Untitled Document

Knowing better than the Bible
I am left wondering about your editorial in the July/August 2004 issue. Do you really mean what you say? Are United Methodists to abandon Wesley's quadrilateral of four sources for our common theological task (Scripture, reason, tradition, and experience)? Is there not even one instance in which we simply know better than what's in the Bible? Are women truly not allowed to pray aloud in church unless they have their heads covered?

If that is the formula you are suggesting for unity in the church, I fear you are going to be very lonely.

Brooke Newell
Fort Ann, New York

Should have not been said
I read every issue of Good News. And I find it difficult to believe that any talk of "amicable separation" from those who have set their mission and vision to be a renewal movement can fail to be construed as anything but separatist. It doesn't matter whether Brother Hinson was speaking only for himself. It should have never been said. And I have a hunch there may be an ongoing price to pay. It's one thing to have a family quarrel. It is quite another to suggest dividing up the family farm while the parents are still living. How could any other response from General Conference be expected once the word got out?

Moreover, it seems to me that the wisdom of Albert Outler's quadrilateral may well need to re-emerge in our lifetime. In general, authority in the church prior to the 16th century was determined by church councils and maintained by tradition. After the Reformation, Scripture became primary as our church (and Good News) maintains. Reason came to play an increasingly important role as modernity flourished. In our lifetime, however, experience is emerging as primary. It is a particular historical response wedded to the post-modern experience of millions of persons. And it will not go away regardless of how much we may cry or warn against it. A best course for United Methodists might be to assert the uniqueness of the quadrilateral and invite all players into the family. Isn't this what General Conference was really saying? Just perhaps the wisdom of General Conference was greater than we imagine if the church is to have anything to say to emerging culture. To do less is to promote an even more marginalized church.

Some may salivate over the possibility of a pure church, "confessional" and "faithful" to Scripture, but I for one would rather find myself in one where differences are held together in love and mutual respect is increasingly sought.

Brian Witwer
The Aldersgate Community
Fort Wayne, Indiana

Spitzer study
Good News recently alluded to the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer on sexual orientation change ("Transforming Congregations says 'Compassion without Compromise,'" May/June 2004). The 2001 study interviewed 200 persons who had undergone reparative therapy and who reported success in moving toward heterosexuality. The impression given in Good News is that the study showed sexual orientation change to be quite common and that highly-motivated individuals have a good chance of achieving such change.

Little of what gets reported currently on the Spitzer study delves into what has transpired since its introduction. Twenty-six peer reviews were released in 2003, and the vast majority were highly critical of the study. Chief among concerns was the clear vested interest in the results of the study by the participants themselves. A full 78 percent reported they had previously spoken or lobbied publicly on behalf of sexual re-orientation therapy. Seven of the eight participants who reported a complete conversion to heterosexuality listed their occupation as "ex-gay counselor." Despite the thousands of persons Exodus International and NARTH claim have experienced such change, it is amazing that even with their assistance only one person could be found to give such testimony who wasn't a "professional ex-gay."

Another frequent criticism of Spitzer's work was the failure to distinguish between homosexuality and bisexuality. Of the men interviewed (72 percent of the participants), only 10 percent had been homosexually active prior to therapy, while over 50 percent had heterosexual experience. The vast majority still experienced same-sex attractions five years or more after therapy. It could be argued, therefore, that most were/are bisexual to a significant degree. That conclusion would be consistent with the common criticism of ex-gay ministries that the long-term "success" stories are most often bisexual persons assisted in relating sexually to only one gender. The difficulty Spitzer had in finding study participants who claimed a change from "gay" to "straight" reinforces that conclusion.

From the start, Dr. Spitzer urged extreme caution regarding the value of the study's findings and has since expressed deep concern with its misuse to support intolerance. He has stated that change in sexual orientation-if it actually occurs-is extremely rare and that perhaps only 3 percent of homosexual persons have an orientation fluid enough to allow some degree of change. He also recognized the potential danger of reparative therapy, suggesting that while it might help 5,000 people, it could harm 500,000.

Given Dr. Spitzer's own words-and the reviews of his professional peers-it is surprising the Spitzer study is used as the primary scientific evidence by ex-gay groups to support reparative therapy. Of greater importance, it raises the question of what is reasonable and compassionate to communicate to persons distraught over their sexual orientation. Apart from the issue of the necessity and desirability of change is the question of what is truthful. Since mutability is extremely rare, it would seem most kind to let such sufferers know that what is offered is assistance in being celibate. Celibacy, though perhaps difficult for those not so "gifted," is theologically consistent with conservative evangelicalism and is intellectually honest in regard to science. The despair and deep sense of failure experienced by those who seek a promised "cure" without result requires an up-front presentation of what can be realistically expected. Unfortunately, that message is not heard when what is enthusiastically and publicly promoted is "Change is Possible!"

