Jim Pace

Recent Comments

• 

  Rob said...

  1

  Bold of you guys to work on these issues–challenging and bold. I think the “Perhaps we can all learn from one another as we go forward” is a good summary as well — one of hope and not of hate or dispair.

  Bold. Very bold. Hats off to you. Fight the good fight.

  12/21/09 6:38 PM | Comment Link

• 

  jim said...

  2

  thanks rob, appreciate the encouragement to keep the discussion going

  12/22/09 7:58 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Stephen said...

  3

  You lose all validity in your argument in your first line.
  “I have a friend who is gay. Well, not really, that just makes for a good opening line”

  Also, concerning your defense of “praying the gay away” or suppressing homosexual feelings….your understanding of evidence-based therapy seems limited. Pointing to individuals that have managed to suppress a part of their being and not suffered from debilitating bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts does not an effective therapy make. The overall consensus from the scientific community points to sexuality as a biologically linked trait, not a choice and certainly not something someone should be urged to suppress. The views you present in your argument are rooted in homophobia. Lets not hold any punches on this. There are no verses in the Bible that clearly state homosexuality as a sin. Sure, there are verses that can be interpreted as such with the right amount of stretching, but they’re few and far between. When given the vast amount of information in the Bible and the overarching positive messages of hope and love, it shows deliberate malice for a group when these unclear and no doubt socially motivated writings are given as reason for subjugating a group of people. If you don’t believe that the authors of the bible were influenced by their own prejudice and social beliefs of the time and in fact God was speaking verbatim through them, there is little use in arguing with you. There are numerous Christians that have committed unspeakable acts of discrimination believing that God was doing the same through them. Hitler comes to mind, but hes only a standout in a laundry list of horrible people “doing God’s will”.
  Let me be clear in my assertion that Christianity is not to blame. I see no problem with the teachings of Christ. My issue lies with people that take this message and use it to guilt people they don’t like into changing into something that makes them more comfortable. I have several gay friends (really I do, I don’t need to make a false claim to state my views)who are Christian and although it baffled me at first that they would want to subject themselves to the prejudice of Christians like you, further research proved that there are large numbers of the Christian community that ACCEPT them as they are. ACCEPTANCE, not TOLERANCE. You paint your message as a warm display of Christian understanding, but it is nothing of the sort. Again I am reminded of one of Hitler’s strategies(this guy gets way too much citation) namely because of its recent attention in the news. Jews huddled into a work camp at Auschwitz were given a false sense of hope in a sign stating “Arbeit Macht Frei” (Work sets you Free). Your argument basically states that its ok to be gay as long as you work not to act on this naturally occurring aspect of yourself. Work to be normal. Work to be heterosexual. Work to understand that when God created you he made a mistake. Work to understand that what you are will never be acceptable, but hiding it will suffice in guaranteeing your place in the kingdom of heaven. Whats worse, burning in hell or suffering in the oven of discrimination surrounded by people that treat you as equal as long as you act like them. You can stop patting yourself on the back for making progress in a positive discussion of homosexuality in the Christian community.

  I have a Homophobic Christian friend…… not really that just makes for a good opening line. He can’t seem to get around his own misgivings about a group he doesn’t understand so he hides behind religion….

  or

  I have a Bald friend. I tolerate his baldness, but I think with proper therapy and the right hairpiece, this unsightly characteristic he has no control over can be managed and made more pleasing in mine and God’s eyes.

  -this last bit is in no disrespect(I’m just a few years shy of Chromedomia myself) , but meant to highlight the absurdity of taking issue with a natural biologically occurring aspect of humanity

  12/22/09 11:55 AM | Comment Link

• 

  jim said...

  4

  Hey Stephen,
  thanks for your post and your intensity. here are a couple of tthoughts for now. after this i won’t likely be posting anything of value (seems you would say i haven’t yet) for the next two-ish weeks.

  i think you might have a fair point on the opening line being poorly stated. i will consider that over the next bit.

  without going into everything you say, i honestly feel like i have walked into your argument with someone else. i am not in the least bit homophobic. i do have some disagreements with some members of the glbt community, but i am certain from many conversations with member of that community, that they have disagreements with me. why am i homophobic? because i disagree?

  i think this is a good description of what i walk into. an awful lot is being presumed of me, without any reason to think it, other than i have a particular take on an particular issue. so the idea that i am trying to guilt someone i don’t like into doing something that makes me more comfortable with them is completely disconnected with any reality i personally live in.

  also, the idea that hiding something like this, either from God or people, can get you into heaven is silly. i have never stated anything of the kind and have gotten into quite heated discussions with those who also say they follow Christ that have. so again, i feel like i am walking into someone else’s argument.

  and hitler? really? i get that you feel that the scriptures were written in a fundamentally flawed way and were organized and grouped in some sort of self-serving manner. and, yes i would disagree with much of that, but hitler? c’mon stephen, you must admit that was a bit harsh and non-descriptive.

  i will post in the next couple of weeks more of my thoughts, they are honestly too numerous to list out now. so be checking back, and anyone else can be free to speak in. again, i may take a while to get back a reply. that isn’t because i am not interested, but because i am trying to take some time off with my family. but, again, anyone else can respond if they like.

  but let’s try to play nice. okay?

  peace,
  jim

  12/22/09 12:31 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Friend said...

  5

  Hello there. Jim’s same-sex attracted friend here. Just wanted to respond briefly to a few things Stephen said.

  1. The therapy that I have chosen to pursue after much reading and careful thought does not teach me to deny or suppress any part of me. Quite the opposite. We spend most of the time focusing on my feelings. I can only speak for my experience–and I have no doubt there are plenty of hack therapists out there doing great harm–but the therapy I’ve received is nothing like what Stephen has described. I’ve become a much more open, honest, and emotionally-healthy person since I started therapy. The shame I used to feel over my sexuality is gone.

