from Theological Issues

INTRODUCTION

I have a stack of e-mails at least three inches high dating back to approximately one year ago when I wrote to NARTH to express my dismay at the actions of some of my own religious and professional colleagues who sought my blessing upon gay and lesbian relationships: marriages, adoptions, ordinations to ministry, multiple sexual relationships, etc. And so the first thing I wish to do today is to extend my heartfelt thanks to Linda Nicolosi for her work with me in starting the Interfaith Committee on Theological Concerns. Her awareness of the religious community's support for NARTH's model of heterosexual relationships is, I hope, bringing together the scientific resources of one community and the spiritual resources of another.

My committee is, of course, interfaith, and membership is open to all clergy and members of worshiping congregations who support the kinds of findings that NARTH has presented to the public for 10 years now. My thanks and appreciation must also extend to members of the NARTH's Board of Directors and all others who participated in the decision to give this Committee a chance. Thank you all!

My topic is "The Church and Homosexuality," and I hope that much of what I say applies to other places of worship: the synagogue, the mosque, the temple, and all other symbols of religious authority, human compassion, and divine guidance. On this one topic we are agreed: God's design of male-female relationships is clear from all of our Scriptures.

To move away from this into an acceptance of homosexuality as being on a par with heterosexuality does real damage to our families, society in general, and violates the clear teaching of our faiths. And so we will stand together with NARTH to bring their work to bear upon the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people who regularly attend our houses of worship and seek out our clergy and our altars when issues of homosexuality drive them to tears and to their knees.

The momentum that propelled me to this lectern today began in December 2000, when I received a mailing from the Eastern region of one of my professional groups, the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. In this address, I will briefly describe two of my professional groups and how they are related to my subject, "Homosexuality and the Church."

These groups are the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, where I am a Clinical Fellow, and the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc. where I am a Clinical Member. I want to be sure to say that I still think of these groups as fine organizations. I have many years of training and work invested in them and I do not want to expose them or embarrass them in any way. I simply disagree with their positions on homosexuality. I have also communicated with them in writing about these issues and I will share some quotes from our correspondence.

Current AAPC literature at www.aapc.org gives the following information from which I quote:

The American Association of Pastoral Counselors was founded in 1963 as an organization that certifies Pastoral Counselors, accredits pastoral counseling Centers, and approves training programs...There are 3,000+ Pastoral Counselors in North America and around the world... AAPC is non-sectarian and welcomes membership from all spiritual traditions... Pastoral Counselors are certified mental health professionals who have had in-depth religious and/or theological training... Pastoral counseling is a unique form of psychotherapy which uses spiritual resources as well as psychological understanding for healing and growth.

Pastoral counselors vary in their emphasis on the religious or pastoral dimension of their work. Some are so psychoanalytical that the pastoral/religious aspect all but disappears, while others are so pastoral and religious that psychology seems a mere curiosity. Obviously, the faith or non-faith experiences of clients as well as those of their pastoral counselor play a major role in the balancing of religion and psychology in the therapeutic relationship.

Since pastoral counselors are required by AAPC to be connected to their own faith group, the topic of homosexuality and the church, or synagogue, or mosque, or temple is significant. As pastoral counselors, we represent God, the church, and the pastoral and educational aspects of ministry. Part of our role is teaching. We teach in universities. We counsel in hospitals and in many other institutions. We conduct christenings, baptisms, bar and bat mitzvahs, weddings and funerals. We have relationships with a wide variety of people both inside and outside of the church and counseling office. Our impact in the community is significant.

May I illustrate this for just a moment, please? Do you remember your response when you saw the list of presenters and, lo and behold, there was a minister in the group? Were you pleased ... uncomfortable ... curious ... suspicious ... bored ... relieved ... scared ... all of these ... and maybe more? How have you been feeling since I've been up here awhile? Do I bring to mind any of your own religious experiences--whether good or bad? Do you remember that time you put your money in a soft drink machine, got your drink, and $2.00 in change came back-- and you put it in your pocket without even trying to return it? Do you remember that time you passed along a "random act of kindness" or created a "senseless work of beauty" for someone you love? Well, I represent the belief that Someone saw you in all of those situations. And if my presence here has any effect upon you, then think how much more you and clergy together could affect the rest of our society in this most controversial issue of our times: homosexuality.