Dr. Robert Spitzer is a man of integrity who was willing to take great risks to arrive at truth. Spitzer defined his career in 1973 by leading the APA to remove homosexuality from the DSM III as a mental disorder. Nearly thirty years later he had the courage to conduct a study on ex-gays and risk supporting a politically-incorrect idea that seems contradictory to his prior aim. It is especially significant since Spitzer is ethnically Jewish and reported to be an atheist-a person one might not expect to advocate for a group of mostly evangelical Christians. Spitzer showed himself to be an open, honest man who cares about people and truth. In return for his efforts, he has been severely criticized by his peers and celebrated by persons who have made his worst nightmare come true by misusing his study. Spitzer might be seen as a model of one who values the pursuit of truth above all else-especially in a time when positions are taken and political battle lines are drawn prior to rigorous examination of all available evidence.

Rick Danielson
Fredonia, NY

Transforming Congregations responds:
Since the article that Mr. Danielson refers to contains portions of two news releases that I wrote for General Conference, I have requested this opportunity to respond to his criticisms and questions.

Of gravest concern is Danielson's implication that statements made about Dr. Robert Spitzer's study were false, misleading, and a deliberate misuse of his findings. On the contrary, it's Danielson himself who has misunderstood and misinterpreted the Good News article. Nowhere does it claim that "sexual orientation change" is "quite common" or that many people experience it. The offending line reads: ".highly motivated men and women can change not only same-sex behavior, but many times can also change sexual orientation as well." The emphasis is on the possibility of interior vs. exterior change, not on the number of people who achieve it.

Danielson also raises several criticisms of Spitzer's work that have little basis in the actual study. Spitzer acknowledges that a majority of participants were "highly motivated to provide support for the value of reorientation change efforts," but he then offers a half-dozen reasons why their reports are credible. (He also states that he had difficulty finding any participants at all because therapists-especially non-religious ones-resisted contacting former clients and a number of referrals were reluctant to be interviewed.) Danielson, on the other hand, disparages the study participants as "professional ex-gays," questioning their integrity and insinuating that they may have been less than honest because they had a "vested interest" in the outcome. If by that Danielson means that they were motivated by recruitment, prosperity, or politics, then he owes the majority of them an apology. Other than the "big names" of ex-gay ministry, hundreds of other men and women labor anonymously in local support groups, often part-time, for little or no pay, and with few resources. They do so because Jesus has worked a profound change in their lives and they want to offer that hope and freedom to others.

Regarding the issue of bisexuality/homosexuality, Spitzer and others have argued that the therapeutic community has no clear or consensual definition of either. However, those accepted into the study had self-reported "predominantly homosexual attraction," with half of the participants reporting homosexual attraction exclusively. They "often" or "very often" had same-sex attraction as teenagers, with "never" or "rarely" experiencing opposite-sex attraction, particularly the males. And half of the men and a third of the women had never had consensual heterosexual sex. Yet a majority of these people experienced a shift to predominantly opposite-sex orientation and behavior. Even those who had not made a substantial change reported they were helped by reparative therapy and were less depressed overall. According to those in the pro-gay camp, the only "true" homosexual is someone who is born, lives and dies that way-a very neat "Catch 22" definition that completely does away with any possibility of change.

I am challenged by Danielson's letter to question how much misplaced faith we all put in so-called "scientific" studies, along with the misdirected hope we have in therapeutic intervention. Of Spitzer's 200 subjects, only 26 percent sought and found help from psychologists or psychiatrists. Fewer still (12 percent) were aided by pastoral counselors-a sad commentary on the practical involvement of religious professionals. The vast majority achieved transformation through mentoring, self-help books, and a focus on spiritual growth. This goes along with Spitzer's finding that religion was "extremely" or "very" important in these people's lives.

Spitzer's study conclusion-to my knowledge, one he has never yet repudiated-is that "contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make a substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation and achieve good heterosexual functioning." That is Transforming Congregations' message as well-change is possible. And we simply want to help churches help others who want to change.

There have been other criticisms besides those Danielson has raised, and the Spitzer study remains a subject of much controversy. I would suggest that readers make up their own minds rather than relying on anyone else's understanding and interpretation.

A full transcript of Spitzer's 2001 presentation to the American Psychiatric Association can be read at www.pfox.org/asp/newsman/templates/newstemplate.asp?articleid=66&zoneid=6. A summary with charts and graphics, and another summary of peer reviews can be found at www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm. An internet search on "Dr. Robert Spitzer" will bring up articles from many perspectives.

Karen Booth
Executive Director
Transforming Congregations

Click here to send your response plus the title of this article to us at Good News.

Letters Cheers and Jeers

Letters
Cheers and Jeers