  2. Stephen said, “The overall consensus from the scientific community points to sexuality as a biologically linked trait…” This is an example of the uninformed, overreaching statements I mentioned in my post. There ISN’T an overall consensus from the scientific community. There are scientists who believe homosexuality is genetic, scientists who believe it is hormonal (meaning hormones affected the fetus during development), and scientists who believe it is developmental, based on dysfunctional childhood interactions with peers and parents. There is little evidence for a genetic cause at this point, but some evidence for a hormonal cause. Nothing definitive, but some interesting findings. Here’s the problem, though. Even if hormones (or genetics, for that matter) are involved, you’d still have to determine whether they simply predispose a person to homosexuality (with other factors being required to make the person homosexual) or whether hormones or genetics are themselves determinative. Bottom line: we don’t know yet with any certainty how homosexuality develops. Scientists don’t know, I don’t know, and Stephen doesn’t know. So, why pursue a therapy that is based on the belief that homosexuality is developmental–again, based on dysfunctional childhood interactions with peers and parents? Because, simply, I can’t do anything about whatever role genetics and hormones played in my development; I can do something about the damage done to me through the dysfunction of my family and friends when I was a child. How much healing will that bring, and will that healing mean I develop heterosexual feelings? Who knows? I don’t, and neither does Stephen.

  3. The whole “God created you this way” line should be retired. It’s little more than poetry. It means nothing. All sorts of things can and do go wrong in our development as human beings. We can’t use God as the cause. Scientists would sneer at such an argument. We probably should too.

  4. What does one even say about comparisons to Hitler? Sheesh, Stephen, tone down the rhetoric. I assume you have not gassed anyone or thrown any babies into a hot oven. Permit those with whom you disagree the same benefit of the doubt.

  12/22/09 12:51 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Stephen said...

  6

  Everything I’ve stated is based on what you’ve given me in your two posts on this topic. I stand by what I’ve said concerning the underlying message in both of your posts regardless of your feelings in actuality. If you don’t believe what you’re writing perhaps you should have a disclaimer. And Hitler…yeah, he gets too much playtime and I could have used some other historical figure(its hard to find a more fitting poster-boy for organized persecution), but no, I don’t think its too harsh. The ideas you’re promoting, regardless of your ownership in them, serve as a non-violent, but no less serious stifling of the human spirit.

  12/22/09 1:02 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Stephen said...

  7

  if you haven’t done so yet watch the documentary- “For the Bible Tells me So”
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajBR0dq0XXk

  12/22/09 1:16 PM | Comment Link

• 

  jim said...

  8

  okay, one last thing…

  i am nothing like the fred phelps’ church (the God hates fags people). i will watch the full video in the next couple of weeks. but that isn’t even close to describing my view of God, the scriptures, love, holiness, humanity, myself, rebellion, how God feels about our rebellion, how you discern the old, or hebrew, testament, how we become more like Christ, how we speak for him, my goals for society, government, family, the constitution, how i have raised my children… i could go on.

  nothing i saw in that trailer (admittedly just the trailer – and i just watched it once) reflects me.

  and now, off to my oldest son’s basketball game.

  12/22/09 1:37 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Stephen said...

  9

  Thanks for giving it a watch. I’m interested to get your views on it. Good luck to your son.

  12/22/09 1:55 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Michael said...

  10

  Jim, I don’t know whether I should be more appalled by your support for ex-gay conversion therapy or your misguided belief that you have taken a moderate stance on this issue. You are not taking a moderate approach to homosexuality, not by a long shot. But you and your friend have repeatedly suggested that you have found the Third Way. Unlike conservative Christians, you are not condemning your friend to Hell, deposing him from his leadership position, or expecting him to say a simple prayer that will change him overnight. And unlike their liberal counterparts, you are not accepting your friend’s sexual orientation at face value as a part of God’s plan for the world and pointing to homophobia, not homosexuality, as the problem. Instead you claim that men who find themselves attracted to other men and women to women can change their sexual orientation—an escape valve from the complaints of the right and the left. It makes perfect sense that you would characterize yourself as a moderate on this issue. Your church—our church—has members from many faith backgrounds and none at all. Neither fundamentalist nor mainline Protestant, it aligns itself with the evangelical community by taking a middle-of-the-road approach on many issues. This accommodates Baptists and Presbyterians, Catholics and former agnostics, and many others. You avoid fringe positions for good reason. “The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.” In some sports, the best and worst scores are dropped to find the average. But you have veered far to the right on this issue and are trying to claim otherwise. Does anyone actually believe that the ex-gay movement takes a balanced approach to sexuality? Even the Republican Party avoids ex-gay associations.

  Interestingly, you seem to fear that your detractors on the left will try to take away your friend’s freedom to choose his own path. Conservatives have been using the same argument against the LGBT movement for decades. We hear false allegations that same-sex marriage will force members of the clergy to officiate wedding ceremonies against their own conscious and hate-crime laws will prevent them from speaking out against sin. In fact, same-sex marriage and hate-crime laws impose no such requirements or prohibitions on church leaders. By the same token, does anyone actually believe your friend should not be free to pursue any type of therapy of his choosing? I don’t think that meditation and palm healing will cure any diseases, but I would not try to prevent anyone from practicing Reiki; this is not the issue. You have endorsed a form of therapy that the scientific and medical establishment has proven over and over not only ineffective but also harmful. As a church leader, you have brought legitimacy to the ex-gay movement among your congregants in the same way that numerous blog entries supporting Reiki would; this is the issue.

  What’s more, you have to adjust the meaning of words to make your approach seem plausible. I don’t remember when I first learned the meaning of “gay.” I assume I picked it up as a child the same as any word. My fourth grade teacher once used it as an example of a word with multiple meanings. She whispered it. A few years later I heard the word again in a car ride from my uncle’s funeral. My cousin had upset some members of the family by bringing his partner to the funeral. When my mother explained the situation, she told me that my cousin was gay. Her voice had a different ring too it than my fourth grade teacher’s. At age 12, I realized the word applied to me, and at age 15, I described myself with it for the first time. By the time I came out to my parents a year later, I heard the word “gay” in the hallway when I passed. My schoolmates whispered it. I thought I had lost many of my friends, but in truth I had learned the hard way who my real ones were. I soon discovered that the ones who stopped talking to me, called me names, or pushed me against lockers were not homophobic atheists, disaffected Jews, or angry Unitarians. They wore WWJD bracelets. They sported Jesus fish magnets on the back of their cars. They kept a Bible in their backpacks. I suspected that they had learned to dislike me on account of my sexual orientation because they subscribed to an outdated religion led by men and women who would call me an “abomination,” and I suspect that you have to invent your own terminology to describe your friend’s situation to negotiate this tension between the words “Christian” and “gay.” Pick up a dictionary. “Gay” means attracted to the same sex. It does not refer to a religious belief, social custom, or political ideology. Your friend is gay whether or not he hangs out with other members of the LGBT community, wears skinny jeans, or listens to Lady Gaga. What if I had a friend who refused to eat mean but didn’t call herself a vegetarian? She might be able to avoid any negative connotation that the word “vegetarian” conjures, but would she be in self-denial? How would she deal with the cognitive dissonance? Likewise, your friend might be able to flee from high school bullies and fire-and-brimstone preachers by avoiding the term “gay,” but is he being true to himself and those around him? Words have meaning beyond how you use them.

