The homosexual question seems particularly relevant at this our present time. The gay lobby has made strident progress in recent years to the point where it can demand full incorporation into society of the gay community.1

As if to support this, recent research claims to have discovered a ‘gay gene’ in the human constitution, thus raising the question: if homosexuality is natural, is it also immutable? At least one upstanding cleric has suggested that science be taken as the key source of authority in this matter over and above what the Bible may claim.2

Which begs the further question: is it unethical to attempt to change one’s sexual orientation? To this end effort is being made to legally halt all so-called ‘conversion therapy.’ At very least, there is a large school of thought highly sceptical of such treatment.

But is this action based on a proper assessment of the evidence? Further, is there room for a mystical, spiritual alternative in the form of Christian ministry? At the end of the day it will take both an open mind and a heart attuned to God to ascertain a solution.

Is There Desire to Change?

It seems fitting to ask first whether homosexuals in general want to change. According to the influential 1978 study of Bell and Weinberg only 28% of male homosexuals and 36% of females, have ‘ever considered discontinuing homosexual activity.’3 Of that number, 59% and 72% respectively have ever made an attempt to give it up.4 Furthermore, 28% of white nearly 50% of black gay males claimed to experience guilt over their homosexuality.5 (Note, however, that in another study the figure was found to be as high as 55%.6)

Thus it must be said at the outset that, according to reliable studies, the majority of homosexuals probably do not desire to change their sexual orientation.

Is There a Need to Change?

Interestingly enough, the above question can be answered by appeal to both medicine and Scripture.

First and foremost, it needs be said that there is a large body of scientific opinion that holds that homosexuality is not at all harmful and that any attempt to change one’s sexual orientation is futile and potentially psychologically damaging.

In a famous 1973 decision, the prestigious American Psychiatric Association (APA) officially removed the practice from its list of mental disorders. Since then the body has made vast provision for treatment of gays and lesbians, largely aimed at reconciling them with their sexual bent.7

Typical of this mode of thought is the following: ‘Many homosexual individuals appear capable of living well-adjusted lives and show no evidence of significant psychopathology.’8

Professor of psychology Gerald Davison argues, ‘How can we honestly speak of nonprejudice when we participate in therapy regimens that by their very existence – and regardless of their efficacy – condone the current societal prejudice and perhaps also impede social change?’9

However, it must also be noted that this by no means sums up all medical opinion on the matter. There is evidence to suggest that homosexuality is per se an unhealthy lifestyle. Professor Irving Bieber, who did extensive work in this area for some decades, insists that, ‘If, as I think, homosexuality is pathological, the failure to develop prophylactic programs or provide therapeutic services for people who wish to become heterosexual would be a grave error.’10

As if to support this, research indicates various tendencies and practices within the gay community that are far from savoury. For instance, Bell and Weinberg report that close to eighteen per cent of gay males attempt suicide at least once in their lives, compared with close to three per cent for straight males. Thus gay males are approximately six times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual counterparts. For homosexual females the figure is 23%.11 The figures for worry, depression, tension and paranoia were also generally higher than those of heterosexuals.12

This is often attributed to societal pressure and general homophobic sentiment from without. In a revealing study, however, researchers Remafedi, Farrow, and Deisher revealed that 44% of gay teens who had attempted suicide attributed blame to "'family problems,' including conflict with family members and parents' marital discord, divorce, or alcoholism," and little to do with society.

