Newsweek has an interesting article on what the writer see as significant changes among younger evangelicals. The article mentions several social issues, including the environment, social justice, and homosexuality. Concerning the latter, the article concludes that “Young evangelicals are far more accepting of gay and lesbian lifestyles than their parents are: 34 percent of evangelicals between 18 and 29 think homosexuality ’should be accepted,’ compared with 24 percent of those from 50 to 64, according to the Pew Forum.”

This is an interesting discussion in light of recent research conducted by ISSI of 104 sexual minorities enrolled in three Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) member institutions. The study addressed both campus climate and sexual behavior and identity. Concerning beliefs and values about homosexuality, very few sexual minorities gave any indication of accepting same-sex behavior. It should be noted that the questionnaire did not ask identical questions as the Pew Forum regarding ‘acceptance of homosexuality’; however, on a number of items, including items related to recommendations respondents would offer to other Christian sexual minorities, most seemed to appreciate the policies and values associated with their Christian institution. What they did not appreciate was a climate in which peers would make derogatory remarks about homosexual/gay persons. Not incidently, these remarks were rarely heard from faculty or staff but came from fellow students and made struggling with sexual identity issues that much more difficult and isolating. Many evangelical sexual minorities may actually prefer to have their communities maintain existing standards regarding sexuality and sexual expression.

One of the many challenges for the Christian community may be determining how to best maintain such standards while providing a more open and transparent community environment that is supportive of Christian sexual minorities who are navigating both their sexual and religious identities. It is of little help to brother and sisters in Christ to have them do so in isolation.

ISSI periodically uploads book reviews to help readers identify resources that may be helpful to them. Veronica Johnson recently reviewed Janelle Hallman’s new book, The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction:

Veronica Johnson reviews: Hallman, J. (2008). The Heart of Female Same-Sex Attraction:  A Comprehensive Counseling Resource. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

• New Direction Ministry in Canada recently launched a new blog called Bridging the Gap. Wendy Gritter, the director of New Direction, has been viewed by many as a moderate voice in Christian ministry to sexual minorities, particularly following her Leadership Address at the 2008 Exodus National Conference.
• The Marin Foundation continues what they state is the largest study of the GLBT community regarding religion. Those interested in participating can do so through their web site.
• Michael Joseph Gross of Out.com writes “We need to put our heads together and try to figure out what we want normative social life to look like.” This is his conclusion after his critique of Manhunt.com, a cruising web site for men interested in sex with men boasting 1 million members and 400,000 new visitors/month.
• Theologian Robert Gagnon responds to Timothy Kincaid’s criticisms in an extended exchange that covers the PCUSA General Assembly, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Centurian story in Scripture.  
• Peter Ould covered the Anglican Communion’s Lambeth 2008 conference and offers closing reflections.

Trista Carr, Dr. Erica Tan, and Katie Maslowe recently spoke at the Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (AMFM) annual conference. The conference was held this year in Phoenix, Arizona. The team spoke first on helping churches become more effective in their ministries to sexual minorities. This presentation built upon previous research conducted through ISSI on exemplar church ministries, as well as focus groups with pastors and other stakeholders in these discussions.

The second workshop at the AMFM conference was on addressing sexual identity issues among adolescents, providing a workshop that dealt with using descriptive language, making a distinction between attractions, orientation, and identity, and recognizing various metaphors and scripts in how people discuss sexual identity. The PowerPoint slides are available as pdfs in the File Library on this site.

John Rankin, president of the Theological Education Institute and founder/host of the Mars Hill Forum series, released a segment of the debate he had at Smith College in Northampton, MA. In this debate he addresses issues related to Christianity/biblical theology, free speech on matters of morality/sexuality, and views on rights and same-sex marriage and parenting. The entire debate is availabe at his web site.

Obviously, these kinds of debates are tremendously challenging. They can be particularly difficult depending on the audience. But both speakers manage to maintain a level of mutual respect in this segment that is absolutely necessary in a diverse and pluralistic culture.

As many are well aware, the Anglican Communion is deeply divided on the topic of homosexuality, particularly the question of whether to bless same-sex couples and the ordination of practicing gay individuals. The news coverage of Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop to be confirmed, has been significant. He was not invited to the Lambeth Conference. This has been covered extensively elsewhere.

The Anglican Mainstream posted a letter titled Statement of the Sudanese Bishops to the Lambeth Conference on the ECS Position on Human Sexuality. This statement reflects some of the concerns raised by those in the Anglican Communion who are distressed over the move away from traditional Christian sexual ethics, particularly in the Episcopal Church in the United States. Here it is:

July 2008

In view of the present tensions and divisions within the Anglican Communion, and out of deep concern for the unity of the Church, we consider it important to express clearly the position of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS)  concerning human sexuality.