  You seem to believe that homosexuality is a mental illness. How exactly does this work? Many mental illnesses cause chemical imbalances in the brain; some are genetic. But no pill can treat homosexuality and no scan can detect it. Are bisexuals only halfway ill? Members of the ex-gay movement often suggest that an absent father or an overbearing mother can cause homosexuality—or at least play a major factor in its development. But a large and growing percentage of U.S. families lack a father at home and most of these don’t raise gay sons or daughters. It makes sense that conservative Christians would blame women too. They have gained more and more rights in recent decades and have become the primary breadwinner in almost half of all families. Likewise, ex-gay leaders often claim that individuals who struggle with their sexuality have a deep, unmet longing for intimacy and affection from members of their own gender. I believe them. But doesn’t everyone long for closeness and affection with others? So many have been conned to pay big bucks for ex-gay therapy because it describes the human condition, not the homosexual one.

  I worry that how you treat those who want to change their sexual orientation indicates how you treat those who don’t. Would your friend still be a leader in his church if he didn’t want to change his sexuality or saw no reason for change? If you think one of us should pursue “pray the gay away” treatment, do you think all of us should? Would you recommend ex-gay therapy for me? My answer is “no,” and I have a hunch that many others would have the same answer. Are we full participants in your church, or does our reconciliation with our sexual orientation make us unrepentant in your eyes?

  I have other questions and points to make. I want to tell your friend that he has a right to be angry, that he is a whole person whether or not he is single, that God doesn’t call us to a “normal,” married, heterosexual life. He makes no such promises. Our culture does that. The Bible asks for much more. A leader in the church should already know this. I hope that I have started a conversation, not ended it.

  12/24/09 5:31 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Friend said...

  11

  Hello again, folks. I’d like to respond to a few things from Michael’s comments.

  1) He says, “Words have meaning beyond how you use them.” Doesn’t this support my point? Words always have definitions–”gay” means attracted to the same sex–but usually have connotations beyond the exact definition. It’s the connotations that do not describe me. The word “gay” implies a fixed state and, usually, implies a person who has made peace with the fact that he has homosexual attractions. I don’t believe sexuality is a fixed state, and I choose not to make peace with my attractions. So “gay” doesn’t seem a good fit for me. Please stop labeling me, as you would not wish me to label you.

  2) I would not describe myself as a conservative Christian. I don’t like labels, and many things about me do not fit that label. Again, please stop with the labels. They reduce people.

  3) Michael said that many families have absent fathers and/or overbearing mothers but do not produce homosexual sons, so this can’t be the cause of homosexuality. This seems far too simplistic an understanding of developmental dysfunction. We do not all react the same to a given set of circumstances. The fact that some develop homosexual feelings from family dysfunction (i.e., distant fathers and overbearing mothers) and that others do not should not surprise anyone. Human beings are complicated. You don’t plug people into a formula and get the same response every time. I would not expect every male with my family to develop homosexually. But I did, and it seems reasonable that my family interactions as a child led to this.

  4) Michael says, “So many have been conned into paying big bucks for ex-gay therapy …” This is pretty close to one of those all-or-nothing statements that drive me crazy. The implication is that a vast number of people have been “conned,” meaning they did not know they were being duped, and that most if not all ex-gay therapy is a scam. How many people does Michael know who’ve been genuinely “conned?” And how many people does he know who would say, based on personal experience, ex-gay therapy is a scam? I can point to just as many people who would say their money was well-spent, and that the therapy was very helpful to them, whether or not they changed their attractions. I am one. The first thing my therapist did was tell me, “We cannot promise you’ll reach your goal.” That hardly sounds like a con-artist.

  5) Michael says, “You have endorsed a form of therapy that the scientific and medical establishment has proven over and over not only ineffective but also harmful.” Another all-or-nothing statement. The scientific and medical establishment has not “proven” this. A number of organizations, the APA for one, have done research which has shown that few experience meaningful change in their attractions as a result of the therapies they studied, and that some people have experienced depression and other mental illnesses after therapy. A number of studies, however, have shown that as many as a third of clients experience significant change. Yes, that means two-thirds do not, but someone has to be in that one-third, so why not give it a try? The accusation that bothers me most is Michael’s assertion that the therapy has been “proven” to be harmful. It has not, and even the APA doesn’t claim it has. The APA acknowledges–and so would I–that some people have experienced mental illness after therapy. Okay. That’s probably true, though, of therapy for many things. Does that mean the therapy is to blame? If I pursue treatment for cancer but it doesn’t work, I might fall into depression, but is that the chemo’s fault? Should I not have tried? Look, I know there are hacks out there practicing reorientation therapy who are, well, hacks. But there are competent, well-trained, licensed practitioners out there as well. I can speak only for my experience, but the therapy has helped me so much. I’m in such a better place mentally than I was before therapy, and I know others who would say the same. We all went in knowing the risks, and we all would say we’re glad we pursued treatment.

  12/25/09 11:00 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Michael said...

  12

  The word “gay” only has a negative connotation if you think being gay is bad. Do you think that?