So too were "'coming out' at a younger age, gender atypicality, low self-esteem, substance abuse, running away, involvement in prostitution, and other psychosocial morbidities" also regarded as factors. Thus according to these studies societal pressures seem to contribute little to their condition.13

And according to researchers Williams and Weinberg (1974) inner conflict of gays is not proportional to levels of homophobia in society. Psychological stress for the homosexual is the same in relatively gay-accommodating societies such as Denmark as it is in, for example, the US, where anti-gay feeling is more common. The study came to the conclusion that the problem is something innate to homosexuality as a condition.14

So too does promiscuity rise to unprecedented heights in gay circles. According to Bell and Weinberg again, 27 percent of gay males had had more than 1,000 sexual partners. 74% of the respondents interviewed, moreover, asserted that more than half their lovers were strangers.15

According to Dr. Robert Kronemeyer, author of Overcoming Homosexuality, ‘Two-thirds of gay men are constantly on the hunt for instant sex.’16 A typical attitude is expressed in the statement: ‘If I don’t score in twenty minutes after hitting the bar, I start to fall apart.’17 Kronemeyer indicates further that ‘Three out of ten homosexual men have never had a relationship that survived a one-night stand.’18 This stands in stark contrast with the average heterosexual male who has on average five to nine sexual partners throughout his life, and who would appear considerably more monogamous by comparison.19

Thus, according to Christian minister and writer Joseph Gudel, ‘if one agrees with the assertion that being promiscuous is not healthy, from either an emotional or physical standpoint, then homosexuality as typically practised must be extremely unhealthy.’20 Not forgetting that cheap and easy sex is usually regarded as a sign of insecurity and lack of fulfilment.

Although modern science appears divided on the issue, it is clear that question marks can be raised as to whether being gay is an acceptably healthy lifestyle, and ought to be encouraged.

From a Christian perspective the need for change is urgent. Space precludes a reasonable discussion of the subject, but the relevant Scriptural passages include Gen 19:1-29 (Sodom and Gomorrah); Lev 18:22 and 20:13; Judges 19:1-26; Rom 1:26-7; 1 Cor 6:9,10; and 1 Tim 1:8-10.

First and foremost, it is interesting to note the number of occasions throughout Scripture where Sodom and Gomorrah are especially linked to the end of the age and the outpouring of God’s  wrath. See, for instance, Luke 17:29,30; Matt 10:15,23; Jude 7; and Isa 1:9,10 (this latter passage concerns, ultimately, the Day of the Lord). Theologically speaking, then, homosexuality seems to be one of the sins that directly attracts God’s judgement, along with other sexual sins (Eph 5:4,5).

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in many of the more general injunctions against homosexuality there is like reference to the wrath of God on His Day. We have already discussed Sodom and Gomorrah. So too Rom 1:26,7, where there is direct reference to the wrath of God being ‘poured out’ from heaven for the very sins enlisted (v.18)– surely a sodomic reference. And according to the 1 Corinthians passage those who do these things ‘will not inherit the kingdom of God.’ If the issue at hand has direct links with the end of the age and with God’s wrath, as the Bible seems to be saying, then conversion therefrom is imperative.

Note too that much of what is to be found in the Bible is written for our benefit. Perhaps the unsavoury side effects listed earlier are merely a spiritual outflow of a practice condemned by God.

Is Homosexuality Biological or Environmental?

The question as to whether homosexuality is immutable naturally leads to the question of whether homosexuals are made or born that way. If the latter, then the case against conversion is naturally strengthened.

Actually, the above question can be quickly answered by any honest study of the subject. The Encyclopedia of Bioethics declares, ‘many theories of the development of sexual orientation have been articulated, but no current one prevails.’21

The Encyclopaedia of Psychology tells us, ‘Currently there is no scientific proof that homosexuality is caused by inborn constitutional, genetic, or hormonal factors. The suggestions of some recent investigators that there may be hormonal differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals have yet to be validated.’22

In other words, there is no real evidence for either theory. Studies have been conducted in an effort to establish one or the other, but none have succeeded to the satisfaction of all concerned. The notion that science universally embraces the ‘born gay’ idea is a fabrication of the media, and held by none other than the man in the street.

One more issue needs be addressed, namely, the recent ‘gay gene’ study, conducted by Hamer in the early nineties. Hamer & co insisted they had found evidence of a special gene in the human make-up that caused homosexuality. Despite much media hype, however, there are many in the scientific community who refuse to commit themselves, and even those who reject it wholesale.

