|
from Books & Reviews
Book Review
The Misuse of Science
Summary: "The Use, Misuse and Abuse of Science in the
Ecclesiastical Homosexuality Debates," by Stanton Jones, Ph.D. and Mark
A. Yarhouse, Psy.D., in Homosexuality, Science and the Plain Sense of
Scripture, by David Balch, ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2000.
by Linda A. Nicolosi
Psychologists Mark Yarhouse of Regent University and Stanton Jones,
provost of Wheaton College, have written an important article which
should be read by every church governing board.
Mark Yarhouse was a presenter at the NARTH conference in Washington,
D.C. this November. He also spoke at--and organized--the groundbreaking
August 2000 symposium at the American Psychological Association Meeting
on the ethics and effectiveness of reorientation therapy.
Jones and Yarhouse cite many examples of theological documents which
misuse and misunderstand the scientific literarature. This literature
is currently being used, they point out, to persuade many denominational
leaders that the biblical model of sexual behavior is outdated and
baseless.
But before examining the scientific evidence, the authors pose the
following foundational question: "Can science tell us whether
homosexual acts should be deemed intrinsically immoral?"
Their answer is no. Science, they say, cannot resolve questions which
must be engaged on ethical and theological grounds. That which is
spiritually disordered ("wrong") and that which is psychologically
disordered ("sick") are not identical.
In fact, many traits conditions considered sins--idolatry, lust, and
pride--are not psychological disorders. By the same token, many
conditions considered to be psychological disorders--anxiety,
depression, psychosis--are not considered to be sins.
The church must abandon one very seductive myth: the idea that when
psychology identifies a psychological condition--"what is"--it can,
without recourse to an evaluative philosophy of its own, conclude "what
ought to be." Indeed, what contemporary psychology identifies as mental
health, or "self-actualization," is in many ways, quite different from
what Christianity conceptualizes as "a life well-lived."
The Uses of Scientific Evidence
Yarhouse and Jones do acknowledge that scientific findings have some
relevance within the church's debate. Even though scientific evidence
cannot speak to us in any definitive way, still it can inform the
discussion. So they examine that evidence. First, they ask, Is
homosexuality a pathology?
They look at two defining features of pathology--maladaptiveness, and
personal distress. Maladaptiveness, of course, cannot be defined without
first answering some philosophical questions ("adapted to what?") which
require a concept of healthy psychological functioning. And any such
standard can challenged.
Jones and Yarhouse cite a number of studies which show that gay
relationships are more promiscuous. Many--if not most--gay male writers
now say that open relationships are "adaptive" in the context of gay
life. Some clinicians have begun to agree with gay apologists. But if we
believe that emotional faithfulness requires sexual faithfulness, then
gay relationships can indeed be deemed less healthy.
But without a consensus on what constitutes a healthy relationship, the
question of "adaptiveness" can never be definitively answered.
The Problem of Research Bias
Pursuing the same question, "Is homosexuality a pathology?" the authors
consider the earlier studies (like the classic Hooker research) that
were presumed to have answered that question. The Hooker study, however,
was not designed to prove that gay men are as healthy as
heterosexuals--it only sought to prove that homosexuality was not
invariably associated with obvious pathology. The study never looked
for a representative sample of the gay population, but actively sought
out emotionally healthy subjects. Yet the findings of the Hooker study
were erroneously used, in many cases, as "proof" that on average,
homosexuals are as healthy as heterosexuals.
Contemporary research, Jones and Yarhouse say, also continues to suggest
that homosexuals suffer higher levels of emotional instability and
distress--even though that conclusion is usually not stated, as such, in
those research studies. Intriguingly, Jones and Yarhouse cite studies
in which the evidence of higher levels of distress is obvious--yet those
researchers tend to minimize their own findings, presumably because of
the political implications.
The actual evidence, Jones and Yarhouse say, continues to paint a rather
disturbing picture. One study found that 57% of the lesbians surveyed
had had suicidal thoughts during their lifetime, compared to about 33%
for the general population.
But whatever the scientific findings, the authors say, theose findings
still should be used to lead to the conclusion that there should be a
change in theology. Yet one Methodist committee stated that if
homosexuals were found by social science to be, among other things, no
more promiscuous or emotionally unhealthy than heterosexuals, then
Methodism could not continue to condemn homosexual practice.
Not only did the committee conclude--falsely, using inaccurate
evidence--that gays were as healthy and as relationally stable as
straights, but their conclusions implied that one must judge moral
health by the same standards as the psychological profession currently
employs (using a philosophy of its own) to judge psychological health.
The Misuse of the "Born that Way" Argument
Science is also, they say, used to "prove" that a homosexual orientation
is an intrinsic, natural part of "who a person really is." Since,
according to this argument, a homosexual orientation is part of a
person's core identity, then the homosexually oriented person's acts
must be evaluated in light of his own, true nature.
But there are problems with this argument, the authors explain. First,
science cannot show that a homosexual orientation is part of a person's
core nature. Nor, of course, can science establish a vision of normalcy
in an ethical sense.
The authors discuss the biological studies in detail--particularly, the
problems in those studies. Even if science does discover biological
influences leading some people into homosexuality (and Jones and
Yarhouse agree that such predisposing influences are likely) it cannot
show that the person had no free will to work against his inclinations.
There are also genetic influences predisposing some people to alcoholism
and violence, yet the person is still presumed to be--at least to some
extent--a free moral agent.
Whatever the different sources of the "push" toward homosexual
attraction, they conclude, "there is no evidence that this 'push'
renders human choice utterly irrelevant."
Developmental Factors
Science does not have enough evidence to prove that psychological and
familial factors are pivotal in causing homosexuality, Jones and
Yarhouse say. Still, "there is too much evidence to dismiss" those
factors.
What is now derisively referred to, by gay activists, as the "old"
evidence for psychodynamic factors, has in fact has never been refuted,
the authors point out, and these psychological-familial factors "still
hold promise for understanding part of the causal puzzle of
homosexuality."
The Possibility of Change
The authors agree that sexual orientation is very difficult to change,
but that it is not impossible to do so. They review the evidence, and
identify some notable problems. First, the term "homosexual" has never
been satisfactorily defined, and gay apologists have taken advantage of
this problem by classifying people who have successfully changed as
never having been homosexual in the first place, but "bisexual."
Second, sexual reorientation therapy is held up to an impossibly high
standard when gay apologists insist that any residual same-sex
attraction is evidence of treatment failure. No other form of therapy
is help up to such a standard. If an alcoholic has a relapse, or a
person struggling with bulimia goes through periods when the unwanted
weight returns, all efforts to lose weight are not simply written off as
ill-advised.
Furthermore, the existing evidence of sexual reorientation is dismissed
by gay apologists as "without merit" because much of it is anecdotal and
consists of the self-reports of people who claim to have changed. Yet
gay apologists use the same type of evidence--reports from people who
said they were harmed by reorientation therapy--to debunk such
treatment, and they consider that sufficient evidence to make their own
case convincingly.
Psychologist Doug Haldeman is a gay activist who has been critical of
reorientation therapy because he sees homosexuality as part of a
person's core nature. Yet Haldeman has stated that "the categories of
homosexual, heterosexual and bisexual, considered by many researchers as
fixed,...are in reality very fluid for many." Presumably, one can make
a political choice to be a lesbian, or a gay man may fall in love one
day with a woman. Yet gay advocates dismiss as fantasy the idea that
strong personal motivation, combined with a planned course of therapy,
may eventually induce such a transition.
Updated: 3 September 2008
|
