Edification 4(2). 2010. A Christian in Gay, Lesbian, And Bisexual Studies

8/2/2019 Edification 4(2). 2010. A Christian in Gay, Lesbian, And Bisexual Studies

1/80

EDIFICATIONTHE TRANSDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL

OF CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

Volume 4 Issue 2 2011


2/80

Edication: e Transdisciplinary Journal of Christian Psychology

Edication Journal, 2011, Volume 4, Issue 2Edication Journal is published by the American Association of Christian Counselors.

SCP Director: Eric JohnsonManaging Editor: Mark Camper

Graphic Designer: Amy ColeAdvertising Director: Randy MeetreAACC President: Tim Clinton

e American Association of Christian Counselors is chartered in Virginia and dedicated to promoting excellence and unity in Christian counseling.e purpose and objectives of AACC and the programs that it sponsors are strictly informative, educational, and aliative.

Views expressed by the authors, presenters, and advertisers are their own and do not necessarily reect those of the Society for Christian Psychology,or the American Association of Christian Counselors. e Edication Journal, Society for Christian Psychology, and the AACC do not assumeresponsibility in any way for members or subscribers eorts to apply or utilize information, suggestions, or recommendations made by the organization,the publications, or other resources. All rights reserved. Copyright 2011.

If you have comments or questions about the content of the Edication Journal, please direct them to the Edication Director, Dr. Eric Johnson, P.O.Box 739, Forest, VA 24551.

Member Services: 1.800.526.8673, fax: 1.434.525.9480, www.AACC.net.

Copyright 2011 by Christian Counseling Resources, Inc.

2

Associate EditorsBiblical Psychology

Jonathan Pennington, Ph.D.Assistant Proessor o New estament,Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Clinical Psychology/CounselingPhil Monroe, Psy.D.

Proessor o Counseling,Biblical Teologial Seminary

Philosophical PsychologyRobert Roberts, Ph.D.

Distinguished Proessor o Ethics, Baylor University

Research Psychology

Eric Jones, Ph.D.Associate Proessor o Psychology, Regent University

eological PsychologyAndrew Purves, Ph.D.

Proessor o Reormed Teology,Pittsburgh Teological Seminary

eoretical PsychologyPeter Hampson, Ph.D.Proessor o Psychology,

University o the West o England, Bristol

Contributing EditorsKaye Cook, Ph.D.

Proessor o Psychology, Gordon College

C. Stephen Evans, Ph.D.

University Proessor o Philosophy andthe Humanities, Baylor University

Fernando Garzon, Ph.D.Associate Proessor o Counseling, Liberty University

Stephen Greggo, Ph.D.Associate Proessor o Pastoral Counseling and

Psychology, rinity Evangelical & Divinity School

Kathrin Halder, Chr. Psych. (IACP)Lecturer in Christian Psychology and Anthropology,

IGNIS

Michael Haykin, Ph.D.Proessor o Church History and Biblical Spirituality,

Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Eric Johnson, Ph.D.Lawrence and Charlotte Hoover Proessor o Pastoral

Care, Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Timothy Paul Jones, Ph.D.Associate Proessor,

Southern Baptist Teological Seminary

Robert Kellemen, Ph.D.Proessor o Counseling, Capital Bible Seminary

Chris Kettler, Ph.D.Proessor o Teology and Philosophy,

Friends University

Warren Kinghorn, M.D., M.T.S.Assistant Proessor o Psychiatry, Duke University

Medical Center; Assistant Proessor o Psychiatry andPastoral and Moral Teology, Duke Divinity School

Unhye Kwon, Ph.D.Kumsan-Gun, Korea

Angus Menuge, Ph.D.Proessor o Philosophy,

Concordia University Wisconsin

Andrew A. Michel, M.D.Assistant Proessor,

Vanderbilt University School o Medicine

Michael Pakaluk, Ph.D.Proessor o Integrative Research,

Institute or the Psychological Sciences

Matthew Phelps, Ph.D.Proessor o Psychology, Malone University

Rev. Bryan Salminen, Ph.D.Senior Pastor, Emmanuel Lutheran Church,

Cadillac, MI

Andrew Schmutzer, Ph.D.Proessor o Bible, Moody Bible Institute

Brent Slife, Ph.D.Proessor o Psychology, Brigham Young University

James Spiegel, Ph.D.Proessor o Philosophy, aylor University

Matthew Stanford, Ph.D.Proessor o Psychology, Baylor University

William Struthers, Ph.D.Associate Proessor o Psychology, Wheaton College

Mark R. Talbot, Ph.D.Associate Proessor o Philosophy, Wheaton College

Siang Yang Tan, Ph.D.Proessor o Psychology, Fuller Teological Seminary

Paul Vitz, Ph.D.Proessor, Institute or the Psychological Sciences

Sam Williams, Ph.D.Associate Proessor o Counseling,

Southeastern Baptist Teological Seminary

Richard Winters, L.R.C.P.Proessor o Practical Teology,Covenant Teological Seminary

Mark Yarhouse, Psy.D.Proessor o Psychology, Regent University

EDIFICATIONTHE TRANSDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

Executive EditorP. J. Watson, Ph.D.

Proessor o Psychology,University o ennessee-Chattanooga

Managing EditorPhilip Jamieson, Ph.D.

Assistant Proessor o Pastoral Teology,University o Dubuque Teological Seminary


3/80


CONTENTSVolume 4 | Issue 2 | 2011

Discussion ArticleRound Peg, Square Hole: Being an Evangelical Christian in GLB Studies ...............................................5Mark A. Yarhouse

Commentariesurning owards the Imago Dei .........................................................................................................13

Andrew Comiskey

Building a Bridge across the Divide.....................................................................................................14Jeery S. Eckert

Pegs, Holes, and rees: A Response to Being an Evangelical Christian in GLB Studies.............................15Phil Henry

Sexual Diversity: A Challenge or Counselors .......................................................................................18H. Newton Malony

As the Years Go On: A Response to Round Peg, Square Hole ..................................................................21

Kathleen Y. Ritter

Te Merits o a Round Peg in a Square Hole........................................................................................25Gary H. Strauss

In Praise o Round Pegs ......................................................................................................................27Warren rockmorton

Authors Response

Walking a Fine Line ..........................................................................................................................30Mark A. Yarhouse

ArticlesTe Exemplar Project: Finding What Makes a Church Exemplary in its Ministry to Persons whoExperience Same-Sex Attraction or who Struggle with Sexual Identity Concerns .....................................32Mark A. Yarhouse and Trista L. Carr

Characteristics o Mixed Orientation Couples: An Empirical Study .......................................................41Mark A. Yarhouse, Jill L. Kays, Heather Poma, Audrey N. Atkinson, and Jennifer S. Ripley

Dialogue on Christian Psychology

3


4/80


Grace and Christian Psychology Part 1: Preliminary Measurement,Relationships, and Implications or Practice .........................................................................................57Timothy A. Sisemore, Matthew Arbuckle, Melinda Killian, Elizabeth Mortellaro,Mahogany Swanson, Robert Fisher, and Joshua McGinnis

Grace and Christian Psychology Part 2: Psychometric Renements and Relationships withSel-Compassion, Depression, Belies about Sin, and Religious Orientation ............................................64

P. J. Watson, Zhuo Chen, and Timothy A. Sisemore

Interview with Nancey Murphy: Constructing an Anabaptist Visiono Ideal Psychological Functioning .......................................................................................................73Nancey Murphy and Charles H. Hackney

Edication: Book Review ...................................................................................................................79Philip D. Jamieson, Editor

4

Edication encourages scholars from all disciplines to submit research papers relevant to Christian Psychology. Manuscripts shoulduse Microsoft Word software and should follow the current style guidelines of the American Psychological Association. Papersshould be submitted as an attachment to an email addressed to the current Executive Editor at [email protected]. In the

accompanying email, the author should guarantee that the attached manuscript has not been previously published and that it is notunder concurrent review by another journal.

EDIFICATIONTHE TRANSDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CHRISTIAN PSYCHOLOGY

Manuscript Submission


5/80


Round Peg, Square Hole: Being an EvangelicalChristian in GLB Studies

Mark A. YarhouseRegent University

In this article, the author discusses his experiences as an evangelical Christian in gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB)studies. Te article opens with a discussion o modes o relating religion and science: critical-evaluative, constructive,and dialogical. Applications are then made to discussions o Christianity and GLB studies in psychology. Followingexamples o scholarship and experiences in each o these modes o relating, the author discusses several challenges acedby evangelical Christian working in GLB studies, as well as lessons learned.

Dialogue on Christian Psychology: Discussion Article

5

When I was asked to reect on what it is liketo work as an evangelical Christian in gay,lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) studies, I was

reminded of the idiom, Its like placing a round pegin a square hole.1 is phrase brings to mind imagesof something that just does not t, does not belong.Readers may be aware that the phrase tting a roundpeg into a square hole dates to 1800 and the useof trunnels or tree nails which were used to buildbridges and frame houses and were widely used inshipbuilding (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trunnels). A trunnel is a wooden peg which was cut

square and pounded into a round hole. Today thephrase refers to being ash out o water being in asituation in which one feels out o place.