Firstly, it is notable that a later study failed to replicate the previous findings. It is therefore not uncommon to find newspaper headlines casting doubt on the original report. Thus, for instance, the Boston Globe ran a 1999 article entitled ‘The Fading “Gay Gene”.’23

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in a book the Congressional Record of the US Congress described as ‘the best book written on homosexuality in our lifetime’, confirmed, ‘recent articles in the media create the mistaken impression that scientific closure on the subject of homosexuality has been reached’, and that, ‘Demonstrating that any behavioural state…as not only biological but genetic is well beyond our present research capacity.’24

Elsewhere Satinover describes the essential problem as follows:

‘In a nutshell, every behavioral trait in human nature has a genetic component. For example, basketball playing is clearly genetic. If you were to perform on basketball players the kinds of studies that have been done on homosexuality, you would find an unequivocal genetic association--very powerful, probably much stronger than there is with homosexuality. But if you ask yourself what that's about--it's clear that it's NOT that there is a gene for basketball playing...

The reason there's a genetic association is that there's an intermediate trait which allows people who carry these traits to become basketball players in greater numbers than those who do not have those traits--namely, height, athleticism, and so on. So it's not surprising that there is a growing number of studies that show a genetic association to homosexuality. But that is a far cry from saying that homosexuality is genetic in the way that eye color is genetic.’25

The problem is that there is a difference between basic genetic traits such as eye colour (called ‘Mendelian’ traits) and behavioural traits (such as sexuality). The former is difficult enough to establish; the second next to impossible, at least with current technology.

Thus a scientist at Washington University School of Medicine ascertained that:

‘...if the trait [in question] was 50% heritable... detecting [just] one of [its] genes would require studying 175 families-that is, almost 2000 people.[7 ] Replicati[on] would require studying 781 families-another 8000 people.... [E]ach additional gene (for a polygenic trait), researchers would need... the whole business again. "Suddenly you're talking about tens of thousands of people and years of work and millions of dollars."’ 26

At the end of the day, then, modern science remains in the dark as to the ultimate cause or causes of homosexuality. It is unwise to place too much faith in the media and popular opinion at this point.

It must also be noted that if homosexuality is one day proven to have a biological origin, conversion therefrom would literally take a miracle. However, it is precisely the miraculous that Christianity is all about.

Note, however, that even if it is proven to be so, it would change little for the Christian. The Bible does not tell us whether it is inborn or not, it tells us not to do it. We are living in a fallen world. It could be that the fall of man has tainted human nature so as to produce an unnatural sexual bent. However, this would not change the fact that it is morally wrong.

So too can depression, compulsive-obsessive behaviour, violence and alcoholism be genetic, but this does not alter the fact that they are intrinsic evils and must be fought. Genetic does not necessarily mean determinative. We submit that through the power of the Holy Spirit homosexuality can be overcome.

Can Homosexuals Change?

Which brings us to the main question of the present study. It must be noted that there exists a large body of opinion opposed to the conversion therapy process. This camp claims that it is not only pointless, but also unethical.

Thus Richard Isay of the APA made the statement that, ‘The core orientation in a gay man cannot be changed.’27 According to the Encyclopedia of Bioethics, ‘some critics charge that conversion therapies do not support human dignity, may involve consumer fraud, and potentially harm clients because there is no evidence that they are effective.’28

Consequently, ‘most therapists focus on improving the psychological and interpersonal functioning of homosexual men and women rather than on changing their sexual orientation.’29

But it must also be noted that there are those in the scientific community who say change is possible, and who even claim a significant success ratio.

