Same-Sex Attraction

On behalf of those who have turned away from the homosexual lifestyle to follow Christ yet continue to be attracted to members of their own gender Mike Ensley asks:

[W]hat about the rest of us who deal with this issue and haven't come to our "happy ending" yet? What about those of us who continue to struggle with same-sex attraction (SSA), even after choosing to follow Christ? We're caught in a sort of identity limbo, unsure whether we can or even should hope to experience heterosexual desire, get married and start a family someday.

With candor and biblical wisdom Mike encourages fellow-strugglers to join him in taking the following steps towards the renewing of their minds and experiencing freedom:

Stop making unfair comparisons

Stop obsessing about how much you will (or won't) enjoy heterosexual sex

Quit letting your temptations dictate your identity

Do what you know you should be doing

Mike's article is valuable reading for those trying to resist same-sex attraction as well as those committed to aiding them in their pursuit of godliness. Also, much of what he says has application for all of us regardless of the nature of our personal temptations.

Poli Psych

Glenn (Instapundit.com) and Dr. Helen Reynolds recently talked to Dr. Nicholas Cummings about the politicization of psychology (HT: Stones Cry Out). Here's their summary:

Is psychology over-politicized? We interview Dr. Nicholas Cummings, a past President of the American Psychological Association, and coauthor of Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, about the injection of politics into mental health in general, and the American Psychological Association in particular. Plus, why men are disappearing from the psychological profession.
You can listen to the podcast directly (no iPod needed!) by clicking right here, or you can get it via iTunes right here.

I blogged about the book here and here. Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian has also written about how a liberal political ideology, rather than sound research, appears to be driving the APA's stance on abortion and homosexual marriage.

The APA's Social Vision

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian points to the American Psychological Association's apparent dismissal of a recent study indicating that abortion has adverse effects on women's mental health and asks, "...is the APA a civil rights organization? Should civil rights trump their advocacy for mental health? What's really going on here politically, anyway?" 


This isn't the first time the self-professed scientific and professional community has opted for activism over research. Nicholas Cummings, a former APA president and co-editor of the book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, claims that the Association only conducts research "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible." In this article about the APA's stance toward homosexuality, Cummings describes an exchange he had with another member at a meeting convened to discuss the future of the organization:

I was just about to agree with one of the participants, when she stopped me before I could speak: 'I don't know what you are going to say, but there is nothing you and I can agree on, because you are a straight white male and I am a lesbian.'

He continues:

Such blatant reverse discrimination was overlooked by everyone else in the room, but I was dumbfounded. This woman is prominent in APA affairs, is extensively published, and has received most of the APA's highest awards. The APA continues to laud her, even though recently she had her license suspended for an improper dual relationship with a female patient! What would be the response had it been a straight white male in an improper dual relationship with a female patient?

A message from current APA President Gerald P. Koocher states in part: "Healthy, well-adjusted people build better societies, and improving societal institutions builds better people. Psychology has much to contribute, and we must do a better job of making these potential contributions self-evident." 


This appears to be a commendable goal but there are important questions we need to ask in response to assertions like this. What criteria will we use to evaluate health and well-adjustedness? What ideals should guide our attempts to improve society? Which conception of the good life should we follow? More important, which is true?


Psychological research may prove quite helpful in giving us insight into how we think and behave but it cannot tell us how we should be thinking and behaving. Even our interpretations of what we observe are dependent upon some pre-scientific beliefs about what it means to be human, whether or not there is a teleology or purpose for our existence, and what is ultimately real. 

When we take the time to reflect on these issues, the well-worn plea for neutrality in the public square is more clearly seen for what it is - nonsense. Someone's philosophy of life will dictate public policy. This means that Christians need not be ashamed or embarrassed for thinking "Christianly" (to use a phrase coined by Harry Blamires) about psychology or any other facet of life. To conform to the myth of neutrality is, in fact, to betray the faith.

Al Mohler on Larry King Live Tonight

Albert Mohler will be one of Larry King's guests this evening (9 ET, CNN) discussing the film Brokeback Mountain which he has written about here and here. Here's the teaser from the show's site: "Is it biology or choice? Are same sex unions a legitimate lifestyle? Homosexuals face off with religious conservatives."