So is an evangelical Christian in GLB studies ash out o water, which is the current association, ordoes the arrangement in some way reect the origi-nal meaning of the word? Perhaps the t is dicult attimes, but the dicult t is a genuine reection of thenature of the materials that suits a specic purpose thatwould not be gained through other means.

In any case, I do believe that conservative or evan-gelical Christians ought to be involved in GLB studies.My rationale takes me back to what it means to be aChristian in the eld of psychology. e approach tointegration that initially started me on this path wasone of the rst and most inuential articles on integra-tion I read in graduate school. It was Alvin Plantingasinaugural address in 1983 as the John A. OBrien Pro-fessor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dametitled Advice to Christian Philosophers. In that ad-dress, Plantinga (1984) shared that Christian philoso-phers have an obligation to the Christian communityto be the philosophers of the Christian community. In

our minds as young graduate students we were substi-tuting the eld ofphilosophywith that ofpsychology:

Christian [psychologists] are the [psychol-ogists] of the Christian community; and it ispart of their task as Christian [psychologists]to serve the Christian community. But theChristian community has its own questions,its own concerns, its own topics for investi-gation, its own agenda and its own researchprograms. (Plantinga, p. 6)

What struck me most about Plantingas call wasthe idea that Christians in the eld of psychology havetheir own questions to ask, their own topics to address.

We cannot expect non-Christian psychologists2 to ask

about or care about the questions, topics, and researchagendas that Christians care about. So we have to be inthe eld doing the work. In my view, Christians maynot be focusing on GLB issues, but there will certainlybe benets to focusing on the issues that face Chris-tians who are sorting out questions pertaining to theirsexual identity.

is raises the question of how Christians oughtto be relating their faith to the eld of psychology. Ifthere are questions that are important to address forthe Christian in GLB studies, how ought the Christianapproach the eld to address those questions?

Modes o Relating Religion and ScienceIn his analysis of the relationship between religionand science, Jones (1994) gave examples of threeconstructive modes of relating religion and psychol-ogy: the critical-evaluative, constructive, and dialogicalmodes.3 e critical-evaluative mode of functioningexists when social scientic theories and paradigmsare examined and evaluated by the individual scientistfor their t with his or her religious presuppositions(p. 194). For example, Van Leeuwen (2002) critiqued

some aspects of evolutionary psychology and its claimsregarding human sexuality and sexual behavior. She


6/80

Edication: e Transdisciplinary Journal of Christian Psychology6

recognized the potential value in the paradigm, butraised concerns about the absolute reductionism foundin evolutionary psychology.

Te constructivemode of relating science and reli-gion occurs when religious presuppositions are broughtto science in ways that inuence or even transform aeld because of new ideas and interpretations of data(Jones, 1994). Jones notes that traditional religious

systems have yet to oer any major productive scien-tic paradigms (p. 194) within psychology; however,a number of less ambitious yet certainly constructiveadvances have been made in conceptual and empiricalstudies of human sexuality. Examples of a constructivemode are premised upon dierent assumptions aboutthe nature of reality. It is possible that religiously-in-formed scientic scholarship may lead to empiricallyfruitful approaches to nagging problems in the eld.

e third form of interaction between science andreligion is what Jones (1994) refers to as the dialogi-

calmode, which is essentially religion and science indialogue with one another. Neither religion nor sci-ence should simply dictate terms to the other. Jones re-minds us that it is not his intention to simply privilegereligion over science; rather, his concern is to see bothreligion and science as dierent yet complementaryapproaches to human experience. From this perspec-tive, while religion may inuence the scientic enter-prise, so too advances in science inuence religion. Inthe study of human sexuality a dialogical approach toreligion and science involves recognizing an ongoingdialogue between these two dierent but complimen-tary and overlapping approaches to understanding hu-man experience. e dialogue also leads to empirical-ly-veriable hypotheses, so that ndings from scienceinform religious thought (and vice versa) on a varietyof topics in human sexuality.

My focus in the early stages of my career was thecritical-evaluative mode of relating. e book I co-authored with Stanton, Jones entitled Homosexuality:Te use o scientic research in the churchs moral debate,is an example of this (Jones & Yarhouse, 2000). We ex-amined the nature of the argument that was advanced

in many mainline Christian denominational sexualitystudy groups. Specically, we looked at the misuse ofscience in the four areas of (a) prevalence estimates,(b) etiology of homosexuality, (c) status as a psycho-pathology (including mental health correlates), and(d) change of sexual orientation. e arguments citedin these four areas were intended to move Christiansin mainline denominations away from their historicalteaching on human sexuality generally and homosexu-ality specically. What we found as we examined rstthe documents and then the science was that the ar-gument was based upon a misuse of science. We alsoclosed this book with a broad framework for a Chris-

tian theology of human sexuality.Much of this critique was really an outworking

of my earlier relationship with Stan and the work wehad begun when I was a student and research assis-tant for him at Wheaton College. e rst signicant,independent professional step I took actually broughtme into the dialogical mode with some members ofthe GLB community in psychology. It goes back a few

years to when I was attending the American Psycho-logical Associations (APA) annual meeting in Boston.I had the opportunity to sit in on a session by ArielShidlo and Michael Schroeder, two gay researcherswho had recently completed a study of consumersof sexual reorientation therapy. Shidlo and Schroederwere suggesting that such therapy is harmful to unsus-pecting and vulnerable clients. at session was mod-erated by Douglas Haldeman, a past president of the

APA division interested in GLB issues in psychology.Later that day, I ran into Doug Haldeman and felt a

strong sense that I should approach him about a dia-logue on clinical services for people who are sortingout sexual identity issues in light of their religious be-liefs and values. Although he seemed skeptical at rst,he indicated he was open to exploring the possibilityof dialogue.

It took a full year to not only propose a balancedsymposium with two GLB psychologists and two con-servative Christian mental health professionals, butalso to set the stage for a respectful dialogue. We agreedto several principles that would allow us to model mu-tual respect to an audience that might be anticipatinga ght reminiscent of an episode ofJerry Springer. Inany case, we were able to successfully hold the sympo-sium (Yarhouse, 2000) and model the very respect weall committed ourselves to in advance. Details of thesymposium were actually covered in a news article inwhich this desire for respect and professionalism wasnoted (http://www.narth.com/docs/commonground.html; for the interested reader, an update on the dia-logue was published approximately ve years after theinitial symposium; see Brooke, 2005).

e success of that exchange led to several other

similar symposia at APA. For example, a couple ofyears later I chaired a symposium on clinical servicesfor adolescents sorting out sexual identity questions(Yarhouse, 2004), as well as a symposium on themeaning of marriage to various religions around theworld and to various groups within the GLB commu-nity (Yarhouse, 2005). is came from an understand-ing that there was much more diversity within theGLB community on the subject of same-sex marriagethat is commonly believed. e most recent dialogue(Yarhouse & Beckstead, 2007) was over a newly-pro-posed Sexual Identity erapy Framework (http://sit-framework.com/) as a middle ground therapy option


7/80

Edication: e Transdisciplinary Journal of Christian Psychology 7

between the two often-polarized positions of sexualreorientation therapy and gay armative (or gay in-tegrative) therapy.

Each of these symposia took the same form withrepresentative voices on both sides looking for areasof common ground and doing so in the spirit of mu-tuality and respect. Many of these exchanges were laterpublished in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Haldeman,

2002; Shidlo & Shroeder, 2002; rockmorton, 2002;Yarhouse & Burkett, 2002; Yarhouse & Nowacki-Butzen, 2007; Yarhouse & Tan, 2006). e work onSexual Identity erapy (e.g., rockmorton & Yar-house, 2006; Yarhouse, 2008) was cited favorably inthe recent Report of the APA Task Force on Appro-priate erapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation(2009) as one of several models (see also, Beckstead &Israel, 2007; Glassgold, 2008; Haldeman, 2004) forworking with sexual minorities who are distressed dueto the conict they experience between their religious

identity and sexual identity.Although I continue to participate in these dia-logues, I have also begun to shift into a constructivemode of relating Christianity and GLB studies. iswas an intentional step beyond the change of sexualorientation debate. Based upon my clinical experiencein this area, I began to examine the construct of sexualidentity or the act of labeling oneself as gay (as well asother identity labels including straight, bi, bi-curious,lesbian, queer, questioning, curious, other, and so on).My work in this area began with a critique (Yarhouse,2001) of the existing theories and models of sexualidentity development (e.g., Cass, 1979; Chapman &Brannock, 1987; Troiden, 1979), as well as how theywere being presented in the literature (e.g., McCarn& Fassinger, 1996; Reynolds & Hanjorgiris, 2000).is led to the question: What about those who experi-ence same-sex attraction but do not identiy themselvesas gay?