Thus John DeCecco, editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, tells us, ‘Homosexuality is a behaviour, not a condition, and something that some people can and do change, just like they sometimes change other tastes and personality traits.’30 (italics mine)

According to Robert Kronemeyer, ‘From my twenty-five years’ experience as a clinical psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early painful experiences and that it can be unlearned. For those homosexuals who are unhappy with their life and find effective therapy, it is ‘curable'.31 Later in the same chapter he is more emphatic, ‘homosexuality can be overcome.’32

So too can conversion therapy boast significant results. Dr. Irving Bieber is a case in point. He interviewed 850 male homosexuals for some years from 1962, and came to the conclusion that homosexuals are made, not born that way. He states, ‘When the facts about therapeutic efficacy become known to them, many young homosexuals seek treatment. In Bieber et al. (1962), including a 5 year follow-up, one third became exclusively heterosexual. Others reported even better results.’33

In a 1998 paper Warren Throckmorton provided an overview of successful conversions as reported by clinicians. For instance, Hatterer (1970) treated 143 gay clients and reported a 34% rate of successful conversion. Those with a Kinsey rating of 4 or 534, and who ‘were highly motivated to change’, enjoyed a success rate of 57%.35 Charles Socarides, furthermore, indicated that 44% of a client group seen over a period of twelve years, had achieved ‘full heterosexual functioning.’ 36.

Joseph Nicolosi is another case in point. In a 1998 survey, out of 318 subjects who rated themselves as having an ‘exclusive same-gender sexual orientation’, 18% came to regard themselves as ‘exclusively heterosexual’, and 17% as ‘almost entirely heterosexual’. In total, 47% ‘went from a Kinsey 6 rating to less than a Kinsey 2. Of the entire 882, only 13% remained either exclusively or almost exclusively gay or lesbian after treatment.’37

Success within Christian groups is also notable. Eleven gays, nine of which had a Kinsey 6 rating, converted through spiritual techniques, resulting in five finishing up with a Kinsey 0 (i.e. totally heterosexual) three a Kinsey 1 and three a Kinsey 2.’38

In summing up the evidence MacIntosh (1994) surveyed 285 psychologists who had treated 1215 subjects (824 male; 391 female), achieving a success rate of 23%, while 84% indicated ‘significant benefits.’39

Throckmorton concludes, ‘In summary, psychoanalytic approaches report rates of change ranging from 19% to 44% of clients. Rates for some modification of sexual orientation are even higher in some of the reports. None of the reports document negative side-effects of such efforts, and indeed seem to show positive results for a significant number of participants, even those who do not change sexual orientation. Clients who have had some prior heterosexual experience, and are motivated to change, seem most likely to report modification of sexual orientation.’’40

A significant recent event in this regard was the founding of the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) by Charles Socarides, Benjamin Kaufman and Joseph Nicolosi in 1992 ‘in response to the growing threat of scientific censorship.’41 It currently boasts over a thousand members.

According to whom, ‘during the last 25 years, powerful political pressures have done much to erode scientific study of homosexuality. As a result, there is now great misunderstanding surrounding this issue. Because of the angry tenor of the debate, many researchers have been intimidated, we believe, into trading the truth for silence.’42

The organisation is not forthrightly religious, but members of religious bodies are associated therewith. They believe NARTH has ‘gained much ground toward achieving its goals. Gay activists have attempted to compel both the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations to declare as unethical any type of therapy which encourages homosexuals to change. In both cases NARTH has stood as the only organized voice against this lobby.’43

Perhaps the most interesting recent development concerns a survey conducted by Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry and Chief of Biometrics at Columbia University. Spitzer had originally led the APA’s 1973 decision to exclude homosexuality from their list of mental disorders, and so for a while enjoyed status as a gay icon. In a surprise reversal, however, he has recently gone on record as saying that he now believes change is possible.

Spitzer interviewed 200 subjects (143 men and 57 women) who had reported successful conversion. "Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted,” he said, “but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change.”44

The APA on Conversion Therapy

However, it must be noted, as indicated above, that there are many authorities that hold that change is not realistically possible.

