely different conclusion than the one they hold doctrinally.

To return to the example of Exodus, consider the post over at ThinkProgress titled: “Ex-Gay Group’s Rebranding Makes it No Less Dangerous or Wrong.” There has been so much pressure on Exodus and other ministries to move away from a focus on change of sexual orientation that you would think that if they made that shift it would be seen as a welcomed development. The reality is, for some people and organizations, no shift will be sufficient if it falls short of a fundamental change in formed moral evaluation of all aspects of homosexuality, including same-sex behavior.

At its core, the organization clearly still believes that homosexuality is the cause of a person’s struggles, not the anti-gay society in which they live. Regardless of how these therapists attempt to treat homosexuality, they are still causing harm by trying to treat it at all — in complete violation of all social science research and ethics. As Truth Wins Out’s Wayne Besen notes in the AP article, “The underlying belief is still that homosexuals are sexually broken, that something underlying is broken and needs to be fixed. That’s incredibly harmful, it scars people.”

I haven’t really said much about the developments at Exodus. Generally speaking, however, I see a focus on identity, behavior, and spiritual maturity as a more constructive framework than a narrow focus on orientation, in part because that focus can become the measure of self-worth and spiritual maturity, which is a mistake in my view. That said, if a group makes changes in anticipation that others will cease to criticize them, they will be in for a rude awakening. (I’m not saying that is what happened with Exodus; I am saying that as a principle for Christians and ministries to consider.)

As Christians (and Christian institutions and ministries) take in new information, new data, respond to shifts in culture, and consider how they want to position themselves in relation to the topic and the people who are represented by that subject matter, they will benefit from making changes that truly reflect who they are, what their brand is. At the same time, keep in mind that the new brand–as accurate as it may be–will  still be utterly rejected  by some.

The question will arise: Can you hold convictions independent of the approval of others?

On the upside, these pressures help provide clarity about what people (and institutions/organizations/ministries) believe and why. It can be seen as a kind of pruning back the extra things that a person does not really see as critical, with the idea that what remains is essential.

Defining Exodus: A Letter from Alan Chambers

Update: Here is an interview with Alan Chambers that appeared in The Atlantic.

Here is a letter from Alan Chambers, President of Exodus International. It is his attempt to define Exodus as a ministry in light of the public relations challenges they face as an organization in light of a rapidly-changing cultural context around LGB issues. Let me encourage you to read the letter in its entirety, but here are a few nuggets that stood out to me:

Exodus International is repeatedly accused of seeking to make gay people straight through conversion therapy and prayer. As the media and culture rage around us, drawing battle lines in the sand and seeking to fuel the debate about homosexuality, my team and I have been working diligently to clearly state the calling of this great ministry and focus solely on that work. We want to reiterate that our mission is, first and foremost, to serve, support and equip the Church in providing refuge to individuals or families impacted by same-sex attractions (SSA).  Quite simply, our goal is to make the Church famous for loving and serving people as Jesus would and pointing them to Him.…

People seeking this encouragement and guidance do so because they have decided to pursue an identity or life based on their relationship with Christ over their same-sex attractions. …

We believe that in Christ we have been given completely new hearts and the ability to have power over the sin that remains confined to our earthly flesh.  While believers absolutely can fall to temptation, the mark of a maturing believer is finding increased victory in areas that have, at times, overwhelmed us. …

We respect everyone’s right to pursue their own course as it relates to seeking resolution for struggles. No one is ever coerced, forced into therapy, nor do we seek to ‘pray away the gay’ as many have suggested.  In fact we are no longer an organization that associates with or promotes therapeutic practices that focus on changing one’s attraction.  I found the greatest amount of freedom when I stopped focusing on my sin and struggles and started focusing on the grace and peace found only in Christ and the man He created me to be.  This life isn’t most about sin management but about living daily as the sons and daughters of God.  In part, it is the peace and rest found in that identity alone that transforms us daily.

Exodus does not believe SSA is sinful.  However, sexual expression resulting from SSA is. Making such clear distinctions has been a failure of the Church that is slowly being realized and changed. …

We must all recognize that behavior resulting from SSA is not easily overcome. Many may struggle for the rest of their lives with some form of temptation or unwanted feelings. That is the nature of human experience on earth. However, we do believe God’s grace can give us the ability to live beyond the power of our temptations as we acknowledge and yield our weakness to Him.  Change is possible for every human being who has a destiny-altering encounter with Jesus Christ.  But, change isn’t the absence of struggle but rather the freedom in the midst of struggle to choose differently. …

An Interesting Development at Exodus and a Tension for Christian Ministries

On their blog, Exodus International is offering their official position on reparative therapy. This is getting a lot of attention (see here and here). The impetus appears to be the California Bill that was recently passed by the CA senate that would make it illegal to provide reorientation therapy to minors (I commented on that here).

This is what Exodus International is saying about reparative and/or conversion therapy:

Exodus International supports an individual’s right to self-determine as they address their personal struggles related to faith, sexuality and sexual expression.  As an organization, we do not subscribe to therapies that make changing sexual orientation a main focus or goal. Our ministry’s objective is to equip the Church to become the primary place where people of faith seek support, refuge and discipleship as they make the decision to live according to Christian principles.