It became clear to me that the act of labeling in-volves attributions about what sexual attractions meanto people. On the one hand, sexual identity is merelythe act of labeling oneself. is act of labeling is both

public (how others view the person) and private (howthe person views him or herself). But the decision toform ones identity with reference to attractions andto experience these as central to who one is as a personmay be inuenced by several factors, including onesbiological sex(whether a person was born male or fe-male), gender identity (how masculine or feminine aperson feels), attractions (the amount and intensityof same- and/or opposite-sex attractions), intentions(what a person intends to do with the attractions he orshe has), behaviors(what a person actually does withthe attractions he or she has), and valuative rame-works(personal and/or religious beliefs and values and

formed judgments about sexuality and sexual expres-sion) (Yarhouse, 2001). ere may be many factorsthat contribute to the act of labeling, and people canreect on what is trump for them with respect totheir decision to label themselves one way or another.

If attractions do not necessarily signal an identity,it became clear that there was an important distinctionto be made between sexual attractions, a homosexual

orientation, and a gay identity (Yarhouse, 2005). isthree-tier distinction moves from descriptive to pre-scriptive, by which I mean that talking about same-sexattractions is a descriptive account of a persons experi-ences: I experience sexual attraction to the same sex.Personal identity is still subject to further reection.Similarly, a homosexual orientation reects a personsaccount of the degree and persistence of same-sex at-tractions. If a person has a sucient amount of at-traction toward the same sex, and if that attraction isexperienced as enduring, a person might say: I have

a homosexual orientation. Of course, a person coulddescribe him or herself as homosexual: I am a ho-mosexual, which suggests more qualities we associ-ate with identity rather than mere description. In anycase, the nal tier in the three-tier distinction is a gayidentity. A gay identity reects a modern socioculturalmovement that has formed an identity around experi-ences of same-sex attraction. It is not merely a syn-onym for attractions to the same sex, although somepeople might talk about it that way. Rather, I am gayis a self-dening attribution that reects this sociocul-tural movement.

e focus of my research, then, has been sexualidentity rather than orientation as such. From my per-spective, a focus on orientation can mistakenly assumethat the traditional Christian sexual ethic in some wayhinges on the causes of homosexuality and whether ahomosexual orientation can change. Sexual identity,in contrast, focuses the discussion on an endpoint bybringing to the foreground patterns of behavior andan identity that reects that over time. Many of thepeople I work with are conservative Christians, andfrom that perspective, some might argue that identity

speaks to what we treasure, and of whose kingdom weare a part. Dallas Willard (1998) is relevant here as hemakes a distinction between what it is people have asay over: We were made to have dominion withinappropriate domains of reality Our kingdom issimply the range of our eective will. Whatever wegenuinely have say over is in our kingdom (p. 21).

It may be helpful, then, to distinguish betweenwhat is in a persons eective will. e experience ofsame-sex attraction is not in a persons eective will,at least not in the same way as behavior and identityis. Most people I have met who are sorting out sexualidentity questionsnd themselvesattracted to the same


8/80


sex; they did not choose to experience same-sex at-tractions. What they are choosing is whether or notto integrate their experiences of attractions into a gayidentity.

is led to an initial theoretical contribution (Yar-house, 2001) in which I suggested a ve-stage modelof sexual identity development that considered the roleof personal and religious moral evaluative frameworks

on sexual identity development: identity conusion,identity attribution, identity oreclosure versus expandedidentity, identity reappraisal, and identity synthesis. iswas followed by a series of empirical studies (Yarhouse,Tan & Pawlowski, 2005; Yarhouse & Tan, 2004)comparing Christian sexual minorities in the Metro-politan Community Church (MCC) with Christiansexual minorities in Exodus International. e formeridentied as gay and Christian, while the later did notidentity (or dis-identied) with a gay identity, oftenprecisely because of a central religious identity. Several

additional studies (e.g., Yarhouse, Brooke, Pisano &Tan, 2005; Yarhouse, Stratton, Dean & Brooke, 2009)have expanded my own thoughts on sexual identitydevelopment and the role of attributions in makingmeaning out of experiences of same-sex attraction.

roughout this time, Regent University sup-ported the establishment of the Institute for the Studyof Sexual Identity (ISSI; www.sexualidentityinstitute.org) with a focus on conducting research, providingclinical services/consultations, and training studentsin the area of sexual identity theory and practice. Ourmost recent contributions include the proposal (withco-author Warren rockmorton) of the Sexual Iden-tity erapy Framework (http://sitframework.com/)to assist clinicians in providing ethical practice in thisarea and to organize that work into the four main areasof assessment, advanced informed consent, psycho-therapy, and synthesis. e purpose of therapy pro-vided under this framework is to achieve congruence,so that person is able to live in a way that is consistentwith their beliefs and values. is is not specically amodel for Christian counseling; rather, it is intendedas a model that the mainstream mental health com-

munity could recognize as a viable alternative to thetwo current and more polarized approaches (gay af-rmative and reorientation approaches) (see APA TaskForce on Appropriate erapeutic Responses to SexualOrientation, 2009).

In addition to the Sexual Identity erapy Frame-work, we have also been conducting research on sexualminorities in heterosexual marriages (Yarhouse, Paw-lowski & Tan, 2004; Yarhouse & Seymore, 2006; Yar-house, Gow & Davis, 2009), eorts to change sexualorientation through involvement in religious ministries(Jones & Yarhouse, 2007), and clarifying what makeschurch-based ministries exemplary in their ministry to

sexual minorities (Yarhouse & Carr, 2007). Some ofthe most current work is in collaboration with moremoderate voices within the GLB community to iden-tify areas of agreement in providing services within adiverse cultural context (e.g., Yarhouse & Beckstead,2007).

ere have been a number of projects, then, thatreect an attempt to contribute constructively to the

professional discussions centering on sexual identity.roughout these eorts to engage the material inGLB studies as a conservative Christian, there havebeen several challenges faced and lessons learned. Weturn now to these challenges, and I will discuss themin the form of certainties.4

Challenges Tat ake the Form o CertaintiesFirst Certainty: I know what you believe because I knowothers who claim to be Christians

is is a certainty that has come from colleagues

in GLB studies. Some I have interacted with have ei-ther met other conservative Christians or have in theirminds images of conservative Christians that make di-alogue especially dicult. (e reverse is also true: thatChristians often have in their minds what it means tobe gay and subsequently the associations they have alsomake dialogue dicult.) is often pressures Chris-tians to move away from their own convictions todemonstrate that they are dierent from others whotheir GLB colleagues have come across, but I see thisas a failure of nerve and intellectually dishonest if oneis actually hoping to be in any kind ofmeaninguldia-logue. After all, the very nature of diversity is to havedierences of convictions.5

What would be helpful to cultivate is what Rich-ard Mouw (1992) describes as convicted civility. isis the idea that Christian hold and express their con-victions, but do so in the spirit of respect and humil-ity. is does not resolve substantive dierences, butit does go a long way in facilitating reasoned analysis,identifying areas of common concern (e.g., safety, bul-lying, HIV/AIDS), and so on, and modeling for othershow to be in real and meaningful relationship with

those with whom we disagree.

Second Certainty: I know what you believe because Iknow your institutional aliation

is certainty is related to the rst, because whenyou conduct research out of the context of a privatereligious institution, many people make assumptionsabout what they think you believe. ey do this priorto reading your research, and this leads to avoidableconict if people on both sides would take time to en-gage the literature rst.

is certainty also comes from the Christian com-munity because conservative Christians often assume


9/80


that they know what someone working at a privateChristian institution believes by virtue of their insti-tutional aliation. is can come up, for example, inrequests to serve as expert witness on cases of same-sex parenting, adoption, and so on, when one side re-quests strong pronouncements that may or may not befound in the existing data. e assumption of institu-tional aliation can sometimes take the form, We all

know what the data says about ___ ; would you pleasestate that for the record. e diculty lies, however,in the complexity of the data and how it is interpreted.

Tird Certainty: I know who a person really is because Iknow that the person experiences same-sex attraction

e third certainty can come from both the GLBcommunity and from the conservative Christian com-munity. e form it takes in the GLB community isthe assumption that same-sex attraction necessarilysignals a gay identity. is assumption comes from col-

lapsing the three constructs of attraction, orientation,and identity and treating them as synonymous. isis perhaps why the very existence of those who are nolonger identifying as gay is subject to so much scrutinyand intolerance any same-sex attraction signals aninvariant orientation that is the dening and centralaspect of who someone is as a person. eyaregay.

I do not experience this certainty as much amongconservative Christians, although a variation on thisis that Christians often suggest easy answers to peoplefor whom this is their struggle. In some ways this is astruggle for a Christian just like any other struggle,but in many ways it is quite unique, and to suggestotherwise reects a deep misunderstanding and un-willingness to sit with another persons experience.

Fourth Certainty: I know you can be healed because withGod all things are possible.

is nal certainty comes from the Christiancommunity. Christians ought to arm Gods sover-eignty and omnipotence and Gods desire to bringabout healing for people who are suering. At the sametime, Christians would do well to be consistent in how

they talk about healing and apply these Scriptural ref-erences consistently to a range of real-life experiences.For example, Christians also arm that God can bringabout healing from cancer, diabetes, depression, andother enduring or chronic health concerns. But whendirect healing does not appear to occur, the Christiancommunity does what it can to be a supportive pres-ence in the life of the person they prayed for.