United Church of Christ Officially Supports Homosexual Marriage

I grew up in the United Church of Christ. From as early as I can remember through my high school years my unbelieving family faithfully attended. For those aware of the denomination it won't come as any shock that I can't recall ever hearing the gospel. Sermons were moralistic. When Jesus was mentioned, he was presented as an example but not as the Savior from sin and its penalty. Much attention was given, from the pulpit as well as from the denomination's Sunday School curricula, to issues of social justice, world peace, and environmentalism. I'll never forget the time I heard one of the pastors explain the feeding of the 5,000 naturalistically. According to him, the real "miracle" that took place that day was that a small boy who unselfishly gave of his loaves and fishes shamed the large crowd whose members had been hiding their food under their cloaks.

When, in college, I understood my need for God's pardon and the gift of righteousness, I was angry at this church that had deprived me of the gospel. Mine was an attitude of "Why didn't you tell me?! Why did you keep the truth from me?" It took a while for me to realize that nothing had been intentionally kept from me. There was no clandestine plot to prevent me from learning the truth. The sad fact was that the leaders themselves were in darkness. That darkness showed itself yesterday when the UCC became the first mainline Christian denomination to officially support homosexual marriage. The New York Times reports that following the synod's vote, UCC President, Rev. John Thomas declared:

"On this July 4, the United Church of Christ has courageously acted to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil rights of gay - of same-gender - couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate those marriages."

The same article illustrates the contradictions that groups like the UCC have to embrace in the name of "tolerance" and "open mindedness." The female pastor of a predominantly black UCC congregation described many blacks as being more "orthodox" in their biblical interpretation and gave the following reason for her vote against the resolution: "There are those of us who live in the tension of affirming love and relationships for people who have not had enough of that, and feeling like the theological evidence for it just hasn't been presented." An associate who voted in favor of the resolution stated, "I voted for it, and I agree with everything she's saying."


I doubt I could have remained in the UCC but some evangelical believers have chosen to work and pray for renewal and reform from within. The Biblical Witness Fellowship is a network of such Christians whose work, in light of this recent decision, will be all the more challenging.

Homosexual Flies?

The New York Times reports that researchers have identified a master sexual gene in fruit flies. Males artificially given the female variation of the gene exhibit female sexual behavior directed toward other males. Likewise, females given the male version of the gene attempt to mate with other females. According to the study's lead author: "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior."
Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University expressed optimism that "this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."
I find it interesting that Dr. Weiss is only hopeful that human sexual orientation might be accounted for biologically. If the findings of the fly study were applied consistently, sexual behavior of all kinds could be accounted for in terms of genetic determinism in which case it would be inappropriate (might we say "wrong?") to offer any moral evaluation whatsoever.

All The News That's Fit to Survive

Today's New York Times is a virtual cornucopia of Darwinian entertainment:

An editorial not so cleverly refers to the intelligent design movement as "The Evolution of Creationism."

Harvard professor of cognitive science Steven Pinker speculates as to the evolutionary explanation for both homosexuality and opposition to it in his op-ed contribution. Here's an excerpt:

Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not because homosexuality itself is evolutionary maladaptive (though no more so than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected out long ago. Perhaps "gay genes" have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing fertility, when they are carried by women. Perhaps the environments that set off homosexuality today didn't exist while our genes were being selected. Or perhaps the main cause is biological yet not directly genetic, like differences in hormones or antibodies that affect the fetus while it is developing.
Just as puzzling is the existence of homophobia. Why didn't evolution shape straight men to react to their gay fellows by thinking: "Great! More women for me!" Probably the answer lies in a cross-wiring between our senses of morality and disgust. People often confuse their own revulsion with objective sinfulness, as when they dehumanize people living in squalor or, in the other direction, engage in religious rituals of cleanliness and purification. An impulse to avoid homosexual contact may blur into an impulse to condemn homosexuality.

Finally, the Science section features a new book by philosopher of science and biology professor Elisabeth Lloyd in which she rejects 20 leading theories concerning the evolutionary function of a certain aspect of female sexuality.