  There is no credible study that shows a one-third success rate with ex-gay therapy. In fact, the APA reported “no evidence that sexual orientation change efforts work.” I would put “no evidence” in italics, but this blog does not allow that. The APA appointed a task force to study the matter with all available research. After a two year study, it did not find any evidence of successful conversion efforts. That’s a zero percent success rate. Even leading organizations that support re-orientation therapy, such as Exodus International, have admitted that they only change sexual behavior, not sexual attraction. They have avoided the term “ex-gay” in recent years because it is misleading. You can all this an “all-or-nothing statement” if you like. It doesn’t change the facts.

  12/25/09 7:21 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Stephen said...

  13

  I think the biggest problem here is that Michael and I approached our arguments concerning therapeutic effectiveness from a purely scientific perspective. The argument that a therapy works for one individual does not prove it effective. A high school understanding of the scientific method should be sufficient to navigate this. Beyond that, your claim that the therapy “worked” holds no water. You’re still attracted to the same sex. Both Jim’s and his “friend’s” message hold the same homophobic message. This message is that all homosexuality, regardless of whether someone is comfortable with it, is wrong and a disease. And yes… this is homophobia. The sad part is Jim thinks he is being edgy and progressive by talking about this issue when in fact its the same message reconstructed. No, you’re not saying God hates fags… you’re saying the lgbt community is on par with a large group of alcoholics that need to accept that a higher power is in control and they must seek therapy to get a hold on the destructive behaviors they are drawn to. Given the implication that homosexuality is negative, this would imply that even those in therapy are never truly free from their ailment and therefore never fully equal with their heterosexual counterparts in the church community. You still haven’t addressed why its such a problem that someone is attracted to the same sex. I encourage Jim and his friend to think about this and address it. Why is it a problem? Why can’t someone have a relationship with God and be comfortable with their attraction to the same sex?

  12/26/09 10:11 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Friend said...

  14

  A few thoughts after reading Michael’s and Stephen’s latest comments.

  1) I did not say the connotations of the word “gay” are negative. I said only that the word “gay” has connotations beyond the exact meaning of the word, and that those connotations–being at peace with one’s attractions and believing that sexuality is a fixed state–do not describe me. So I choose not to identify as gay. I don’t see what’s negative about that.

  2) The APA’s 2009 report, titled “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” for those who’d like to read it, is an interesting read with some important info in it, but is hardly the final word on therapy for unwanted same-sex attractions. The task force that compiled the report consisted of only six doctors, and they acknowledge up front in the report that the recent research into sexual orientation change efforts “cannot provide conclusions regarding efficacy or safety.” The APA’s press release for the report similarly concluded, “Insufficient evidence that sexual orientation change efforts work.” “Insufficient evidence” does not mean “no evidence,” as Michael has asserted above. Just means the evidence is inconclusive, and that’s partly due to the fact that much of the research that has been done was deemed not to meet rigorous enough standards for inclusion in the report, so it was thrown out. Fine. If it isn’t sound research, it should be thrown out. But “insufficient evidence” does not mean we stop conducting research or make premature conclusions, as the APA suggests in the report. I read the report and walked away thinking what I thought before, that some people claim to have changed their orientation as a result of therapy and some people claim not to have changed, and we can’t scientifically prove either at this point. Why, then, am I constantly being pulled between two extremes, “You can’t change, that’s silly!” and “Of course, you can change, just believe and work hard!” I prefer the reasoned approach which says, “There are no guarantees, and I know the risks, but I want to try.”

  2) By the way, the only evidence those six doctors on the task force found that the therapy might be harmful was that people who believed they would change and did not reported higher instances of mental illness after therapy. Well, yeah. If I thought I was going to be cured of cancer but the chemo failed, I’d probably become depressed too. Does that mean the chemo was at fault?

  3) Some of Stephen’s accusations border on hysteria. Given the way the church has often treated gay people, I can understand the tendency to infer all manner of craziness from church leaders, but I would ask that he and others not assume things Jim and I haven’t said. At no point has either of us said, and neither do we believe, that same-sex attracted people are “never fully equal with their heterosexual counterparts in the church community.” Neither has either of us said that anyone “must seek therapy.” This is a good example of what people tend to do when talking about the hot-button topic of homosexuality. They take what has been said and infer things that were never said, and begin making outlandish accusations. Go back to the beginning of this blog series. It began by Jim saying that he had a friend–me–who struggles with unwanted same-sex attractions, that that friend was seeking therapy to overcome them, and that he supported his friend in the effort. That’s it. That’s all that was said. That has been turned into CRAZY HOMOPHOPIC PASTOR SAYS ALL GAYS MUST SEEK THERAPY! Jim said nothing of the sort.

  4) The term “homophobia” really needs to be retired. It gets thrown around way too much. Instead of referring to people who are genuinely scared of gay people, it is usually hurled angrily and/or condescendingly at anyone who happens to make a comment on the topic of homosexuality that someone somewhere disagrees with. That is disrespectful and wrong-headed. My friend Jim is the furthest thing from homophobic. Just because someone doesn’t share your opinion about homosexuality does not make them homophobic, and throwing names at people does not encourage good discussion.

  12/27/09 1:53 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Stephen said...

  15

  I haven’t assumed anything about you or Jim. Just as I said regarding my comments directed toward Jim, I have responded to the messages you both have put forth in your writing. The message is clear and I responded in kind. As for homophobia being thrown around too much- I don’t take it lightly and I don’t throw it at anyone making a comment about homosexuality. As we discussed earlier, words can have many meanings and I thought it clear that I was referring to prejudice when using the word homophobia and not the literal extrapolation of a fear of homosexuality. I meant it as a form of persecution along the same lines as racism or sexism. As far as my “hysteric” accusations…. my comments were all based on the implications that are inherent in your discussion. I haven’t taken unwarranted freedoms with the ideas you both have posited. You still haven’t explained to me why same-sex attraction is something that needs to be addressed through therapy and why Jim, as a member of the church community, should be condoning the use of said therapy.

  12/27/09 9:24 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Friend said...

  16

  Concerning Stephen’s last comment …

  1) I stand by my statement that Stephen very much is inferring things Jim and I have not said and do not mean, and is labeling people “homophobic” simply because they disagree with his view of homosexuality. I’m not sure who he thinks I’m persecuting (myself maybe?) for pursuing therapy to achieve the life I feel is right for me, or who he thinks Jim is persecuting for supporting his friend in that effort. I continue to believe it borders on hysteria to suppose someone is homophobic or Hitler-esque simply for violating Stephen’s belief system.