Some Christians seem to hold to a dierent stan-dard or expectation when it comes to same-sex attrac-tions. ey seem unwilling to come alongside a per-son who may have prayed for healing, but for whomhealing has been marginal at best. eir emphasis on

healing as a quick and decisive outcome can reect anunwillingness to arm realistic, biblical hope ground-ed in a vision for Gods purposes that may be beyondthese particular circumstances. is certainty carrieswith it assumption about a theodicy of sexual identityor how a person experiences pain and suering in thecontext of our shared fallenness and with respect tosexual identity questions and concerns.

We have been discussing several challenges thathave come up and take the form of certainties. esecertainties can come from the GLB community, theChristian community, or both. We now turn to a dis-cussion of what has been learned in having participat-ed in GLB studies.

Lessons Learned in GLB StudiesBe cautious about ringing endorsements

One of the things I tell my students is that if youare studying or making presentations on sexual iden-

tity issues for any amount of time and you receive toomany pats on the back, you are probably not accuratelyconveying what we know (and do not know) about thetopic. e research in this area is complicated, and itis a (tempting) mistake to preach to the choir aboutwhat we all agree on. is is a complex and growingarea of research, and those who oer strong proclama-tions are often the least informed or are only convey-ing a truncated view of the research.

Demonstrate convicted civilityAs I suggested above, the many professional

meetings over the years have given me opportunitiesto demonstrate convicted civility. Christians ought tohave convictions, but too often we lead with our con-victions, and we shout down others and become thecaricature that others have of conservative Christians.On the other extreme are those who lead with civil-ity so much so that it is dicult to know what theirconvictions are, unless we count as a conviction theact of civility itself. We need both today convictionsandcivility.

ake a broader view o the GLB communityAs I mentioned earlier, not everyone in the GLB

community is an activist, and there are a range of voic-es within the GLB community. ere may be valuein interacting and collaborating with moderate voices.In psychology, the best way I have seen to do this isaround the data. Research is the common languageof psychologists in our day, and it can be helpful touse this as a basis for dialogue. Remember that manypeople in mainstream GLB circles have had poor ornegative experiences with conservative Christians, andthey often themselves talk about us/them which is anatural outgrowth of identifying as a sexual minority


10/80


and nding a sense of safety within ones in group(for a discussion of how some within the GLB com-munity perceive conservative Christians, see Marin,2009). Christians often do the same thing. e lan-guage of culture wars6 has not helped. It has pittedChristians against members of the GLB communityand has sometimes kept both conservative Christiansand members of the mainstream GLB community

from thinking creatively about areas of mutual agree-ment and the potential for collaboration.

Recognize the people represented in the debateis was a lesson learned early on, but one that

is repeated time and time again at conferences, work-shops, churches, and on my research team. It is tempt-ing to keep a personal distance from any topic ofresearch. Some of that may be necessary to conduct re-search dispassionately, so as not to operate with largerthan normal blind spots and biases that are inherent to

any worldview assumptions. However, the work thatwe do aects the lives of real people who are strugglingto make sense of how to live faithfully before God asfollowers of Christ. It is important to keep in mind thevery people whose lives are touched by the debates anddiscussions that center on sexual identity.

Learn rom ellow believersroughout this entire time of conducting re-

search and providing clinical services, I have beendeeply moved by the challenges facing fellow believ-ers who are sorting out sexual identity conicts. eyare often doubly isolated. ey are isolated withinthe GLB community by virtue of the conservativeChristian convictions, and they are isolated within theChristian community by virtue of their same-sex at-tractions. e struggles most of us face today are re-ally not addressed by the local church. Pride, greed,envy, sloth these are not the focal point of manymessages today. When the local church focuses nar-rowly or exclusively on homosexuality, it erodes thecredibility of the church to speak to a range of issuesinside the church and outside the church. e people

I know who feel they contend with same-sex attrac-tions are acutely sensitive to what can become hypoc-risy from the local church on matters of sin. Althoughsome of these brothers and sisters who struggle withsexual identity and live faithfully before God do giveup on the church, many stay and will in time oer thechurch in the West a real vision for what it means tocount the cost of discipleship if we would be open towhat they have to say.

ConclusionIn this article I discussed some of my experiences

as an evangelical Christian in GLB studies. After a

discussion of various modes of relating religion andscience critical-evaluative, constructive, and dialogi-cal several examples of scholarship were shared asexamples of each mode of relating, followed by a dis-cussion of certainties, challenges, and lessons learned.Perhaps others will feel called to this area of researchand scholarship, or feel called to other work in areasthat are often not associated with evangelical Christi-

anity. Can a round peg t into a square hole? Not onlyis it possible, but sometimes it is useful, as with theoriginal meaning of the phrase. Perhaps there is somevalue in feeling out of place in reecting upon how itcan enhance various areas of scholarship. Maybe thereis something to be gained when we look at our subjectmatter from a Christian perspective and attempt tomake contributions that reect a Christian worldview.

Notes1e question has also been asked whether, math-

ematically, a square peg ts better into a round holeor a round peg into a square hole. As it turns out youcan calculate the ratio of the area of the square andof a circle and the area of a circle and area of a squareand convert that into a percentage: there is a better t(meaning less wasted space) when a round peg is ttedinto a square hole (using about 78.54% of the spacecompared to 63.66% of the space when a square pegis tted into a round hole). See http://www.nzmaths.co.nz/PS/L6/Measurement/ SquarePegs.aspx for a full-er explanation and computation).2By saying non-Christian psychologists, I do notmean to suggest that there are no Christians withinthe GLB community, but I have come across few self-identifying conservative or evangelical Christians inGLB studies in the major mental health organizations.3is section is adapted from Mark A. Yarhouse,Constructive relationships between religion and thescientic study of sexuality,Journal o Psychology andChristianity, 24 (1), 29-35.4e language of certainties is from Melissa ElliotGrith, Opening therapy to conversations with apersonal God in F. Walsh (Ed.), Spiritual resources in

amily therapy(pp. 209-222), New York: e GuilfordPress.5I am often struck by the attempts in our eld to havewhat are called dicult dialogues. What I nd is thatthese are almost always dialogues made dicult bythe subject matter (e.g., a discussion of clinical servicesfor sexual minorities) but not by the discussants (e.g.,having people who have dierent views talk abouttheir dierences as well as areas of common ground).6Ironically, at the time I original wrote these words, Ihad just completed a chapter I was asked to write for abook that reects these themes of battle and war. Itook issue with the way the discussion was framed, but


11/80


for my part wrote about how someone might feel em-battled in discussions centering on sexuality in mentalhealth organizations.

Mark A. Yarhouse is Professor of Psychology and theHughes Chair of Christian ought in Mental HealthPractice at Regent University, Virginia Beach, Vir-ginia, where he directs the Institute for the Study of

Sexual Identity. His research interests include appliedand clinical integration, ethics, and sexual identity is-sues. Email: [email protected].

ReerencesAPA Task Force on Appropriate erapeutic Respons-

es to Sexual Orientation. (2009). Report o theask Force on Appropriate Terapeutic Responses toSexual Orientation. Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Beckstead, A. L., & Israel, T. (2007). Armative

counseling and psychotherapy focused on issuesrelated to sexual orientation conicts. In K. J. Bi-eschke, R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBoard (Eds.), Hand-book o counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian,gay, bisexual, and transgender clients(2nd ed., pp.221-244). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Brooke, H. L. (2005). Gays, ex-gays, ex-ex-gays:Examining key religious, ethical, and diversityissues: A follow-up interview with Douglas Hal-deman, Ariel Shidlo, Warren rockmorton, andMark Yarhouse.Journal o Psychology and Christi-anity, 24 (4), 343-351.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation:A theoretical model.Journal o Homosexuality, 4,219-235.

Chapman, B. E., & Brannock, J. C. (1987). Proposedmodel of lesbian identity development: An em-pirical examination.Journal o Homosexuality, 14(3/4), 69-80.

Glassgold, J. M. (2008). Bridging the divide: Integrat-ing lesbian identity and orthodox Judaism. Wom-en and Terapy, 31, 59-73.

Haldeman, D. C. (2004). When sexual and religiousorientation collide: Considerations in workingwith conicted same-sex attracted male clients.Te Counseling Psychologist, 32, 691-715.

Jones, S. (1994). A constructive relationship for reli-gion with the science and profession of psychol-ogy: Perhaps the boldest model yet.American Psy-chologist, 49, 184-199.

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2000). Homosexual-ity: Te use o scientic research in the churchs moraldebate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2007). Ex-gays? Alongitudinal study o religiously-mediated change in

sexual orientation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-sity Press.

Marin, A. (2009). Love is an orientation: Elevating theconversation with the gay community. DownersGrove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

McCarn, S. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (1996). Revisioningsexual minority identity formation: A new modelof lesbian identity and its implications for coun-

seling and research. Te Counseling Psychologist,24 (3), 508-534.