So, one of the things happening in the church is the loosening of standards of sexual propriety...the widening of the gate of permissiveness by use, or rather misuse, of such concepts as "diversity," "inclusiveness," "openness," and" "tolerance." And I would almost wager that, if you have expressed any doubts about the validity of homosexual behavior, you have been hit with two of the most deadly accusations that can be made of people of faith; either, "you're being judgmental" or "you have too many conditions" regarding other people.

And if you have begun to wince because you fell for the ploy that the faith community is never supposed to "make judgments," I hope you will read my article that is also in your packet and entitled, "Reclaiming Necessary Judgment and Conditions for Living in God's World." It helps to show the difference between being merely a "judgmental person" and in being a "person of good judgment." People of faith do have a role to play in helping our families, congregations, communities, and nation learn to make positive and sound judgments about the world around us.

We need not wince anymore when some people claim that we are "judgmental" in our views and that their judgments are the only ones written in concrete, while our reservations about their judgments only serve to prove how "defensive" and "homophobic" we are. The Biblical view of being "judgmental" is quite worthy of careful study!

As I mentioned, I received a letter from the Eastern region of the AAPC in December of 2000. They had just met in a regional conference and had secured the permission of the national Board of Governors to send out the resolution (this was not an official position of the AAPC Board of Governors) in order to get as many signatures as possible from the membership-at-large and hoping that at least 2/3^rd of the membership would sign on.

The resolution itself included the following affirmations about "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender persons" and is quoted below from the December 2000 letter signed by a dozen members of AAPC's Eastern Region's Executive Committee.

a. "We have come to appreciate that sexuality in all forms comes to as a gift of God."

b. "...an individual's sexual orientation is present from very early childhood and could not be a matter of choice that represents either disease or sin."

c. "We believe that sexual orientation is another example of the multiple blessings of God's creation."

d. "We hope to gain signatures of at least two-thirds of our membership."

The letter did acknowledge that some members of AAPC were unable to sign because their own religious denominations would prevent them from being "a part of an organization that has a strong statement valuing non-heterosexual experiences and unions" and that signing such a resolution "might jeopardize some of our members' standing in their faith community." Surely the goal of getting "2/3rds" of AAPC's members did little to calm any fears that the minority views would be respected!

That figure is well known in many organizations for its statistical leverage in establishing policy, training and certifications standards, adherence to doctrine, and eliminating the opposing minority through intimidations, and/or forced signing of statements of belief and practice. Nothing was said about any high level of diversity, inclusively, or tolerance regarding those who affirm the traditional view regarding homosexuality although two subsequent mailings would seek to reduce the anxiety created by the December initiative.

A March 2001 mailing from the Eastern Region of AAPC revealed that "810 signatures" had been received since the December 2000 resolution was received. The following quotes are also taken from that March 2001 mailing, signed by James W. Walkup, D. Min. and James C. Wyrtzen, D. Min.:

a. The Eastern Region recognized that some AAPC members "noted grave distress that support of the resolution might cause some faith communities to withdraw financial support from their counseling center."

b. The Eastern Region recognized that signing the resolution "might cause some very needy potential clients to be hesitant to come...for therapy."

c. The Eastern Region recognized that "signing the resolution might jeopardize ...employment at an institution that has a very different understanding of these concerns."

Furthermore, this mailing informed the members that the Eastern Region's intent included the formation of a new organization, separate from the AAPC, and entitled, "Pastoral Counselors for Openness around Sexual Diversity." This new organization would hold its first meeting at the annual AAPC convention (Atlanta, April, 2001) at a place away from the rest of the convention. Goals for this new group included the raising of funds for political advocacy and education and seeking connection with other groups supporting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender relationships. In the religious community, this group seeks to "speak to faith communities who are seeking to make decisions about ordination and the blessing of gay unions."