Psychiatric bodies like the APA have thus made the following official statement, ‘To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments. There is sparse scientific data about selection criteria, risks versus benefits of the treatment, and long-term outcomes of "reparative" therapies.’45

And concerning the testimonies of some that would indicate change, ‘The literature consists of anecdotal reports of individuals who have claimed to change, people who claim that attempts to change were harmful to them, and others who claimed to have changed and then later recanted those claims.’46

It is also felt that conversion or reparative therapists base their treatment on outdated notions and methods. Thus, ‘Although there is little scientific data about the patients who have undergone these treatments, it is still possible to evaluate the theories, which rationalize the conduct of "reparative" and conversion therapies. Firstly, they are at odds with the scientific position of the American Psychiatric Association which has maintained, since 1973, that homosexuality per se, is not a mental disorder. The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both. In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologies homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality.’47

Note, however, that while exercising caution and even being somewhat critical, the APA does not actually condemn conversion therapy outright, nor does it state categorically that it is ineffective or necessarily unethical. What it does claim is that there is no absolute proof as yet that it works. Thus it recommends that, pending such evidence, the benefit of the doubt be given to the homosexual client on the basis of ‘first, do no harm’, and the homosexual be encouraged in his or her condition.

Is Conversion Therapy Dangerous?

As noted earlier, the objection has been raised to the effect that conversion therapy can be psychologically damaging. Thus the APA states, ‘anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm.’48

A well-known recent study is that of Schroeder and Shidlo, who came to the conclusion that such therapy is indeed dangerous. Shidlo notes that as a result clients, ‘"Frequently... become very, very depressed." This commonly triggers self-destructive behaviors (e.g. unsafe sex, drug abuse, attempted suicide, self-hatred).’49

However, one or two things need be noted about their study. First of all, Shidlo himself is homosexual. Secondly, the study was sponsored by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), a highly vocal gay rights organisation. The irony is that the NGLTF denounced the recent findings of Robert Spitzer (see above) on the basis that many clients were referred to him by NARTH.

Third, and perhaps most salient, the appeal for subjects for the study was markedly partial and one-sided. One such advertisement ran, ‘You can be of help in the long process of getting the message out that these conversion therapies don’t work and do the opposite of healing by informing your l/g/b communities of our search for participants to be interviewed. Please announce our project in any upcoming lesbian and gay community meetings and spread the word. Help us document the damage!’50. Such appeals serve to add little credibility to the study. There is also the danger, of course, of a sample base that is too narrow.

Note too that some studies indicate that conversion therapy can even result in greater emotional and psychological stability. Thus according to one report: ‘Countering claims that reorientation therapies are harmful, the survey also asked clients concerning psychological and interpersonal adjustments both before and after therapy. The survey respondents also reported significant improvements in such areas as self-acceptance, personal power, self-esteem, emotional stability, depression, and spirituality.’51 And according to another report: ‘Success was associated with strong religious motivation and positive mental health.’52

Even if some surveys do report a degree of confusion following treatment in some cases, perhaps this is to be expected. After all, those emerging from drug or alcohol rehabilitation can experience similar problems. A final point to note: given the high degree of suicides and unhealthy tendencies connected with homosexuality, conversion therefrom could be regarded as therapeutic in comparison, regardless of possible side-effects.

A further objection points to the fact that subjects may still have tendencies toward same-sex attraction, even after many years. However, as Mark Yarhouse of Regent University counters, ‘Continued struggles with same-sex arousal may be expected residual effects from years of homosexual fantasy and behavior. Psychologists certainly refrain from decrying chemical-dependency programs because someone experiences cravings following treatment.’53

Moreover, similar effects may be felt by alcoholics years after successful treatment by organisations such as Alcoholics Anonymous. This, however, does not negate the efficacy of the therapy, but merely reflects the power of the need or drive concerned.

A Two-Pronged Approach

At the end of the day, then, science is divided, although the majority would seem to say that change is not possible.

The essential problem for many psychologists, however, lies in the absence of a controlled study to establish the above. As was cited above, the APA insisted that there were no ‘scientifically rigorous outcome studies’ to determine such change. The controlled test is regarded in the scientific community as reliable evidence of a psychological claim, overriding statements of individual clinicians, or even testimonies.