Mouw, R. (1992). Uncommon decency: Christian civil-ity in an uncivil world. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press.

Plantinga, A. (1984). Advice to Christian philoso-phers. Faith and Philosophy: Journal o the Societyo Christian Philosophers, 1 (1), 1-15.

Reynolds, A., & Hanjorgiris, W. F. (2000). Comingout: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity develop-ment. In R. M. Perez, K. A. DeBord, & K. J. Bi-

eschke (Eds.) (2000). Handbook o counseling andpsychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients(pp. 35-56). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

rockmorton, W. & Yarhouse, M. A. (2006). Sexualidentity therapy: Practice guidelines for manag-ing sexual identity conicts. Unpublished paper.Retrieved August 21, 2008, from http://wthrock-morton.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ sex-ualidentitytherapyframeworknal.pdf.

Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: Amodel of gay identity acquisition. Psychiatry, 42(4), 362-373.

Willard, D. (1998). Te divine conspiracy: Rediscoveringour hidden lie in God. New York: Harpercollins.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2001). Sexual identity development:e inuence of valuative frameworks on identitysynthesis. Psychotherapy, 38 (3), 331-341.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2008). Narrative sexual identitytherapy. American Journal o Family Terapy, 39,196-210.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2005). Same-sex attraction, homo-sexual orientation, and gay identity: A three-tier

distinction for counseling and pastoral care. Jour-nal o Pastoral Care & Counseling, 59 (3), 201-212.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2005, August) (Chair). Te manymeanings o marriage: Gay and conservative reli-gious perspectives. Symposium conducted at theannual convention of the American Psychological

Association, August 18, 2005.Yarhouse, M. A. (Chair) (2004, July). Sexual identity

conusion during adolescence: Religious, diversity,and proessional issues. Symposium conducted atthe meeting of the American Psychological As-sociation, Honolulu, Hawaii.


12/80


Yarhouse, M. A. (Chair) (2000, August), Gays, Ex-Gays, Ex-Ex-Gays: Key Religious, Ethical, and Di-versity Issues. Symposium conducted at the meet-ing of the American Psychological Association,

Washington, DC.Yarhouse, M. A. & Beckstead, A. L. (co-chairs) (Au-

gust, 2007). Sexual identity therapy to address re-ligious conicts. Symposium conducted at the

American Psychological Associations AnnualConference, August 17, 2007.

Yarhouse, M. A., Brooke, H. L., Pisano, P., & Tan, E.S. N. (2005). Project inner compass: Young adultsexperiencing sexual identity confusion.Journal oPsychology and Christianity, 24, 352-360.

Yarhouse, M. A., Gow, C. H., & Davis, E. B. (2009).Intact marriages in which one partner experiencessame-sex attraction: A ve-year follow-up study.Te Family Journal, 17 (4), 1-6.

Yarhouse, M. A., Stratton, S. P., Dean, J. B., & Brooke,H. L. (2009). Listening to sexual minorities onChristian college campuses. Journal o Psychologyand Teology, 37 (2), 96-113.

Yarhouse, M. A., & Tan, E. (2004). Sexual identity syn-thesis: Attributions, meaning-making and the searchor congruence. Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica.

Yarhouse, M. A. & Tan, E. S. N., & Pawlowski, L. M.(2005). Sexual identity development and synthe-sis among LGB-identied and LGB dis-identiedpersons. Journal o Psychology and Teology, 33(1), 3-16.

Yarhouse, M. A., & Nowacki-Butzen, S. K. (2007).e many meanings of marriage: Divergent per-spectives seeking common ground. Te FamilyJournal, 15, 36-45.


13/80


Commentaries on Mark A. Yarhouses Round Peg,Square Hole: Being an Evangelical Christian in GLB

StudiesEach issue o Edication begins with a discussion article ollowed by open peer commentaries that examine the argu-ments o that paper. Te goal is to promote ediying dialogues on issues o interest to the Christian psychological commu-nity. Te commentaries below respond to Mark A. Yarhouses Round Peg, Square Hole: Being an Evangelical Christianin GLB Studies. Dr. Yarhouse reacts to these commentaries in the next article.

Dialogue on Christian Psychology: Commentaries

urning owards the Imago DeiAndrew ComiskeyDesert Stream Ministries

I beneted from this paper, as I have other works ofYarhouse. His perspective is objective, kind, and truth-ful.

As one who has faced same-sex attraction to vary-ing degrees all my adult life, and by Gods grace, standas a man established in his genuine orientation towardthe opposite-sex, I appreciate the modulation of hisvoice.

I have spent my adult life seeking to make the bodyof Christ a safe and dynamic place for those strugglingwith their sexuality. My approach is transformational,founded on the belief that Christian conversion itselfis a converting inuence upon ones identity, relation-ships, desireshis/her orientation in general.

What seems obvious to me is a conict to many.So the civil tone of Yarhouses voice, drawing uponMouws (1992) convicted civility, gave hope to me thatthe endless string of conicts I face can be worked outrespectfully.

And yet truthfully, I liked the way Yarhouse chal-lenged us to not move away from our own convictionsto demonstrate to the GLB community that we aredierent from tiresome fundamentalists. at is the

truth I hear most from progressive evangelicals dia-loging with the GLB community: Say nothing aboutwhat you actually believe for fear of being oensive.e mantra: Keep the dialogue going at all cost, evenif it costs you the truth. So no real engaging occurs.

Yarhouse gives a way forward.I liked his 3-tier approach to the topic of identity:

how to distinguish between attraction, orientation,and identity. Really helpful. at is a huge deal todayfor Christians trying to make sense of their attractionswhile genuinely wanting Jesus and a life founded onHim. at means that one can decide to dismantle asocial constructthe gay self--which in and of itself

reduces the strength of gay desires. At the same time,one can and must work out the reality of attraction.How liberating to distinguish one strand from thethree and work that out without the weight of socio-

political baggage.at is the kingdomdescribed by Dallas Willard(1998) as the domain of ones eective will. We cannotchoose our feelings, but we can our allegiance to Christand His say in our fundamental identity.

at is where I wonder if Yarhouse does not takereorientation far enough. He seems to want to blazea path between gay arming and reorientation ap-proaches, and I think I understand his reasoning. Somepeople struggle with same-sex attraction for years. Likemyself! (is stu runs deep and requires a lot of graceand a lot of community support.)

I asked myself: Is Yarhouses middle-way a kindof atonement on behalf of Christians who historicallyhave promised too much and delivered too little forthose with same-sex attraction (stoic evangelicals whodispense thin propositional answers, or wild Pentecos-tals who cast out homosexuality)? His way seems wiseon one hand, and yet shackled by the limits of a purelypsychological perspective.

At core I think the issue is more theological thanpsychological. A biblical anthropology does not give usthe freedom to dene ourselves as anything less than

bearers of Gods image, which at core involves the dual-ity of male and female. at meant for me that I hadto line up with Gods orientation for my humanity; inspite of same-sex attraction, I had to own the Kingdomreality that I was a gift to others, including women. Anessential part of my discipleship involved making peacewith men as brothers, and with women as others,those with whom I was called to work out my salvationin a mature, godly way.

I see this as both a positional reality: I am a part ofGods fallen heterosexual creation, whether I like it orfeel it, and a goal: as a member of that fallen creation, Ihave a long way to go, one unique to me with same-sex


14/80


attraction.But the goal is not unique: inspired heterosexual-

ity is the relational goal for all Christians, regardless ofones starting point, or marital status.

Here, in regards to those with same-sex attraction,I agree with Yarhouses caution toward triumphalism:yes fallen, yes slow, yes in desperate need of grace andones fellows to do it with any kind of integrity, but

absolutely Gods will according to His word.So I ask: In supporting those laying aside a gay

identity, what does Yarhouse urge we take up? Weneed clarity here. I contend that nothing less than thetruth of the imago deiwill do.

Andrew Comiskeyis founder and director of church-based ministries for those dealing with same-sex attrac-tion and other sexual issues. He is also author of bookson how the church can best respond to sexual prob-lems, especially homosexuality. ese include Pursuing

Sexual Wholeness, Strength in Weakness, Naked Surren-der, as well as the Living Waters discipleship course.His address is c/o Desert Stream Ministries, 706 MainSt. Grandview, MO, 64030; email address is [email protected].

ReerencesMouw, R. (1992). Uncommon decency: Christian civility

in an uncivil world. Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-sity Press.

Willard, D. (1998). Te divine conspiracy: Rediscoveringour hidden lie in God. New York: Harpercollins.

Building a Bridge across the DivideJeery S. EckertRichmont Graduate University

In the article Round Peg, Square Hole: Being an Evangeli-cal Christian in GLB Studies, Mark Yarhouse chronicleshis ideological journey through the complex world ofgay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) studies as an evangeli-cal Christian. Yarhouse approaches the topic with both

thoughtfulness and integrity, leaving the reader with aclear sense that he has wrestled with how to respond toboth the Christian and secular world of GLB studiesin a manner that attempts to understand both perspec-tives. e image of the round peg in a square hole wasutilized eectively to illustrate both the challenges andrewards of being a Christian engaging in the study ofsexual identity.