We believe that God created humankind in his own image; male and female he created them for the continuation of humankind on earth. Women and men were created as God’s agents and stewards on earth We believe that human sexuality is God’s gift to human beings which is rightly ordered only when expressed within the life-long commitment of marriage between one man and one woman.  We require all those in the ministry of the Church to live according to this standard and cannot accept church leaders whose practice is contrary to this.

We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships. This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment.

The unity of the Anglican Communion is of profound significance to us as an expression of our unity within the Body of Christ. It is not something we can treat lightly or allow to be fractured easily. Our unity expresses the essential truth of the Gospel that in Christ we are united across different tribes, cultures and nationalities.  We have come to attend the Lambeth Conference, despite the decision of others to stay away, to appeal to the whole Anglican Communion to uphold our unity and to take the necessary steps to safeguard the precious unity of the Church.

Out of love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we appeal to the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada, to demonstrate real commitment to the requests arising from the Windsor process. In particular:
-    To refrain from ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishops or priests
-    To refrain from approving rites of blessing for same-sex relationships
-    To cease court actions with immediate effect;
-    To comply with Resolution 1:10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference
-    To respect the authority of the Bible

We believe that such steps are essential for bridging the divisions which have opened up within the Communion.

We affirm our commitment to uphold the four instruments of communion of  the Anglican Communion: the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting  and the Anglican Consultative Council; and call upon all Provinces of the Communion to respect these for the sake of the unity and well-being of the Church.

We appeal to this Lambeth Conference to rescue the Anglican Communion from being divided. We pray that God will heal us from the spirit of division. We pray for God’s strength and wisdom so that we might be built up in unity as the Body of Christ.

The Most Revd Dr Daniel Deng Bul
Archbishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church of the Sudan and Bishop of Juba

Religious considerations continue to be of great concern for many sexual minorities. The tensions in the Anglican Communion reflect real tensions felt by many Christians who are sorting out issues related to the teachings and authority of Scripture, realistic biblical hope, community standards, pastoral care, and the call of God on one’s life. Persons of faith can continue to hold the Anglican Communion in prayer as the leadership sorts out many of the complex issues facing the church.

The Washington Post has an article on the age at which sexual minority youth label themselves as gay. The story centers on a 15-year-old from Arlington, Virginia, and addresses both the early age of identity labelling, but also the extent to which school systems are prepared to address issues associated with such early identification. The issues included, but are not limited to, peer harrassment and bullying.

The act of labeling is considered a milestone event or benchmark in sexual identity development among sexual minorities. It is commonly understood that sexual minorities used to label themselves at a later age. One expert reports that labeling occurred on average at age 20 in 1970, but that the average age today is about age 15.

Research conducted at ISSI suggests that the picture is a little more complex than is often presented. For example, in a study of Christian sexual minorities (presented at the American Psychological Association in 2007) conducted at Christian colleges, we reported that among those who did report a gay identity, there was an an initial attribution at about age 16 that one was “gay.” A more firm label was not used until an average age of 19 or 20, and this was not by many of the Christian sexual minorities. In fact, the vast majority tended not to label themselves. In another study of older Christian sexual minorities, a real sense of achieving an identity synthesis did not occur until the mid 20s (for those who identified as gay) or the mid 30s for those who dis-identified with a gay identity. These differences are likely due to differences in samples, with many other studies of sexual minority youth being conducted either with secular college samples recalling their experiences growing up or with youth who are active at community centers with programs for “gay youth.”

It may be that religious identity adds another dimension that makes identity development and synthesis increasingly complex; perhaps religion also provides for some youth an alternative explanatory framework - an alternative identity and meaning that others tend to find in the self-defining identity label as “gay.”   

That youth are identify as gay at a younger age is likely to be welcomed news among many members of the gay community, who themselves often felt the need to wait until later to experience identity synthesis. At the same time, social conservatives are likely to be increasingly concerned that such labeling is premature.

The issue of school policies for addressing the concerns of sexual minority youth are also complicated. There is certainly a need to keep all young people safe from bullying and threats of violence against them. ISSI has been a part of several consultations on these issues and supports identifying ways to make the school setting safe for all youth. 

Have you ever found yourself on a mailing list from either a right-wing or left-wing political organization? They provide people who receive their materials with enough information to gain their support but not enough information to adequately address the complexities of the issues being highlighted. The documentary For the Bible Tells Me So by Daniel Karslake comes across like this to the viewer. It is at its best when it tries to convey different experiences among families sorting out the relationship between religion and sexual identity. But it more often than not presents interviews with selected theologians and church leaders in ways that fail to adequately address the central issues in both biblical studies and scientific research on homosexuality.