We believe in a “gospel-centric” view, meaning that all people, regardless of individual life struggles, can experience freedom over the power of sin through a daily relationship with Jesus Christ, a commitment to scripture, and by being a part of a vibrant, transparent and relational community of believers found in the local church.  Exodus is partnered with more than 260 churches and support-based ministries who serve individuals and families experiencing a conflict between their faith and sexuality.

There is a tension here between being a Christian ministry that is “gospel-centric” and the questions that naturally arise when ministering in the area of same-sex sexuality about whether sexual orientation can change (or whether a Christian can receive healing).

I was recently contacted by a parent of a young adult how had adopted a lesbian identity. He asked me about his perception that I did not think people could change sexual orientation – and how that fit with Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 6:9-11) in which he indicates “such were some of you” – with reference to homosexual behavior (among other behaviors).

Here is part of what I shared:

When Paul writes “such were some of you,” I don’t read Paul as saying that orientation necessarily changed. Paul may be suggesting something like that, but I don’t think we have enough evidence to say that we know he is saying that. Rather, I think we can assume he is at least suggesting a pattern of behavior that used to characterize the person. … He can say “such were some of you” because — and now I think he is referring to a meaningful change due to their relationship with Christ — they have now ceased that pattern of behavior. I would note that the list also includes the adulterer. An adulterer ceases to be an adulterer when they cease a pattern of behavior (infidelity) that characterized them as a person. They may still find themselves attracted to people outside of their marriage, but they do not lust after or engage in behavior with them in a way that would characterize them as a person. I think we are on better footing to say that this is the kind of change Paul is referring to.

I went on to share a little about my views of sexual orientation change:

As for my view of whether orientation can change, I actually think it can, but my view is not one that is popular with the mainstream gay community or with conservatives in the church. Let me explain: To say that orientation can change, I mean that there may be meaningful shifts (along a continuum) away from same-sex attraction (and in some cases meaningful shifts toward attraction to the opposite sex). Some of this appears to be the result of natural fluidity, which is more so the case among females. But I don’t think that everyone can change or that anyone can change, as though it were just a matter of enough effort or of enough faith. Also, the data we have sees from our own research suggests that categorical change – 180 degrees – from gay to straight is less likely than what I refer to as meaningful shifts along a continuum (from same-sex to opposite-sex attraction).

New Spitzer Interview

The sponsoring organization that made this video is trying to ge more mileage out of Robert Spitzer’s change of heart regarding his 2001 study (later published in Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003). In this interview, Spitzer shares several thoughts that range from how he responded to his own doubts about the study to whether others should show a video of Spitzer talking about his study initially.

It is difficult to know what to say about this interview, but let me offer a few thoughts:

Citing the study. On the question of whether others should cite the study, I can appreciate Spitzer’s desire that others not cite the study, but that is beyond any researcher. The findings are what they are, limitations and all. And many people have pointed out the limitations of the study (see the original publication in ASB and the 20+ commentators). As the editor of ASB noted, retractions and regrets are two different things.

“Seeding” the study. A comment is made by the narrator on how a reparative therapist “seeded” the study with his clients. That sounds more like a design issue for Spitzer. If the researcher solicited participants from reparative therapists, then I don’t see the issue with a reparative therapist informing his patients of the study. If the therapist had been conducting the study, then we would be having a different discussion about how best to obtain a sample.

Past interviews. I don’t think I’ve seen these other videos of Spitzer talking about his study previously (with the exception of the I Do Exist DVD from Throckmorton). Is it wrong or unethical to show those videos? I think it wise that if the videos are shown to acknowledge that the researcher has had a change of heart toward his initial interpretation of the findings.

Closing declarations. This was probably the most interesting part of the interview for me. I’m not sure what to make of Spitzer’s claims toward the end of the interview. These include that those who advance ex-gay therapy are “full of hatred of homosexuality”; that any attempt to change is “misguided”; that orientation “cannot be changed”; and that efforts to change will be “disappointing” and “can be harmful.” Where to begin?

There are no doubt people who hold a great deal of hatred toward homosexuals, but is it true that those who provide such therapy are full of this hatred? I know that that is the developing narrative, but is it true? Is the offering of such therapy (or assistance in the form of ministry) an act of hatred toward homosexuals? Although I do not provide reparative therapy, I know some people who do, and I am quite familiar with the various Christian ministries that exist, and I find this kind of declaration fails to grasp the motivations some people have who pursue such therapy (as well as the motivations of those who provide such therapy). Without some evidence to support the charge, it comes off as rather unscientific as stated.

The claim toward the end of the interview that sexual orientation “cannot be changed” is particularly interesting given Spitzer’s change of heart regarding the methods of his own study. It is one thing to admit growing doubts about whether the design was adequate to support the initial conclusion that in some cases sexual orientation can change, but it is quite another thing to declare that orientation cannot change. Presumably this is coming from the same study that was not of adequate design to support the claim of change. If a researcher concludes that the design is poor, and it cannot prove success, then that study cannot disprove success or prove failure.