Another mailing--March 30, 2001--was sent out, not by the Eastern Region of AAPC, but by the national headquarters, and signed by AAPC president, Margaret Kornfeld, D. Min. This was a recognition that the previous mailing had received such a response "of support, opposition and concern" that it was important for Dr. Kornfeld to "make clarifications, answer questions and make observations." Among the clarifications were:

a. that AAPC members "value the diversity of AAPC and want all of our members, and their differing views, to be respected."

b. that AAPC members continue to affirm the mission statement which says that the AAPC "advocates for the well being of persons and communities."

c. Dr. Kornfeld apologized that "some of you, because of the invitation to sign the resolution, felt that you were insensitively placed in a disrespectful double bind" because of the apparent expectation that members were to support the resolution "even though it contradicted their personal beliefs, or their faith group's theological position, or work place policy. Causing this distress was the opposite of what the Eastern Region or the Board (of AAPC) intended."

d. "The Eastern Region respects AAPC as an interfaith organization whose members have theologically based, differing views on human sexuality."

e. Dr. Kornfeld further apologized for any misperception that there was an attempt being made to pass a motion at the upcoming AAPC national convention in Atlanta to make this resolution into an official national AAPC policy statement. This apparently came as a response to the official-sounding figure of "2/3^rd".

f. Dr. Kornfeld assured us that the "810" signatures were intended "as a show of solidarity, not an attempt to make policy and that they "will not be shared without permission."

That these two March mailings were intended to calm anxieties over job security and standing within AAPC caused by the December initiative should not be doubted. Any such resolution in any other arena likely has similar effects. This does demonstrate, however, the intensity within AAPC over this issue and the level of conflict within its membership.

Coincidently, another event further propelled me to this lectern today. The Spring 2001 issue of the Journal of Pastoral Care included an article by Dr. Christopher Rosik, a clinical psychologist and member of NARTH, who researched reparative therapy. In his article,"Conversion Therapy Revisited: Parameters and Rationale for Ethical Care," Dr. Rosik's conclusions included the following:

a.."Gay and lesbian persons deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity afforded to anyone in the human community." (p. 18).

b. "The current controversy over conversion therapy reflects a sociopolitical struggle being played out in the arena of the social sciences." (p.19).

c. "Prohibiting conversion treatment appears to restrict diversity and endorses discrimination against individuals who desire to modify homoerotic feelings and behavior." (p. 16).

d. "The intent of this article has been to underscore the fact that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, an ethically legitimate and scientifically sound rationale can be made for conversion treatment. When any professional pastoral or psychological association chooses to ignore the considerations presented in this analysis and opposes or prohibits conversion therapy, many people will rightly understand such action as a rather serious indictment of the association itself." (p. 19).

e. "Should associations like the AAPC adopt position statements that ethically censure or oppose conversion therapy, consistency would mandate a similar ethical stance toward pastoral and psychological efforts to promote weight loss. Offering psychodynamic or spiritual insights to explain the overweight condition or acquiescing to client requests for weight loss treatment would be grounds for censure. Only affirming counseling approaches to the client's weight would be permissible. A lack of consistency in this regard would again implicate ideological and political motives (as opposed to scientific and humanitarian ones) behind any blanket ethical condemnation of conversion treatments." (p. 14).

As this article came out in the Journal of Pastoral Care, I noticed its obvious tension with the AAPC's Eastern Region's initiative to bless gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual relationships. Another of my professional organizations apparently also noted that tension. The Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc., which is represented on the Board of Directors of the Journal of Pastoral Care, had read Dr. Rosik's article.

The Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc., at www.acpe.edu describes itself as:

"a multicultural, multifaith organization devoted to providing education and improving the quality of ministry and pastoral care offered by spiritual caregivers of all faiths through the clinical educational methods of Clinical Pastoral Education." It "was begun in 1925 as a form of theological education that takes place not exclusively in academic classrooms, but also in clinical settings where ministry is being practiced. CPE is offered in many kinds of settings: in hospitals, universit(ies), prisons, correctional facilities, parishes, ...psychiatric facilities...in business, industry and other workplace settings; in retirement homes and geriatric centers, rehabilitation centers," etc... Approximately 3,300 members make up the ACPE, which has some 350 accredited centers, 600 certified Supervisors, 118 theological schools, and 15 faith groups. In 1967 the official ACPE was formed as a merger of four separate organizations"... The ACPE has established "The Gay and Lesbian Network (GLN)" which has existed "for many years... giving support ...education ...and advocacy for all gay and lesbian persons within ACPE." It exists to provide inclusivity for "lesbigay members...at every level within the organization."