In light of these challenges, Yarhouse raises a num-ber of important points regarding the barriers that keepevangelical Christians from coming to an educated un-derstanding of sexual orientation. In this conversation,he looks at some of the stereotypes that GLB schol-

ars and the GLB community have towards evangelicalChristians and vice versa. Many of these stereotypeshave stied productive conversation between the twogroups. Yarhouse provides a sense of hope for changewith his story of a journey into conversation and col-laboration with GLB scholars.

In talking about being an evangelical engaged ina challenging dialogue, Yarhouse provides a thorough

denition of orientation, along with laying out dis-tinctions between attraction, orientation, and identity.ese distinctions would indicate that there is muchmore to coming to an understanding of GLB issuesthan simply measuring sexual attraction. It might havebeen benecial, as Yarhouse was dening these terms,that he provide a clearer denition of what attractionmeans, as it encompasses emotional, romantic, andsexual attractions. At the same time, he illustrates amultifaceted denition of sexual orientation, and ex-plains the diculty of coming to a clear understanding

of who people are as sexual beings.In addressing this complexity, he illustrates theway that many Christians have oversimplied an un-derstanding of orientation and identity. Many Chris-tians have been raised to believe that sexual orientationis a volitional choice and is isolated to the gender thateach person chooses to be with in a sexual relationship.

Yarhouse discusses the concept of eective will, whichis best dened as each persons volitional choice in agiven situation. He argues, e experience of same-sex attraction is not in a persons eective will, at leastnot in the same way as behavior and identity isWhat

they are choosing is whether or not to integrate theirexperiences of attractions into a gay identity. ischallenges the commonly held conservative notionthat those who experience same-sex attraction make achoice to be attracted to the same sex. It would seemthat this type of thinking is a part of what keeps con-versation from occurring between evangelicals and theGLB community.

As Yarhouse is discussing ongoing conversationwith the GLB community, he makes a statement thatsome might nd to be without clear basis. He states

that, Most people I have met who are sorting outsexual identity questions nd themselves attracted tothe same sex; they did not choose to experience same-sex attraction. While this statement is part of makingan argument for same sex attraction not being a vo-litional act, the qualier most might cause many totake issue, as it indicates that there are indeed thosewho choose to experience same-sex attraction. In someways, this causes his argument against volitional choicein attraction to lose some of its strength.

roughout the article, Yarhouse is making animplicit argument for the importance of evangelicalswho are committed to exploring GLB studies as a way


15/80


of building connections between the evangelical andGLB communities. While he provides a clear rationaleexplaining the need for conversation, he spends littletime examining the relational aspects that must build afoundation for this conversation. Much focus is spenton the theoretical underpinnings of an understandingof sexual identity, but little time is spent on the per-sonal aspects of facilitating these relationships between

two groups of people wherein there exists a great deal ofhistorical tension. It seems as if the bulk of the articlefocuses on denitional and pragmatic issues, while en-gaging with a topic that is very relational.

At the same time, Yarhouses ability to developconnections with GLB researchers as an evangelicalconservative seems unprecedented. In trying to con-verse with a community that has experienced a greatdeal of pain inicted by the ignorance of the conserva-tive Christian world, Yarhouse has utilized solid em-pirical research. He has also used a number of avenues

of ongoing study to begin to build bridges and pro-mote conversations that have previously not occurred.For example, Yarhouse has broken ground in ndingways to discuss with secular GLB researchers the ideathat there are clients who may, because of their personalvalues or religious worldviews, not want to embrace agay identity despite predominant same-sex attraction.Once again, it might have been appropriate to sharesome of these stories of relationship in illustrating theunique manner in which he has developed these con-nections over time.

A number of appropriate challenges for the evan-gelical community complete the article. e conceptof convicted civility as coined by Richard Mouw(1992), in his bookUncommon Decency, is a good chal-lenge for those trying to participate in discussions oforientation and identity. Too often, Christians ndthemselves in angry, volatile debate, which shuts downcommunication rather than encouraging ongoing dia-logue. To communicate with a combination of gentle-ness and humility broadens the discussion instead ofwidening the void that exists between evangelicals andthe GLB community. At the same time, it might have

been helpful for Yarhouse to highlight more of thepositive discussion and movement that is already oc-curring in the church in this dialogue. Some churcheshave developed ministries to address the needs of thosedealing with same sex attraction and are more opento considering the complexities of this discussion. Incomparison to the unspoken attitudes and overall at-mosphere in the church that many of us grew up withregarding the GLB community, the church has come along way not far enough, but a long way.

While Yarhouse has overcome innumerable bar-riers in the academic community around GLB issues,there is much work to do to promote the ongoing re-

lationship that will be necessary to bring this conversa-tion into the forefront of the evangelical church. De-spite the aforementioned movement that is occurring,there are still too many church settings with a love thesinner, hate the sin perspective that are only fulllingthe second half of this statement with a thinly veileddisdain for GLB individuals. With a history of anger,

judgment, and bitterness towards GLB individuals,

people in evangelical churches have often not exhib-ited love and kindness in keeping with the teachingsof Christ. Yarhouses work gives hope for the spreadof this conversation and the ensuing relationships, butmuch work must be done to take this collaboration andincrease in understanding from academia into the sanc-tuaries of the evangelical church.

Jeery S. Eckert is an assistant clinical professor atRichmont Graduate University. He is also a clinicalpsychologist and licensed clinical social worker at CBI

Counseling Center in Chattanooga, TN. His clinicalspecialty areas include work with sexual orientationand identity along with other areas of human sexuality.Please direct all questions and comments to [email protected].

ReerencesMouw, R. (1992). Uncommon decency: Christian civility

in an uncivil world. Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-sity Press.

Pegs, Holes, and rees: A Response to Being anEvangelical Christian in GLB StudiesPhil HenryPalm Beach Atlantic University

I suppose that this will tell you more than you wantto know about my thinking, but reading Round Peg,Square Hole: Being an Evangelical Christian in GLBStudiesmoved me rst to think about trees. Specically,to musings on how trees grow. To me, the evangelicalworld or church needs to be a living, growing organ-

ism. Jesus compared the kingdom of God to a grainof mustard seed that grows into a tree (Matthew 13,31-32). So, how does a tree grow?

Growth occurs when there is an interactive pro-cess with the environment that is benecial orboth. Te tree takes and gives to the environ-ment and both benet rom the interaction: Sci-ence and religion interact best when both benetrom the interaction.

Yarhouse, beginning his argument concern-ing Christian psychology, quotes Plantinga (1984):Christian [psychologists] serve the Christian commu-nity, with its own questions, concerns, etc. I agree


16/80


with this in part. But I would go further. e issues ofthe Christian community are not merely their own,but also the needs of the community at large. ese, Iwould argue, are in fact the needs of the Christian com-munity. is may seem circuitous, so let me state thismore simply. I do not think that the Christian com-munity can be separated from the needs of the com-munity and remain vital. Further, while we would like

to see ourselves in the evangelical community as beingdierent from the culture, I am afraid that this is justnot true. Every week, I hear from those struggling withunwanted same sex attraction and problems relating tohomosexuality, both within and outside of the church.Both see little hope of nding help within the churchcontext. is I believe is wrong. Possibly correct, butstill very wrong.

In developing the Handbook o Terapy or Un-wanted Same Sex Attraction (Hamilton & Henry,2009), the goal was to give hope to those who desired

change while interacting on a more clinically organiclevel with those who had serious questions about thepossibility for change in this area. For me, this is notcompletely an academic exercise. Perhaps the focus ofthis work is not issues, as Yarhouse seems to suggest,but people. Some of these people are within the churchand some are outside the church. eir commonalityis that they desire change. Here, I believe the Christianpsychologist should be the servant of those seeking tochange, and oer a way for this to happen.

Growth occurs or the tree when it interacts withthe environment, keeping its permeable and im-permeable nature intact: Tere is a place or thecritical-evaluative mode.

Yarhouse cites Jones (1994) analysis of the rela-tionship between religion and science: the critical-evaluative, constructive, and dialogical constructivemodes. ese can be used to understand this process.e critical-evaluative mode assumes the impermeablejudging stance. Yarhouse sees this in his early work(Jones & Yarhouse, 2000). I agree, but it seems thathe has moved beyond this stage, which is ne for hisstage of development in this area. I will get to that later.

While Yarhouse has moved on, I believe that this kindof critique continues to be necessary and holds a vitalfunction. ere are some who will not or cannot un-derstand the arguments inherent in a discussion.

At times, a long drawn out discussion, no matterthe level of esoteric signicance, is impractical at bestand possibly dangerous. e less informed parent whowarns often is better than the hesitant, lenient parentwho does not want to oend and so stands waiting togather all of the information and for just the right timeto intervene. When the person is about to step in frontof a car, having them consider if they would like tobe road-kill might not be the best discussion. Using

informative revealed wisdom to evaluate the currentfad or avor of the month of human theorizing andresearch is a vital part of a healthy functioning, grow-ing evangelical organism. ere is a role for the critical-evaluative mode with Christian psychology.