The documentary opens with some interesting quotes. For example, Peter Gomes, author of The Good Book, suggests that perhaps the Roman Catholic church was correct in medieval times to keep ordinary people from reading Scripture for themselves - to limit the reading of Scripture to those who are qualified to read it. Lawrence King refers to people who adhere to a traditional Christian sexual ethic as having a “5th grade education,” suggesting that any intelligent person would not interpret Scripture as saying that same-sex behavior is a moral concern. Mel White refers to what conservatives do as akin to what happened under Hitler - under Hitler - in terms of “telling a lie” over and over again until people believe it. This give the viewer some idea of how these very important and substantive issues are going to be addressed throughout the documentary.

For example, the segments that follow do not address the broad biblical themes and principles regarding human sexuality, nor do they address even most of the biblical references to sexuality, its expression, or homosexuality; rather, the documentary focused primarily on the Holiness Codes in Leviticus and offered commentary by revisionists with respect to how best read these passages today. This was probably the greatest disappointment in the documentary. Rather than engage how biblical scholars interpret these passages in context, the documenary focuses more on conveying apparent inconsistencies as so obviously ridiculous as to not be taken seriously, which does not lend itself to a meaninful discussion of hermeneutics (the interpretation of Scripture). This is particularly unfortunate as hermeneutics has been argued as the area many Christians see as central to the moral debate on homosexuality. (There is a brief discussion later of Sodom and Gomorrah and recent interpretations of “inhospitality” as well as a very brief interview with Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary, that hints at what the documentary could have been had there been an interest in genuine exchange of scholarship in this area.) 

The section on science was similarly disappointing. It focused primarily on etiology of sexual orientation with some discussion later on attempted change. The discussion of etiology is limited to males. The documentary states that this is because there is more research on males than females, and this is factually correct. However, there is also greater fluidity among female sexual minorities, and one recent study reported it was normative to have both same- and opposite-sex attraction among a sample of female sexual minorities, most of whom changed identity labels over time. Limiting the discussion to males could be seen by critics as serving the purpose of conveying something about the immutability of sexual orientation that has to be argued for and supported by science rather than portrayed through a limited review of a handful of studies. The immutability argument is strengthened by limiting the discussion to males, and then generalized to gay males and lesbians in ways that is quite misleading. In fact, the section on etiology focuses primarily on twin studies, saying that research shows up to a 70% concordance rate for gay male twins. This is highly misleading to those who are unfamiliar with this line of research, as the studies here suggest very little input from biology. (The most frequently cited study is by Michael Bailey, who in a 1991 study reported a 52% probandwise concordance rate for gay male twins. This shrank to 20% in the 2000 study when Bailey used a more representative sample. But the true concordance rate is even less than that - more like 11% - once you understand how “probandwise” concordance rates are calculated; to learn more about this, see the review in Homosexuality on pages 72-80.)

In any case, the twin and birth order studies mentioned at one point are contrasted later with the idea that homosexuality is a choice. This distinction between what is biologically based (more like left handedness) and choice confuses what is actually volitional about sexuality and what is the central concern (e.g., behavior) in a Christian sexual ethic.

There is an interesting section on those who participate in religion-based ministries, such as those affiliated with Exodus International. The documentary conveys this information through a cartoon that dismisses the experiences of those who identify as ex-gay, suggesting that they only change behavior and that the use of varied approaches suggests that nothing is helpful. These ministries are portrayed as fear-based and merely helping people to suppress their urges. This section also emphasizes the risks associated with such suppression of sexual attraction, such as shame and guilt. From an informed consent standpoint, risks are an important consideration that need to be discussed, but the documentary only cites anecdotes here and fails to mention studies of reported change of sexual orientation, such as the study conducted by Robert Spitzer, and the benefits reported there of not only experiencing change of orientation but also decreased self-report of depression.   

The documentary focuses on James Dobson, Beverly LaHaye, and a few others as the main spokespersons of conventional religiosity. There really is no recognition that the move away from a traditional Christian sexual ethic is such a radical departure from orthodoxy in the areas of sexuality and sexual behavior. Again, some recognition of this and contrasting interviews with serious biblical scholars would have helped the viewer better understand the complexities associated with the ethical debate among Christians (more like the book, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views, by Dan Via and Robert Gagnon).

Toward the end of the documentary is a portrayal of violence against sexual minorities. This is a sobering, painful section to watch and represents another important area for all people interested in the welfare of others. It is a topic on which both “sides” can find common ground, as Christians stand against acts of violence against gay and lesbian persons. However, the approach taken in the documentary is one that links traditional Christian sexual ethics with violence against gays and lesbians. To offer a truly substantive contribution, this assumption of a link has to be established and supported rather than just assumed and asserted. Also, logically, the moral stance has to be evaluated on its own terms even in cases in which people misuse that understanding to justify harm to others (for a discussion of this, see Homosexuality, pp. 12-13).