In its July/Aug 2001 Newsletter (page 3), the ACPE Board of Representatives reported that it had passed a motion "to express the Board's concern about the (JPC) article's disrespect of the dignity and worth of gay/lesbian persons". It further sought to have the Editorial Board of the Journal of Pastoral Care publish "articles of that nature" only in the context of other viewpoints rather than standing alone. This, of course would imply that it must be seen alongside opposing views.

Having been impressed with Dr. Rosik's article, I contacted him to inform him of the ACPE's plans. He and I wrote letters to the Executive Director of the ACPE (Dr. Theresa Snorton) and to the Editor of the Journal of Pastoral Care (Dr. Orlo Strunk, Jr). We raised such issues as:

The specific meaning of "articles of that nature," requesting a response.

The fact that articles critical of conversion therapy and of the traditional moral and Biblical view of homosexuality had been printed in the JPC without a symposium format.

The positive review of the article by one of the JPC's manuscript editors and the professional and fair-minded treatment by JPC's managing editor.

Dr. Rosik's clearly stated respect for the worth and dignity of gay and lesbian persons whom he has known and with whom he has worked (stated in the article and letter).

The impression of the motion that an entire group of clients and professionals (e.g., homosexual persons who want to change and reparative therapists) are left out of both counseling resources and the national debate in respected journals.

The specific question was asked, "Doesn't the 'dignity and worth' aspect work both ways?" That is, shouldn't reparative therapists and clients who choose reparative therapy as their treatment of choice be invited into the professional arenas where these issues are being discussed?

The reply from Dr. Theresa Snorton, Executive Director of the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, Inc. re-affirmed the exclusion of NARTH from the debate. She wrote to Dr. Rosik and myself (August 14, 2001), including the "complete text of the motion" which the ACPE Board of Representatives had made to the JPC Editorial Board:

We affirm the open expression of ideas, resources, and program content related to the pastoral care, counseling, and education movement and appreciate The Journal of Pastoral Care's contributions in the endeavor. However, the Board of Representatives (note: of the ACPE) is highly concerned about a recent JPC article entitled, "Conversion Therapy Revisited: Parameters and Rationale for Ethical Care, " by Christopher Rosik (Vol 55, No. 1, Spring 2001). This article appeared disrespectful of the dignity and worth of lesbian/gay persons. If the Journal chooses to publish such an article, which is both highly questionable in its premises and intimations, and is highly offensive to our constituency, we strongly recommend publishing it within a symposium to include other points of view.

Futhermore; the Board seeks to engage the Journal's Editor, and/or a member of the Editorial Board of JPC, in conversation to assure that such inappropriate articles will not be published without balancing voices in future editions.

My question about the ACPE's motion is this:

"How can the text of the ACPE motion begin with the statement, 'We affirm the open expression of ideas, resources, and program content related to the pastoral care, counseling, and education movement' and then exclude as 'highly questionable in its premises and intimations' and as 'highly offensive to our constituency' an article whose content and subject matter embody that which it affirms?"

If the subject of homosexuality does not represent a need to affirm the "open expression of ideas, resources and program content related to the pastoral care, counseling, and education movement," then I am surely hard pressed to find one that does--and I have been an ordained minister for over 31 years!

EXCLUSION OF NARTH AD
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PASTORAL CARE

A similar experience of exclusion may be seen in the worlds of advertising and research.

When NARTH sought to advertise its resources within the pages of the Journal of Pastoral Care in the summer of 2001, the reply was that the managing editor of JPC had advised its ad representative "to place your (NARTH's) ad on hold temporarily" in order for it to be "discussed by the board at our next meeting before final approval."