  2) Stephen asks a good question: Why is same-sex attraction something that needs to be addressed through therapy, and why does Jim condone this use of therapy? I’ll let Jim speak for himself if he chooses to. For my part, a homosexual lifestyle is inconsistent with my understanding of Scripture, and a life without intimacy is undesirable, so I choose to attempt changing my desires so that I might experience heterosexual intimacy. I do not expect or ask that anyone agree with me or join me in this. I certainly do not slander or persecute anyone who disagrees with me, as Stephen seems to believe. This is my decision based on my conclusions about Scripture, which everyone is free to read for themselves. Yes, I’ve read all the “God hates shellfish” arguments and the exegesis which says “Romans 1 is not talking about committed, monogamous homosexual relationships.” I just think the arguments are weak. This past summer I did read what I thought was a well-reasoned article from the Presbyterian USA church in support of committed homosexual relationships. In the end, I differed with their exegesis of Scripture, but I appreciated the careful thought they gave the matter and the respectful way in which they communicated their conclusions.

  12/27/09 10:24 PM | Comment Link

• 

  OtherFriend said...

  17

  Out of curiosity, are we talking about all types of therapy that seek to change sexual orientation (or at least sexual behavior with regards to homosexuality)? I feel like, after reading the ongoing discussion, that Friend and Michael and Stephen are talking about vastly different approaches to the issue.

  No one should be forced into any sort of sexual-orientation therapy against his or her will. Not only will that be largely ineffective at dealing with the “problem,” but it will be quite harmful. I feel like that’s the perspective that Stephen and Michael have brought into this. Never has Jim or Friend said “if you’re a guy and you like guys, you have to have therapy and you have to fix that or Jesus won’t love you.” It would be, at best, counter to scripture to say that. If you infer that from what’s been said (and what hasn’t been said), then I don’t think that’s on either Jim or Friend.

  However, I don’t see the problem in a responsible adult (or even adolescent for that matter) making an informed decision to pursue whatever therapy he chooses. And if we (Jim, Friend, or other) feel that it may ultimately be quite helpful then we support and encourage him.

  That people feel guilt about their sexual orientation is terrible. That they would feel like they would have to change to be loved or accepted is terrible as well. Unfortunately I feel like this is the message that Christians are most often associated with. And unfortunately its still true in some circles. The very first Christian I ever told about this – that I liked dudes – asked if I was “ok with that choice?”. I politely asked him if he had any idea what he was talking about. He was a good guy with a good heart, but a great deal of ignorance surrounding homosexuality. Sadly, that’s still where a lot of people are with the issue. “Well, if you would just stop choosing to be gay, you could be normal.”

  I say all of that so I can say this: I’m a guy and I like guys. I’ve liked guys longer than I’ve been a Christian. I’m heavily involved in the behind-the-scenes work of the church. The staff are aware and haven’t made it an issue at all. I haven’t been “demoted” or removed from leadership roles as a result. It wasn’t until the fall of 2008 that I decided to look into therapy for the SSA issue and that was of my own choice. And I’m quite happy I did.

  The benefit I had was that of not being forced into anything. One of the first questions I was asked – by an old friend from back home – upon news that I had accepted Jesus and was heavily involved with the church was “well, what about being gay?” I shrugged and said I would deal with it when and if I needed to.

  For a very, very long time I disliked Christians, didn’t really care about Christianity, and was very opposed to the whole ‘ex-gay’ movement. When I started talking to friends here about it, I spent a great deal of time defending my right to be gay, my anger at God about the whole issue, and why they were all wrong and I was right. I finally realized, after only a couple of people I talked to made any deal out of it whatsoever, that I was making a much bigger deal out of it than necessary.

  No one pressured me into anything. Rather over the course of my time, I started researching homosexuality – theories on causes, theories on therapy, etc. What I found was interesting, but I still wasn’t sold on “ex-gay” therapy.

  It wasn’t until I decided to pursue therapy (again) for depression that I began to consider seeing a group that specialized in SSA issues as well. After researching the group and their theories on the issue, I gave it a shot. I was very clear with my therapist why I was there. That I needed help with depression but that I could not in an intellectually honest way say that (my) homosexuality wasn’t related (either as a cause or symptom).

  The only expectation that I have is that my therapist will behave professionally and ethically. I don’t have a benchmark for ’success’ or ‘failure’. I don’t know what the future will hold for this. But I don’t feel that I’m acting irresponsibly, out of fear of being gay (or enjoying Lady GaGa), or out of guilt. Nor do I feel that I’m under pressure from any of my peers to achieve any outcome.

  Now you could say that I’ve intentionally set up no expectations for results (at least with regard to homosexuality) and therefore cannot have success or failure. Fine. Where I end up and where I choose to go from there is between me and God. And if my story is helpful to others, I will not hesitate to share it as Jim and Friend have started with Friend’s story.

  My own personal opinions on homosexuality can probably be inferred from what I’ve written, but I prefer they not be. As for my opinions on civil rights, gay marriage and (insert hot-button topic related to homosexuality), I’d appreciate the courtesy of not having those inferred either. If there’s interest I’ll comment appropriately.

  Finally, Steven, how can this statement be part of a logical and respectful discussion of issues: “my comments were all based on the implications that are inherent in your discussion. I haven’t taken unwarranted freedoms with the ideas you both have posited.”? You have openly admitted to presuming something about Jim’s and Friend’s position(s). That doesn’t seem to be fair at all.

  12/28/09 1:43 PM | Comment Link

• 

  jim said...

  18

  i am sitting in my hotel room in the middle of ohio, tracy and i just went for a run and the kids are still asleep… sorry for that facebook moment there…

  i have loved reading and reflecting on the posts and as i said a few days ago, i will toss in my two cents within the next week. for now…

  stephen, when i do reply i will answer your question of “why is it an issue with me”. a good idea to take it to a deeper level, so i will do that. it is one i have reflected on quite a bit. i would also like to return the ball to your court and ask you to do the same. why would you conclude what you have concluded? what have you concluded? what are your reflections on the moral neutrality of homosexuality?

  i will also answer other issues that have been raised in the course of our discussions. micheal, thank you for your thoughts, and some of my reflections on what you shared will be in the next post as well. see you, well…today. finally, my thanks to my friend and my other friend for not only sharing their thoughts but sharing a bit of the context for my perspective. really enjoying this!