Growth occurs when something new is created inthe interaction: Asserting that change is possibleis a cornerstone.

Using Jones constructive model (Jones & Yar-house, 2000), Yarhouse asserts that the constructivemode occurs when religion oers science a new para-digm. is, I believe, is a valuable service that Chris-tian psychology can oer. Using the tree analogy, thisis observed when the roots or limbs of the religioustree push into the sky or soil creating new paradigmswhile interacting dynamically with the environment.

Yarhouses work with rockmorton (rockmorton& Yarhouse, 2002) and others (e.g., Yarhouse & Bur-kett , 2002; Yarhouse, Brooke, Pisano, & Tan, 2005;

Yarhouse & Tan, 2004; Yarhouse, Tan, & Pawlowski,2005) illustrates this point.A perfect example of this is the question, What

about those who experience same sex attraction, but do notlabel themselves as gay? What is important here is thecreation of a new paradigm from which to understandand be understood. In this case, biology, gender identi-ty, attractions, intentions, behaviors, and values frame-works all play a role in the labeling process. Attraction,then, may not signal identity (Yarhouse, 2005), andthis distinction is signicant in understanding how theself-identity develops. e ability to infuse the discus-sion with new paradigms is helpful in leading both thereligious and scientic community from stalemateddogmatism on both sides to helpful understanding.

But, beyond the ve models suggested for un-derstanding sexual identity development (Yarhouse,2001), there is the reality for me that people can anddo change. is may be a key dierence between us:the belief that one of the God-given abilities we hu-mans possess is the ability to change. Brain plasticitystudies increasingly point to change to shape what andhow humans think and choose their destiny. I guess

you could call this an existential, biologically based freewill. Rollo May (2007) and Victor Frankl (2006) alsotalked about this choosing. Much of the existentialistswritings was a response to the reductionistic determin-ism of the behavioral and psychoanalytic community.

I would go so far as to posit that if clients leavetherapy without this sense of choice and freedom rm-ly placed in their hands, then the therapy has been afailure, no matter what other good has taken place. Iknow of no instance where I, as a psychologist, thera-pist, or minister, would inform the client that she/hecannot change. Inform about the statistics in general,yes; but to personally discourage change, no. Here is


17/80


why. If you are familiar at all with motivational inter-viewing, you know that in order for change to have achance, it is helpful to identify the stages of motivationin the individual and address the applicable barriers.is is, of course, important in dealing with resistantpopulations, e.g., addicted populations. e stages ofchange (Miller & Rollnick, 2002) in motivational in-terviewing are as follows:

1. Pre-contemplation2. Contemplation3. Preparation4. Action5. Maintenance

When a client is in the pre-contemplation stage(someone who does not want to change or perhaps justhas not considered change), one of the barriers thatmust be overcome is the barrier of self-ecacy. Simplystated, the question is, Do I believe that I have thecapacity for change? Can I change if I try? is is a

real question for addicted clients and others who havefailed to change in the past (DiClemente, 2003).If the Christian psychologist/counselor presents

as neutral on this issue with the client struggling withsame sex attraction, he has essentially destroyed oneof the building blocks necessary for change and hasbecome an agent, not merely an observer. With somereservations, I agree with Nicolosis (2009) commenton this: a neutral stance on this issue at this point isnot appropriate because the client has already chosen tochange and may be in fact at the action step of changewhen they arrive in therapy.

Growth occurs when individual parts o the treedo their job. Some are barriers, some are connec-tors: Christian psychologists may difer as othersdo in the body o Christ, nding their place asthey are gited and led.

e third form of interaction between science andreligion is what Jones (1994) refers to as the dialoguemode. is is the stage at which I believe Yarhouse hasnow arrived.

What you have in the Round Peg, Square Holearticle, developmentally, is the story of Dr. Mark Yar-

houses journey from one constructive mode to an-other. is journey is based on his interaction withother psychologists and professionals, combined withhis wisdom and experience gained through study andmaturity and rounded out by a gift set that toleratesgrowth and ambiguity. In short, he has become a con-nector. e scriptures teach us that blessed are thepeacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.

Yarhouse is a wonderfully gifted individual who is, Ibelieve, doing what he was created to do.

Having said that, I think it would be wrong togeneralize Yarhouses experience beyond his life. To putit another way, the certainty of generalizability is low-

ered as you move away from the sampled population.While his concluding stance may be ne for profes-sional Christians in a university context, it may not begood for the average church youth leader, the evangeli-cal parent, or the Christian politician. e barriers onthe tree bark protect the tree from bacteria, fungus,disease, and insects. I, for one, am grateful for some ofthe narrow minded people who for generations have

not been willing to even discuss the rightness or wrong-ness of issues. Rather, simply believing the truth, theysought only to protect it and to spread it.

Growth occurs best under the right conditions,water, sun and soil are essential: rust, love andhonesty are essential ingredients.

e section entitled Challenges Tat ake the Formo Certaintiesseems like it could be called Counseling101 for Academicians. Often in therapy, the therapisthas to overcome an obstacle based on prejudice. eclient may feel, I do not like you because youre a man

or a woman or too young or too old. Or the coun-selor may say, I know this client because I know otherwomen or men like this or other people with this di-agnosis. Good therapists know that this is the stuof therapy. e certainties listed by Yarhouse are forthe most part prejudices which are just the preambleto the real discussion (Ivy, Ivy, & Zalaquett, 2009) orbarriers to overcome in really listening and connecting(MacCluskie, 2009).

First certainty: I know what you believe because Iknow others who claim to be Christians.

Second certainty: I know what you believe becauseI know your institutional aliation.

ird certainty: I know who a person really isbecause I know that the person experiences same sexattractions.

Fourth certainty: I know you can be healed be-cause with God all things are possible.

I alluded to motivational interviewing or motiva-tional enhancement therapy earlier. If you understandmotivational interviewing, you know that moving thediscussion along is dependent on you being presentand active at the point of motivation where the per-

son currently resides. Most of these arguments listed ascertainties are found in the pre-contemplation stage.(DiClemente, 2003). ey are barriers that have to bedealt with before real change can happen. And they arepreambles to real relationships and connection.

Trust is an essential part of this. Real life is muchmore complex than the models we can devise, and cer-tainties on both sides should be addressed with oneword -- honesty. Honesty brings individuality andconnection, it underscores our lack of understandingof what God is up to in the world, and it highlights thecommonality that we all share as humans.

Finally, I do believe, along with Yarhouse, that the


18/80


battle or war motif is perhaps not the best one. I thinkit is ne in some situations, but it is not the one for me.Oh, it is not that I do not like it; I do. I am at heart ascrappy kid from Philadelphia who loves to mix it up.e only problem here is that I hear God calling me tobe a lover, to care, to cry with, to reach out, to connect,to love. Same sex attraction is inexplicably tied withabuse, whether it be external abuse, overt abuse, inter-

nal abuse, or neglectful abuse. For those abused and forthose who love those who have suered so much, thewar/battle imagery is too close to home.

ose who study homosexuality, those who callthemselves gay, those who identify positively withsame sex attractions, or those who struggle with un-wanted same sex attraction are our friends, colleagues,students, children, and fellow travelers here on thisplanet at this time; and God has given us the chance toconnect with them, representing the way that He cares.

We must not lose or waste this chance.

Phil Henryis associate professor of psychology, teach-ing in the graduate counseling psychology program atPalm Beach Atlantic University. He is the author ofTeChristian Terapist Notebook: Homework, Handouts andActivities or Use in Christian Counseling, Te Tera-pists Notebook or Addicted Populations, and coeditor ofHandbook o Terapy or Unwanted Homosexual Attrac-tions. He can be contacted at Palm Beach Atlantic Uni-versity. His email address is [email protected].

ReerencesDiClemente, C. C. (2003).Addiction and change: How

addictions develop and addicted people recover. NewYork: Guilford Press.

Frankl, V. (2006). Mans search or meaning. Boston,MA: Beacon Press.

Hamilton, J., & Henry, P. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook otherapy or unwanted homosexual attractions. Long-wood, FL: Xulon Press.

Ivy, A., Ivy, M. & Zalaquett, C. (2009). Intentionalinterviewing and counseling: Facilitating clientdevelopment in a multicultural society. Belmont,

CA: Brooks Cole.Jones, S. (1994). A constructive relationship for reli-

gion with the science and profession of psychol-ogy: Perhaps the boldest model yet.American Psy-chologist, 49(3), 184-199.

Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2000). Homosexuality:Te use o scientic research in the churchs moral de-bate. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

MacCluskie, K. (2009).Acquiring counseling skills: In-tegrative theory, multiculturalism and sel-awareness.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

May, R. (2007). Love and will. New York: W. W. Nor-ton and Company, Inc.