This correspondence on July 12, 2001 (email from Janet Emerson, JPC) indicated that the earliest possible time for a NARTH ad to appear in the JPC would be the Spring 2002 issue, if accepted at all. Word has just arrived that the Board of Managers has met and decided that they would not accept the ad. Two reasons were given.

One was that it was their "policy to accept only advertising from established book publishers and from training centers sponsored by one or more of the professional associations that own The Journal." The other reason was that this decision was made "(i)n" view of the ethical guidelines and study groups of several sponsoring associations and in light of the current sentiment of some of the leadership of the professional associations that sponsor and support The Journal." (Email from Janet Emerson, JPC, on 11/14/01).

Exclusion broadens out to other areas as well. I know personally of graduate students in leading universities throughout the country who complain to me that their professors ridicule them for wanting to include NARTH perspectives in their graduate papers.

I know of pastoral counseling and chaplaincy students who wish to support their religious denomination's view of homosexuality, but they are subjected to harassment in didactic seminars and in groups devoted to their interpersonal relationships. I personally remember similar incidents in my own training many years ago as the "political correctness" movement reflected gay and lesbian biases.

When I was going through training for status as a Licensed Professional Counselor in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I heard the rumors that candidates' answers to questions about reparative therapy and homosexuality on the state licensing exam could be decisive if one's overall score was "close."

And, what if I passed that exam only to find that future state regulations would require professional counselors to update their licensure by signing statements agreeing with the official position regarding these issues? Many of us who hold that status now have been afraid to inquire much about it. Why stick our necks out and thus identify ourselves, when we can rest safely and quietly until some new regulation requires assent to "gay affirming" therapy and a rejection of reparative therapy?

I will also mention the situation in the institution where I work. My full-time job is as the chaplain of Western State Hospital in Staunton, VA., where several factors prevent the use of reparative therapy: the goal of speedy discharge of patients as soon they are ready; the adoption of multi-culturalism, which accepts homosexuality as an orientation and lifestyle; removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association; and, my own agreement to work within the boundaries established by my institution.

Others have documented the threat that exists among some professional counselors by their own organizations. For a clear and concise report on this issue, I recommend an article now on the NARTH website (www.narth.com) by Warren Throckmorton, Ph. D. It is entitled "The Threat to Practitioners Continues: Following the Lead of Psychologists, Counselors Pass Anti-conversion Therapy Resolution."

I do have a small private counseling practice, however, where my opportunities to do reparative therapy are limited. However, there is evidence that mere verbal or theoretical support of reparative therapy can be a risk even without doing it. This is documented by Lynn D. Wardle, J.D. in a January 26, 2001 article entitled, "When Dissent is Stifled: The Same-Sex Marriage and Right-to-Treatment Debates" on the NARTH website.

And yet, there is some indication that professionals and academicians are becoming aware of the absence of respect for the traditional values and the presence of biases in support of gay and lesbian issues in the world of psychology. The lead article in the March 2001 American Psychologist is entitled "Sociopolitical Diversity in Psychology: the Case for Pluralism" by Dr. Richard E. Redding of the University of Virginia's School of Law. He concludes,

"Conservative views must be sayable (comfortably so), seriously considered, and seen as respectable alternative perspectives. An abundance of diverse views is preferable for education and scholarship, clinical practice, and professional integrity." (p. 212).

And here's an interesting question about this dilemma. What about one's Constitutional right to freedom of religion? Am I not entitled to say that, as a Christian ordained in the Southern Baptist denomination (a denomination notoriously known for its pro-heterosexual position), my allegiance to that belief requires me to endorse one kind of counseling instead of another?

Am I not allowed to practice the kind of counseling taught by my own religious authorities...and sought out by Southern Baptist clients who make a conscious and informed choice to seek me out because I represent their values?

Would I not be dishonest and/or disloyal to my fellow denominational authorities and clients if I could not provide what they claim from me? What might happen if my Southern Baptist officials required me to sign a statement in support of reparative therapy in my pastoral counseling--while the AAPC, ACPE, and state licensing board required me to sign a statement in opposition to it?