  12/29/09 5:14 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Curtis said...

  19

  Hi all,

  In case you don’t remember, I’m the “ignorant reader” that the “gay-but-not-really-gay-because-I-don’t-want-to-be-gay-friend-of-Jim’s-who-doesn’t-actually-have-a-name” referred to in this post. I say that with a healthy dose of sarcasm, because a lot of what has been said is wordplay and is really not furthering the discussion. For the record, I love labels. I love that when I say the label green, other people know what color I’m talking about. I don’t think it reduces the color green, or any other color by calling it green. Even if something green wants to avoid being associated with other green things and wants to be called a non-practicing yellow-blue hybrid, I can deal as long as we all understand that “green” and “non-practicing yellow-blue hybrid” are in fact the same.

  It’s been stated several times (and once a quote of mine taken slightly out of context), but let me reiterate: there has not been a single documented case where somebody has actively changed his/her sexual orientation. That does not mean that sexuality is immutable — my own life story is proof of that (if you cared to ask before using me as the ignorant example you might think differently of me). There is a lot of theory stating that sexuality is at least somewhat fluid over time. Is it possible that people can go from gay to straight? (or “straight enough” as friend seems to desire) I believe it is possible. However, there is no program that can take you there. The APA’s report calls it irresponsible to tell a client that they can or should try to change, and that the best thing for a patient to do for their mental health is try to accept his sexuality and somehow resolve issues of gayness and faith. The panel of only six are experts; any one of them are more knowledgeable on sexuality than all of us combined — I would not dismiss what they say, especially as their only interest is the mental health (which includes spiritual health) of the patient (and not personally biased as any queer, pastor, or queer pastor could be).

  I’m extremely annoyed when people make comments belittling those who get heated on the topic of sexuality and faith, especially when it’s a straight person who thinks gayness is sinful condemning a queer person who doesn’t. Even when you wrap it up in phrases like “this isn’t God’s plan” to tone down the actual consequences, it still means that person A thinks person B is knowingly participating in sin without guilt or repentance, and last I checked a lot of Christians say that means person B is going to hell. When person A (in this case Jim) says that gayness is sinful, I think it’s totally okay for all persons B to get loud and upset by it.

  I find it really frustrating with the approach that there is nothing wrong with being gay (seemingly to placate gay people so they won’t get all fired up and angry), but then reversing that claim by saying a person should try to change his sexuality. If it’s a sin and required/desired to change for one gay person, then it has to be a sin for all gay people, and if it’s not a sin for one person then it isn’t a sin for anyone. In some ways, I miss Jerry Fallwell’s rhetoric because at least he was upfront with his intentions of suppressing lgbt people, and even though I never agreed with his interpretations of things, his arguments were at least honest and logical.

  “Friend” (if this label reduces you too much, I suggest giving a name, even a fake one if you’re not comfortable being open with your real name) stated that he doesn’t think there is anything negative about being gay, and even though I don’t recall Jim saying those exact words his stance seems to mimic the notion. You even said that you feel no shame about your homosexuality. I call BS on this. You keep using phrases like affected by homosexuality (like a disease), and insinuated through juxtaposition of ideas your belief or hope that damage done in your childhood is the cause of your gayness (ie, gay = damaged) and can be healed. Even (especially?) the basic premise of these blog posts, shows that you feel the need to stop being gay, so that you can function in a “normal” and “desirable” way. Friend, my heart goes out to you. Trust me when I say I know what it feels like to hate something about yourself and to want the power to change it. I sincerely hope that you can find happiness and can resolve your faith and gayness.

  Which is why I urge you to try a different therapy program. Every single person I’ve talked to who has gone through some form of conversion therapy has deeply regretted it. The most tragic are the ones who are in the later stages of life, and had gone through decades of therapy, with varying degrees of “success”, but invariably did not end up happy. I am not suggesting throwing your faith out the window, but you have other options besides conversion therapy that can lead to happiness and fulfillment.

  I have a strong feeling that nobody will change his opinions at the end of this discussion, but I hope I’m wrong.

  12/29/09 2:50 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Stephen said...

  20

  Curtis, I appreciate your clarity and the way in which you articulated much of the same notions I was trying to get across. I feel that I likely got upset during this discourse and some of what I’ve said may have been overshadowed by my anger. I want to make it clear that I think anyone should be free to do as they see fit as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the lives of others. I’ve just finished my first semester in a social work program and my passion for personal freedom has been bolstered by a cohort made of a majority of similarly-minded individuals. For this reason, I may have expressed my passion uncivilly and if I have hampered this discussion or my words have been taken as a personal attack, I apologize. Most of my thoughts concerning our topic come from an increased knowledge of the way in which oppression, over time, becomes institutionalized and eventually internalized in a way that makes it almost invisible to outsiders and those suffering. I feel that this process is precisely what we’re dealing with here. You can call me a bleeding-heart liberal or delusional. I’ll gladly take the former over the latter. I agree with Curtis in believing that very little will change due to our discussion. My only hope is that anyone in similar positions(those questioning their same-sex attraction in accordance with their religiosity) will know that there are other options outside of those given here and that there are many church communities( of varying denominations) that will accept them as they are with open arms. I myself am an agnostic. I no longer find resonance with my Methodist upbringing, but I know the tremendous importance of spiritual health in the lives of every human being, regardless of what that may mean. Jim, I continue to take issue with your condoning of these therapies. As a leader in your church community I don’t think you should be posting an open endorsement of therapy aimed at suppressing or changing someone’s sexual preference. Regardless of the way you word it, the message remains the same. You say you aren’t endorsing this therapy, but merely encouraging a friend with a personal choice. I thought the purpose of your 2 blog entries was an open discussion of homosexuality in the church community. I may have been wrong. If this was the purpose then it was far from open. Surely you have some gay friends that openly call themselves such and are still a part of the church community. Where is their story. The fact that you’re focusing on your “non-practicing” friend and someone that doesn’t define themselves as gay shows a clear bias toward those aimed at changing their sexuality.