The documentary is at its best when it tells the stories of various family members and how they have sorted out how best to respond to loved ones. This is perhaps because there are different families represented. Although the majority have very positive outcomes of family tensions being resolved through acceptance, reinterpretation of Scripture, or unconditional love, there is one family in particular that conveys some of the challenges faced when parents do not accept revisionist interpretations of Scripture. This is perhaps more representative of help-seeking families, as they are often conflicted and want assistance in sorting out these complex issues. This is also an important consideration for families as the challenges are great when families feel they need to navigate how to be loving but not affirming as far as their conscience will allow. 

There is a need for a resource that helps people of faith sort out the complex issues related to biblical studies and scientific research. For the Bible Tells Me So is not that resource. In the end the documentary is a disappointment as it fails to even attempt to show a balanced discussion of either science or religion. It will likely be embraced by those who agree with it a priori and dismissed by those who disagree with it a priori… much like the mailings you get from either right- or left-wing political organizations. It may persuade those who are unfamiliar with either the scientific research or biblical hermeneutics, but it will do so by not providing a balanced portrayal of the most substantive issues.

This past week Mark Yarhouse conducted a 2-hour training at the Chicago Area Christian Training Consortium in Carol Stream, Illinois. The focus of the training was an accurate understanding of the Ex-Gays? longitudinal study of persons attempting change of sexual orientation through participation in Christian ministries associated with Exodus International. The training then emphasized practical clinical implications and the remaining time was spent discussing Sexual Identity Therapy and the recently-published article on narrative sexual identity therapy that appeared in American Journal of Family Therapy.

Sexual identity therapy, as practiced by Yarhouse, focuses on attributions (about the meaning of same-sex attraction to a person’s identity) and congruence (so that a person lives and identifies him/herself in ways that are consistent with his/her beliefs and values). A narrative approach draws upon narrative theory to explore dominant narratives and counter-narratives related to sexual identity in an effort to facilitate personal congruence by addressing various attributions and helping people navigate relevant religious identity concerns.

Mark Yarhouse will be conducting a training next week at the Chicago Area Christian Training Consortium (CACTC). The presentation will be based on the recently published longitudinal study of whether sexual orientation can change through involvement in religious ministries. The longitudinal study presents data collected at three different times over the course of four years. The focus of the training is an accurate understanding of this study and the practical implications for clinical services.

The study itself has received tremendous endorsements from leaders in the field:

“Research in the controversial area of homosexuality is fraught with ideology and plagued by a dearth of science. This study has broken new ground in its adherence to objectivity and a scientific precision that can be replicated and expanded, and it opens new horizons for investigation. It is the kind of scientific research I had in mind when in the mid-1970s I introduced my successful resolution in the APA Council of Representatives that homosexuality is not a disease, but a complex constellation of factors that requires scientific investigation to further our understanding of its etiology, its many parameters and its subjectivity to change. I have waited over thirty years for this refreshing, penetrating study of an imperative, though controversial, human condition. This book is must-reading for psychotherapists and counselors, as well as academic psychologists studying human behavior and sexuality.”

—Nicholas A. Cummings, Ph.D., SC.D., Former President, American Psychological Association; Distinguished Professor, University of Nevada, Reno; President, Cummings Foundation for Behavioral Health

                                                            ~

“This study is a groundbreaking classic–scientifically erudite and clearly presented. It shares irrefutable data gained over time that serve to explode arguments based on ideology and anecdotes. Its irenic and thoughtful discussion invites an open forum where scientific evidence and rational thinking are allowed to dominate discussion of the subject.”

—Merton P. Strommen, Ph.D., Founder of Search Institute and Fellow in the American Psychological Association

                                                            ~

“Psychologists have long championed and cared for the ‘other’ of our society–the weird, the abnormal, the minority and the less powerful. Although this book may at first appear to attack the other–in this case, those who consider themselves gay–this book is the other of psychological research. This book addresses ideas that are other than the ideas of psychology’s power centers and power brokers. It addresses questions about homosexuality that are not asked by the mainstream and the majority of our discipline. Yet, like most any ‘other,’ it deserves a hearing, whether or not we agree with it. It especially deserves a hearing because it follows the principles of those who deserve hearings in psychology–careful scholarship and empirical rigor.”

—Brent D. Slife, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist and Professor of Psychology, Brigham Young University

                                                            ~

“Congratulations on your book. It is well and thoughtfully done, and the meticulous adherence to your experimental design gives added weight to your findings. Your carefully executed research demands a substantial and credible reexamination of current, politically driven, politically correct dogma that homosexual orientation is immutable and that the therapeutic address thereof threatens patient well-being. In a best-case scenario, your research might even pursuade the organized mental health movement to return to almost forgotten principles that it is the patient’s right to choose, and that the patient has the capacity to do so.”

Rogers H. Wright, Ph.D., Fellow and Past President of Divisions 12 and 31 of the American Psychological Association; Founding President, Council for the Advancement of the Psychological Professions and Sciences; Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology