By Heather Sells

CBN News Reporter

February 19, 2008

Another Marion Gordon Pat Robertson Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) video. Fortunately they’ve already transcribed this one for me. Paraphrased:

Until now, such stories have been all the ammunition the church has had in a culture that says there’s no choice: You’re either born gay — or you’re not.

But new research shows change is possible.

Psychologists Stan Jones and Mark Yarhouse followed 98 people as they entered Exodus ministries. The Christian group is dedicated to helping those who struggle with homosexuality.

In the midst of such pain, Jones and Yarhouse found 38 percent were able to change their orientation. Some reduced their same-sex attraction substantially. Others were also able to shift to opposite sex attraction.

This is all in regard to the book:


A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation

By Stanton L. Jones

and Mark A. Yarhouse

First of all, they DIDN’T follow 98 people. 25 dropped out and were not followed up on, leaving us with the results of 73 people.

But wait, there’s more:

According to the study itself, the criteria for success was described in two ways, “Success: Conversion,” 15%, and “Success: Chastity,” 23%.

Ergo: 15% + 23% = “38% were able to change their orientation”

And since chastity is essentially celibacy for God, we’re left with “success: conversion” (15% of the 73 remaining participants). Bringing us to a grand total of 11 success stories. (P 282)And that’s still not all. You also get a most interesting definition of this “conversion” on page 279 (emphasis in original):

Success: Conversion. The subject reports complete (or nearly complete) success or resolution of homosexual orientation issues and substantial conversion to heterosexual attraction. Homosexual attraction is either missing or present only incidentally and in a way that does not seem to bring about distress or undue “temptation.” The person either has a successful heterosexual sex life (whether in marriage or otherwise), or reports he or she is dating and experiencing satisfactory heterosexual attraction even though not acting out sexually due to moral constraints. The subject appears to have firm confidence in the stability of change and of continuing progress. Prototype: “I’m healed; rarely experience homosexual desire to significant proportions, and enjoy a good sex life with my spouse (or am dating and am very attracted to my love interest).”

Let’s see, at 300,000,000 Americans, 3% of whom are gay (those who raise our hands when asked), that’s at least 9 million of us.

9,000,000 x 15% = 1,350,000

Therefore, because 11 people potentially represent 1,350,000 openly gay Americans, whom if they were self-loathing, believed in a god, went through ex-gay ministries, and came out successful in-some-sort-of-a-126-word-definition-of-heterosexuality-as-described-above-way — All 9 million of us, +B’s +T’s, and the rest of us closeted L’s and G’s, should be held to the standard of these 11 — and are therefore not to be protected equally under United States law.

By all means anti-gay industry, do go on:

The major mental health organizations have made very strong claims that sexual orientation cannot change and that attempts to do so would be harmful,” Yarhouse said.

“People don’t want to promote the truth, especially the mainstream media. They don’t want to add that component to the debate,” [Alan] Chambers said.

As many churches help those coming out of homosexuality, liberal churches that promote tolerance often stand in the way. Chambers says they remain the greatest threat to developing a biblical view of sexuality.

Oh really Alan Chambers? Would that include a “threat” to the Biblical view of adultery? Or the Biblical view of Polygamy? Or the Biblical view of Incest?

There are mountains of information the nefariousness of this study. Six of which occur at Ex-Gay Watch. Dr. Patrick M. Chapman critiques the study in three parts, to which Jones and Yarhouse respond in three parts.

My absolute favorite line of Jones and Yarhouse’s response to the critique was this:

Chapman seems to be arguing for an extremely literalistic understanding of “starting the change process.”

This was in response to Chapman’s observation that Jones and Yarhouse claimed that participants were at the start of their “change” process, yet some, if not many, had been pursuing “change” long before participation in the study.

To which I say: Jones and Yarhouse seem to be arguing for an extremely figurative understanding of the meaning of WORDS THEMSELVES.  




Leave a reply