  To Jim’s “friend” or “friends”, I apologize if you feel that the things I have said here were less than accepting of your personal choice. My issue is with an understanding of guilt and the fact that it is largely a socially constructed feeling and I have doubts that you would be seeking this therapy if you were in a truly accepting environment. If scripture is your misgiving, I would still say that your feelings surrounding these verses is largely based on the environment in which you learned the messages they were used to solidify. Regardless of my feelings, I wish you the best of luck in finding a comfortable and stable sense of self and an equally rewarding spiritual life.

  12/29/09 9:34 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Wendy said...

  21

  I first want to thank “Friend” and “Other Friend” for the courage it takes for them to be open about their struggle with their SSA and their personal desire to seek therapy for many issues in their life.

  And I say this as a “therapist.” I am a counselor (with a master’s degree) who not only spent a large portion of my time studying human sexuality in my graduate work, but also completed several safe-zone trainings and trainings on how to appropriately counsel regarding sexuality.

  I am not homophobic (I feel the need to say that here with all of the accusations going on) and I have openly counseled gay clients without ever having suggested they seek therapy for their “gayness.” In fact, most times I deal with gay clients, the reason they are in therapy is not the fact they are gay, so we don’t have to discuss it as such. It’s just a part of who they are, and as a counselor, I understand that.

  That being said, I do agree with the “Friends” that they have the right to pursue therapy on what they want. It is their life, and in counseling, they can choose to address whatever in their life that they want to.

  Also, I personally can speak to the fact that at least one “Friend” here is not basing his scripture misgivings on the pressures from the environment around him. In fact, I would say this guy is one of the best students of scripture I know. I admire this guys’ tenacity at which he approaches the scriptures and I wish I had the depth of understanding of theology and scripture that he does. So I want to say that it bothers me that people assume he is misguided in his interpretation of the scripture instead of trusting his words that say this is his choice and his beliefs.

  In regards to therapy in general, I obviously am for counseling in general (hence it’s my profession). I can also say that any type of therapy could be viewed as “harmful” if people entered it with the wrong expectations. In my training and experience, I can say with certainty that expectations between a client and counselor and goals are crucial to counseling being a helpful experience. I keep a “magic wand” in my office and sometimes when people come in with a problem and just look at me hoping I can solve it, I wave the wand and say “Bibbity Boppity Boo” and then say “I wish that could work, but it doesn’t.” This helps emphasize to them that therapy is not about my beliefs or values, but rather about themselves.

  One of the main values of counseling is the belief of the counselor that the answers truly lie within the clients. It is not my job to give someone any answers. It is also not my job to give advice. Rather, it is my job to be a device used to draw out the answers that are already within someone. This is how I can counsel people who make different choices than I would make.

  I, too, am a church leader. I am a staff member, deacon and board member. I take seriously all matters of scripture. And the issue of homosexuality is one where I can’t say with certainty that I understand easily. I have done my own study through the years and I don’t know that I can say “this is how God definitely feels about every action.” I do struggle with some of the passages and I tend to fall more towards the “left” in wondering “what if sexuality is something people are born with?” But while I wonder that, I support “Friend’s” statements that note that even while the scientific community LEANS towards stating it is biological, there is no certain proof.

  We need to, as a community, realize that there may never be undeniable evidence supporting the roots of sexuality. Just as some have evidence stating alcoholism and addiction are diseases of the brain, others have evidence stating alcoholism can be cured and that addiction is not a disease. How do we argue against two sides when both have “scientific” proof? I get the feeling that homosexuality will continue to be an issue as such, and that even as evidence comes out one way, it will also come out another.

  To me, as a follower of Jesus, as a counselor, as a church leader, and most importantly, as a friend, I think the biggest issue is not the science behind what we argue about, but rather the heart with which we deal with the people we are communicating to. In this case, I applaud Jim for being a true friend to his “Friend.” He has not once pushed his own agenda, and did not start this series on the web without his friend wanting to also engage in the discussion. Jim is not using his position as a church leader to push some type of therapy. Instead, he is a church leader who has a friend who wanted to share about his life. And Jim has been open enough to use his forum to allow the discussion to be had. This isn’t about Jim’s church’s stance on homosexuality, or about Jim’s personal feelings. This is about Jim’s Friend wanting to make a personal choice to pursue therapy for himself, and Jim supporting that decision. Period. Keep in mind that Jim has known this friend for years, and known his struggles, and not once did Jim push him to start therapy. That shows me that I am glad I too can call Jim a friend, because he’s the type of guy I want as a friend. Not one who pushes his agenda, but one who supports what I need when I need it.

  I envision that at some point in the future, this friend will be ready to take the next step to reveal himself. Until then, let’s not use quotes or sarcasm about his choice to stay anonymous for now. Both he and other friend have done a lot to be open, even if they have not used their names. I am proud of them both.

  01/5/10 9:07 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Friend said...

  22

  Wendy’s comment was so beautiful that I’ll probably say no more beyond this comment. I’ve enjoyed the discussion but feel I’ve pretty much said what I feel the need to say. Just a few points more:

  1. Curtis’s comparison of “green” to “gay” seems to fail for a couple of reasons: a) green has no social connotations, and b) green is not a label applied to people. Green is simply green. Period. Something is green or it isn’t. “Gay,” on the other hand, has connotations that may or may not apply to someone with homosexual attractions. Since it is a label applied to people, it may or may not be an appropriate label depending on the person.