In summary, there is a real threat here to the church, and it comes from both within the church and outside of it. From outside the church, secular licensing and training groups could withhold licenses from persons who do not believe in gay affirming counseling; and, through policy changes and updated training, they might be able to withdraw the licenses of those who have been licensed, but who still do not agree with gay affirming counseling.

From within the church, there are groups like the AAPC and the ACPE who have pledged allegiance to substantial planks of the gay agenda and who seek to have their pastoral counseling and chaplaincy students agree that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle to be met with approval from the religious community...a religious community that has never done so.

The issue now becomes the religious community's response to its own exclusion from this great debate. Our places of worship will surely be able to expand upon these that I mention and, I am confident, create many more that speak best to its own situations, as well as to all of the rest of us.

Here are some suggestions for all of us to take back home:

1. Remember the proverbial wisdom that teaches the identity of the church and its mission in relation to society: the church is not to be following the taillights of the car in front of it. The church is the car in front, leading the way for society. The other position puts the church in the "lost" position, following a society that likely does not know where it is going.

   The Old Testament viewed the religious community as a "light to the nations" (Isa. 60: 1-3); likewise, the New Testament viewed the church as "the light of the world, a light on a hill that cannot be hidden" and as "the salt of the earth" that gives seasoning to those around. Jesus' own command to the church was, "Shine! So that others may see...and glorify God" (Mt. 5: 13-16). Is this not instructional for any house of worship that stands up for its teachings on important subjects of the day? Can we not afford to really "shine" on the subject of homosexuality? Can we, in good conscience, afford not to?

2. Provide your place of worship with a library of NARTH's resources. There are many dozens of excellent articles that can be copied for educational ministry and special study groups. Many other materials can be ordered for a modest fee.

   See if your church can form a special study committee. Join as a "Friend of NARTH" or in another of the membership categories. If your place of worship has a counseling ministry, this is yet another opportunity to let NARTH be heard. There are social workers, nurses, physicians, pastoral counselors, psychologists and other professionals who dispel the notion that "everybody knows that gay is good."

3. Provide your schools with NARTH literature. A special section on the NARTH website is entitled, "Activism in the Schools" and reports on groups that seek to advance the gay agenda in, yes, kindergarten classes! Children are vulnerable! Let's help to protect them!

4. Recognize any differences between the atmosphere of a "conference" which is sometimes a bit polemical (and rightly so), and the needs you see back at home. Remember the essential message of your place of worship, and tailor the rhetoric appropriately.

   Rancorous, insulting language does little to promote a religious message of love, forgiveness, and the grace to change one's lifestyle. It is better to promote a "pro-heterosexual" position rather than an "anti-homosexual" one.

   Remember that gay and lesbian people are people first and have their own integrity as well as personal histories of suffering. They likely have their own unique gifts and talents and may be open to friendly forums of conversation and discussion of common interests and religious beliefs, as well as being willing to agree upon specific areas of disagreement in an agreeable way. Try to be friends first, then keep the dialogue respectful if friendship becomes difficult.

   Be ready and willing to condemn acts of violence against gay and lesbian persons. Failure to do so can lead to our own vulnerability in the minds of others to charges of prejudice. Everyone has certain basic human rights regardless of the differences in political or religious views of human sexuality. Freedom from violence, threat, and harassment is one of them.

   Keep the so-called "findings" of popular psychology in perspective. Read some solid work by competent psychologists who have been part of the "human potential movement" and who document its false premises and outright failures, moral and otherwise. (See, for example, Linda Nicolosi's articles, "Reflections on the Human Potential Movement: An Interview with William Coulson" and "Understanding How We Think About Homosexuality," which is an interview with Dr. Steven Goldberg regarding various conclusions of "gay studies" at www.narth.com.) Then stay within the scope of those who maintain a respect for the religious values of your place of worship.

5. Engage your denominational colleges, universities, and counseling centers. Ask the heads of such departments as sociology, psychology, religion, etc. to read the literature from NARTH. Contact your denomination's seminaries and ask that the programs of clinical pastoral education and pastoral counseling training have access to NARTH information. Ask chaplaincy and pastoral counseling students in your denomination if they would feel harassed by supervisors, professors or their own peers for raising the kinds of issues that NARTH regularly raises.