What makes such a test all the more difficult to set up in this day and age, however, is the power of political correctness, not to mention the far-reaching influence of the gay lobby. Despite these hindrances, however, it is urged that such a study be conducted as soon as possible.

However, the debate is clearly not over. As indicated earlier, there is much evidence to suggest that one can change, and that it may even be of some urgency.

On what, then, do we base our claim that the homosexual can change? Primarily on the spiritual, on the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. At the end of the day, regardless of what science may or may not prove, we as Christians believe that change is possible simply because God has said so in His Word. The Bible clearly forbids the practice, as was shown earlier. On this point there can be no compromise. We are further told that ‘God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it’ (1 Cor 10:13). If God expects you to do something, He will provide the means to do it. Furthermore, ‘I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength’ (Phil 4:13)

To this end there are the testimonies of many whose lives have been changed. God is constantly at work transforming lives through the power of His Spirit. A striking example is that of Andrew Comiskey, who was miraculously transformed from a homosexual lifestyle, and now heads up ‘Desert Stream Ministries.’ As a result he wrote one of the better known books on the subject, ‘Pursing Sexual Wholeness: How Jesus Heals the Homosexual’.54

Then there is Sinclair Rogers, once the best man at the first ever gay wedding in Hawaii. He was on hormone therapy for a year and a half, with the intention of undergoing surgery for a sex-change operation. After experiencing salvation, however, he converted from his old lifestyle, and is since married with one daughter. He currently heads up Exodus Ministries, which ministers to the sexually broken.55

Don Prichard struggled with homosexual tendencies from age three, later having a relationship with a gay man for sixteen years. Today (at age 65) he can say, ‘Now for the first time in my life, I am truly happy, at peace, and finally have the joy of the Lord in my heart. This is all a new experience for me. It feels as though I am in the process of being set free from a lifelong curse, …Mine was a life of never ending selfhatred and shame, but I actually feel better now than I did when I was forty. My emotional and physical health have never been better.’56 For further testimonies see, e.g., www.narth.com and Kronemeyer’s Overcoming Homosexuality, p.141-167.

Coming Out

Which raises the obvious question: how does one change? First of all, one must understand that it is not easy. Yes, conversion might be a once-for-all experience, but in all likelihood it will take some time, perhaps many years. The process of Christian sanctification, after all, hardly takes place overnight. If God takes time to clean up many areas of our lives, one should not expect homosexuality to be healed instantly.

As Sinclair Rogers puts it:

‘To sum it up, recovery from homosexuality is about “growth.” Quite literally those in recovery “grow beyond” their same sex fixation and “grow out” of their homosexuality. This growth, however, is a lengthy process – lengthier for some than for others. And for many, “recovery” will mean a lifetime commitment.’57

The sex drive is one of the most powerful in the human constitution. Naturally it is going to take great effort to change, whatever direction that drive happens to take. There are many who have taken that step and are living contented heterosexual lives in the power of Christ. (For more info on change see http://home.global.co.za/~britz/phileo)

Summing Up

Thus our approach to the question is two-pronged: there is both a scientific and a spiritual aspect. Conclusive scientific evidence may well still be forthcoming, perhaps by means of a controlled study. Note, however, the great dearth of evidence thus far that cannot be ignored.

But regarding the evidence proffered by the Word of God there can be no alternative: homosexuality as a practice is clearly condemned by God. We therefore submit that God, in His mercy, will provide a way out.

In the event of such a controlled study being undertaken, an appeal must be made to scientific authorities not to succumb to the powers of political correctness or the gay lobby.

Our prayer is that truth and integrity be upheld. Even if science is found not to correlate perfectly with the Word of God - as it is wont to do from time to time – we pray that the latter be revealed as a thing of power that truly transforms lives to the glory of God.

For further information, contact:

Phileo ministries, PO Box 1190, Sanlamhof, 7532, South Africa, Tel. +27 21 910 0393, phileo@global.co.za
http://home.global.co.za/~britz/phileo

Trailblazers- (011) 704 1397