  2. Curtis said, “There has not been a single documented case where somebody has actively changed his/her sexual orientation.” That just isn’t true. There is plenty of research, some recent, some going all the way back to Freud, that documents many cases of people who claimed to have changed their desires from primarily homosexual to primarily heterosexual. Much of that research was not considered for the APA’s report, not because it wasn’t credible, but because the APA deemed the research did not sufficiently control for other factors that might have led to the client’s sense of change. This is quite different than saying “there has not been a single documented case …”

  3. Curtis speaks of the APA in almost reverential terms, as if they are the final arbiters of what is true and false concerning homosexuality. In a previous comment he said the APA was “unbiased.” That’s quite a claim for any organization. Calling the APA “unbiased” is like calling Fox News “fair and balanced.” No doubt there are plenty of people who would say they are. It’s always tempting to believe the organizations we agree with are playing fair with the facts. I doubt there is any such thing as an unbiased organization. Organizations consist of people, people hold beliefs, and those beliefs bias them. The trouble is, even when we think we are playing fair with the facts, bias could be at work. We all have bias. The best we can do is acknowledge it and try to control for it in our research or reporting. On this point, I feel the APA fails dramatically. Throughout their 2009 report, titled Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation (produced by a task force of just six people), the APA repeatedly states, “… The research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality …” But not once did I ever find any place in the report where the task force cited any research that supported their claim. Not once. Not in 130 pages. They just state it, and we’re supposed to believe it. And curiously, a companion article published by the APA in 2008, called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles …” Hmm. If we can’t say what causes homosexuality, whether it is biological or not, and if we can’t rule out developmental family trauma and dysfunction as one contributing factor, then why did the six-member task force repeatedly say homosexuality is “natural” and “positive”? Moreover, why did they say the research supports this when in fact the APA has already acknowledged that it does not? Sounds like bias to me. The task force began from the belief that same-sex desires and behaviors are normal and positive, and that belief–that bias–directed the course of their report.

  4. Steven, thank you for your kind words. No hard feelings at all about anything you said before. I once was called Satan when I was an RA in a dorm. Hitler is a step up, I guess. Perhaps we will meet and get to talk in person some day soon. I’d like that.

  01/5/10 10:37 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Sallie said...

  23

  I’ve been greatly encouraged to read these comments this evening. I just found out about Jim’s blog and his fresh baby steps into serious internetting. Your first major subject is one that I have a vested interest.

  Let me reiterate that I’m encouraged. You guys are my church leaders and I believe that you are speaking with God’s wisdom.

  We can speak until we are all nauseated from quotations, but whatever may cause homosexuality(or alleviate it) I like Friend’s mindset. You and other friend are some cool dudes and I hope to talk to you in person some day.

  01/5/10 10:23 PM | Comment Link

• 

  jim said...

  24

  Sallie,
  Thank you for your kind words and I am very glad this discussion was encouraging to you in some way. Hey, if you are around the Blacksburg area, I would love to connect sometime. Have a great day.
  Jim

  01/6/10 6:14 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Curtis said...

  25

  I know this topic is pretty much done, but I thought I’d give some of my final thoughts.

  Friend, I have had more than a few friends who were men who did not want to be associated with other gay people, and didn’t want the cultural connotations of gay to apply to them. They’ve gone without subscribing to any label, or by same-gender-loving (in this case it is usually a black male that doesn’t want the white cultural connotations), and I’ve even had a friend call himself non-heterosexual. In all cases, when other people refer to them the word gay was used, and the usual application of social constructs and stereotypes that people apply to self-identifying gays were applied to the sgl, non-heterosexual, label-less persons. No matter what label you go by, when you say you are a male who is attracted to only men, most people hear gay. Also, as alternative-labels-to-gay go (as I stated before in a comment to the original post), non-practicing homosexual is kind of a silly and inaccurate label.

  In regards to changing sexual orientation — I am not discrediting people who claim to have changed their orientation. A person’s sexuality can change; I am not calling anyone a liar who says that they were attracted to only men and now are attracted to only women. My point is that there is no 12-step program to changing your sexual orientation. There is no documented procedure to stop being gay. There have been several comments in this discussion saying the APA doesn’t count the power of faith-based programs. This is not true, and as we all should be aware of by now, there are a great number of faith-based conversion therapies that have been studied, with results similar to non-faith-based.

  I don’t think the APA is the end-all LORD OF SEXUALITY, but as I said before, they are as unbiased as a group can get, and the task force members are not pushing personal agendas like a pastor who hates gay people or a queer who loves gay people would. They are studied scientists, not impassioned crackheads. The APA is indeed running off the belief that homosexuality is normal and positive. The basis for this is that being gay is not a mental disorder.

  There are a ton of definitions of mental disorders, but a quick google: define found this — “the term that refers collectively to all mental disorders. Mental disorders are health conditions that are characterized by alterations in thinking, mood or behavior (or some combination thereof) associated with distress and/or impaired functioning”. Schizophrenia meets these requirements because people with it cannot live an unsupervised and/or untreated life. Suffering from distress and/or impaired functioning is not intrinsic to being gay, hence not a mental disorder. While some gay people certainly suffer from distress and/or impaired functioning, I would argue that (unless affected by something that IS a mental disorder) it is the same scenario as any oppressed minority, and lots of research supports this.

  Friend, nobody has ever said that you are not free to make your own choices, and I think for the most part everyone has said things with your best interests at heart. I sincerely hope you find happiness. Feel free to contact me if you ever want to talk, about sexuality, faith, or the basal rate of your insulin supply.

  01/6/10 9:57 PM | Comment Link

• 

  Mel said...

  26

  Jim’s Friend,

  I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Dennis Jernigan, but he is an amazing worship leader who went through the same struggles you are going through.

  His story is on his website.

  http://www.dennisjernigan.com/djs-story

  01/29/10 6:22 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Tim said...

  27

  Curtis,

  just a quick comment on what you said “non-practicing homosexual is kind of a silly and inaccurate label”

  non-practicing homosexual refers to someone that is homosexual but is not having sex with men. The term can be applied to heterosexuals. i.e. I am a non-practicing heterosexual … this means I am attracted to women, but am not engaging in sexual activities with them. When I start having sex with women, then i would be a practicing heterosexual.

  I dont wish to be pulled into the bigger issue on what I believe, etc so this is why I am only commenting on term usage.

  02/18/10 5:02 AM | Comment Link

• 

  Tim said...

  28

  oh, ill be away for 5-6+ months (and no I will not have easy access to the internet), so if Curtis or someone else comments and i never reply back, this is why.

  02/18/10 5:27 AM | Comment Link