   Suggest to you denominational representatives that they insist on a "no tolerance for harassment" policy concerning students taking courses certified by the Association for Clinical Pastoral Education, the American Association of Pastoral Counselors, or any other group that has some relationship of authority (and the possibility of its misuse) when they teach students of your denomination in the area of human sexuality. Be sure NARTH is at least respected as a voice with a right to be heard, if not admired.

6. Be aware of the new "Gay Theology" movement among virtually all religious denominations, including some non-denominational churches that are made up almost exclusively of gay and lesbian members. This is well documented in Joe Dallas' book, A Strong Delusion, in which he tells his own story of God's deliverance of him from such a church.

7. Study and utilize information from outside of NARTH. Quoting only NARTH sources may give the impression that we are narrow in our view of the issues. The people at NARTH often quote from people outside of their organization. An excellent example can be found in Thomas Schmidt's book "Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate." One of his styles of persuasion is to use sources that are "either neutral or positive in their assessment of homosexual behavior" and to "make use of lower numbers where statistics differ." (See p. 127). He then proceeds to make a strong case even stronger because the reader knows that he has not simply quoted from sources within his own camp. He has used sources from what might be thought to be either the "other side" or a neutral one to make his case. The reader is left to wonder how much stronger his argument could have been had he used only sources who already agree with him.

8. Remember to acknowledge heterosexual sins. We portray ourselves as narrow-minded and prejudiced if we draw a bulls-eye, only over the head of one group and fail to acknowledge what needs to be addressed and corrected in our own group. Also, the Bible speaks of non-sexual sins as well. Remember to address the kinds of pride and arrogance that sometimes come from the pulpit itself!

Finally, allow me to close by quoting a Scripture that, I think, places NARTH in an appropriate position, not only in our society but also within the circle of our social and religious prophets. And I don't mean to impose any religious affiliation upon anyone at NARTH or anywhere else. I simply see a role being acted out by their researchers and spokespersons and I am reminded of the following story from the Old Testament:

38) Elisha returned from Gilgal and there was a famine in that region. While the company of the prophets was meeting with him, he said to his servant, "Put on the large pot and cook some stew for the men." 39) One of them went out into the fields to gather herbs and found a wild vine. He gathered some of its gourds and filled the fold of his cloak. When he returned, he cut them up into the pot of stew, though no one knew what they were. 40) The stew was poured out for the men, but as they began to eat it, they cried out, "O man of God, there is death in the pot!" And they could not eat it. 41) Elisha said, "Get some flour." He put it into the pot and said, "Serve it to the people to eat." And there was nothing harmful in the pot." (2 Kings 4:38-41, New International Version).

May I suggest to you that in the area of human sexuality there has been a famine in the land? And many of our own prophets have sliced up some poisonous wild gourds and added them to our stew. What our religious and secular communities have been eating has death in it. And they are crying out to their priests, their rabbis, their pastors, their imams, and to their secular counselors, "There's death in this pot...it tastes like it's poisonous!"

And who came upon the scene to pour some healing flour into our pot so that the poison would be neutralized and the stew made edible? It is my belief that, for the last 10 years, NARTH has been adding flour to stew made poisonous by the wild gourds that were dumped in the pot by misguided prophets who did not know what they were picking up from contaminated fields. They were blinded by their own hunger, and so they were willing to add something wild and poisonous to the food that was eaten by the very people to whom they were supposed to be feeding a life-sustaining diet.

But now the poison is being neutralized. The stew is beginning to taste right again. It may take some time before all of the bitterness is completely gone, but we can tell that life is stirring around in that pot again.

However, let's not leave everything up to the good people at NARTH. There are plenty of spoons to go around, and there is plenty of flour. Now it is your turn to stir....!

Updated: 8 February 2008

Join us at the next NARTH Training Institute and Convention in beautiful Denver, Colorado on November 7, 8, and 9, 2008.

Click here for a schedule of events or to register!