Miller, W. R. & Rollnick, S. (2002).Motivational inter-viewing. New York: Guilford Press.

Nicolosi, J. J. (2009). Te meaning o same-sex attrac-tion. In J. Hamilton & P. Henry (Eds.), Handbooko therapy or unwanted homosexual attractions(pp.27-51). Longwood, FL: Xulon Press.

Plantinga, A. (1984). Advice to Christian philoso-phers. Faith and Philosophy:Journal o the Society

o Christian Philosophers, 1 (1), 1-15.rockmorton, W. & Yarhouse, M. A. (2006). Sexual

identity therapy: Practice guidelines for manag-ing sexual identity conicts. Unpublished paper.Retrieved August 21, 2008, from http://wthrock-morton.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/ sex-ualidentitytherapyframeworknal.pdf.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2001). Sexual identity development:e inuence of valuative frameworks on identitysynthesis. Psychotherapy, 38 (3), 331-341.

Yarhouse, M. A. (2005). Same-sex attraction, homo-

sexual orientation, and gay identity: A three-tierdistinction for counseling and pastoral care.Jour-nal o Pastoral Care & Counseling, 59(3), 201-212.

Yarhouse, M. A., Brooke, H. L., Pisano, P., & Tan, E.S. N. (2005). Project inner compass: Young adultsexperiencing sexual identity confusion. Journal oPsychology and Christianity, 24, 352-360.

Yarhouse, M. A., & Tan, E. (2004). Sexual identity syn-thesis: Attributions, meaning-making and the searchor congruence. Lanham, MD: University Press ofAmerica.

Yarhouse, M. A., Tan, E. S. N., & Pawlowski, L. M.(2005). Sexual identity development and synthe-sis among LGB-identied and LGB dis-identiedpersons.Journal o Psychology and Teology, 33 (1),3-16.

Sexual Diversity: A Challenge or CounselorsH. Newton MalonyGraduate School o Psychology, Fuller Teological Semi-nary

We in psychology owe a great deal of gratitude to ourChristian brother, Mark Yarhouse, for making homo-sexuality the prime focus of his professional life. Inresponse to this excellent summary of his research, Ihave several confessions to make:

I have slept better at night knowing Yarhousewas alive and active, but have been derelict inreading his studies since I retired.

During these 14 years of less active profes-sional life, I have not been entirely asleep,however Now and then, I taught a seminaron Clinical Issues in Sexual Diversity, andI edited two books in the eld (Pastoral Care


19/80


and Counseling in Sexual Diversityand Stayingthe Course: Support or the Churchs Position onHomosexuality, see Malony 2001 and 2003,respectively).

ese publications reveal the double-vocationI have led throughout my career clinicalpsychologist and ordained United Methodistminister. I have remained active in the life of

my church both at a pastoral and at a de-nominational level.

us, my comments on Yarhouses article will begrounded in these confessions. In regard to homosexu-ality, my prime foci have been on counselor function-ing and theological reection.

With these background issues understood, Iwould like to reect on Yarhouses statement on page 8:Although I continue to participate in these dialogues,I have also begun to shift into a constructivemode ofrelating Christianity and GLB studies. I appreciate

Yarhouses eorts to further clarify sexuality-in-generalbecause I am convinced that all sexuality (interest,orientation, expression) develops over time it is partof the socialization process. For a number of my re-tirement years, I have played chess with a 93-year-oldtranssexual person. She (he?) makes this distinction:Gender is between the legs, sex is between the ears. Ithink this statement is absolutely correct. Sexuality islearned. It is a mental process just as much as a physi-cal one. In one of my books I blandly called homo-sexuality a habit problem. But so is heterosexuality,bi-sexuality, etc., etc. e word problem is only ap-propriate when used within a cultural context.

Having made this comment about the construc-tion of our understanding of sexuality within a learningcontext, I should like to organize the rest of my com-ments under two headings: Mind the Gap and Mindthe Store. Both focus on the work of the counselorwho tries to help persons with sexual issues of whateverkind. I originally divined these categories from readingRandy Sorensons (2004) provocative book on the inte-gration of psychology and theology from a psychoana-lytic perspective entitled Minding spirituality. While

my comments could be said to be a reaction to Yar-houses specic line of research (like the preacher whotook a text and departed from it), they are meant tobe comments on his discussion of reparative or sex-ual identity therapy from a Christian point of view.

Mind the GapMind the Gap!Anyone who has been to London knowsthis is a constant message over the loudspeaker in thesubway. Mind the gap; dont forget the space betweenthe platform and the subway car lest you fall into it.Counselors should heed the warning, also. Mind thegap between Yarhouses research and the teachings of

the Bible.In a lecture-series at Fuller Seminary, where I

taught for many years, Al Dueck, a Mennonite socialpsychologist, who later became my colleague, referredto the question asked by the 2nd century theologianTertullian: What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?is is a classic Mind the Gap question. Athens rep-resents psychological research (modern science) and

Jerusalem represents faith in the resurrected Jesus (i.e.,Christianity). Tertullians answer would be NOTH-ING were he to advise todays counselors in the sameway he advised believers who faced Greek philosophyin his day. But Tertullians answer will not suce fortrained Christian counselors as they apply their knowl-edge of Yarhouses research to what happens in a sessionwhere there is nothing but space between you and an-other person (the situation noted by Erik Berne, thefounder of Transactional Analysis). Counselors shouldaspire to creatively justify their clinical behavior as rep-

resentative of the way they integrate faith and science atthe same time that they mind the gap between the two.My advice would be Mind the Gap. In other

words, never forget that science and religion; psycholo-gy and theology; the reports of Yarhouses research andChristian convictions are two dierent things. Bothare important; but both are qualitatively distinct.

e theologian Karl Barth made this distinctionwhen he compared phenomena and epiphenomena(essential reality and apparent reality). For Barth, thequestion would be Who are human beings? Barthcontended that humans are who God has declaredthem to be by his mighty act in the life, teachings,death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. is is theirabsolute, essential, basic reality. is is phenomena the really real. Social/Behavior science (i.e., psycho-logical research) is epiphenomena - apparent, culturallydetermined, changing truth).

Barths modern and Tertullians historical answersmay seem radical for those who would like to integratetheir psychology and their theology, but Christiancounselors should never forget that they are the con-temporary embodiment of this ancient, perennial issue

of faith and reason.An example or two may help. For over 20 years,

I undertook the psychological evaluation of ministerialcandidates for the United Methodist Church (UMC).roughout that period (and to the present time), thestated rules of the UMC are practicing homosexualswill not be ordained. Again and again, I would en-counter persons whose evaluation indicated they werehomosexuals. I would advise them of the rules of thechurch, but also indicated church committees, not I,would be making the nal decision to approve themor not. One such case comes to mind: a man was de-scribed in one of his recommendations as an outstand-


20/80


ing out-gay. I called attention to this statement in theinterview. His response amazed me. Yes, he said, Iam gay, but I am also a Christian and I will not vio-late the rule of the church if I am ordained. In otherwords, he committed himself to not practice homo-sexuality. I recommended him for ordination. To me,this illustrates an integration of my church faith andmy awareness of a social reality in which persons exer-

cise some control over the expression of their sexuality.In terms of social comment, my appreciation for

the lesbian Roman Catholic Eve Tushnet is anotherexample of the integration of faith and science thatacknowledges the gap between the two. She is func-tioning as practicing Catholic and celibate gay advo-cate who writes for church publications. Te New Yorkimes(June 5, 2010, p. A14) quotes her in a manner Ind quite appealing: I really think the most importantthing is: I really like being gay and I really like beingCatholic. If nobody ever calls me self-hating again, it

will be too soon. Nothing is quite as great as gettingup in the morning, listening to the Pet Shop Boys andgoing to church.

A third example can be seen in a recent debate Ihad with my wife over the vote to legalize same-gendermarriage in California. My reasoning was thus: ereis no question, but that the teaching of the scripturessolidly implies that homosexuality is the not the idealwill of God. At the same time, I think marriage func-tions to strengthen the integrity of society. I decided tovote in favor of same-gender marriage. My wifes rea-soning was the opposite. She felt the biblical teachingswere culturally determined, but that marriage betweenopposite genders was an historic tradition that shouldbe honored by society. She approved non-promiscuousrelationships and felt civil unions met the need of ho-mosexuals for intimacy. erefore she decided to voteagainst same-gender marriage.

ese examples illustrate that Minding the Gapusually ends in some form of compromise. We Chris-tian counselors label this integration. No doubt, thedecisions in these examples will be questioned by some,but they illustrate the muddy waters that counselors

and Christians get into when they attempt to con-sciously Mind the Gap in a creative manner. Mud-dling the gap should be avoided.

I turn now to the second option,Mind the Store.

Mind the StoreMind the Storemight be misconstrued as a variation ofMind the Gap. e Storein this case is that set of skillsand presumptions that counselors bring to their work.ese are like goods-on-the-shelves that store-keepersrely upon to meet the needs of their customers. Iwould suggest two components to be used in Mindingthe Store as counselors interact with homosexual per-

sons. e rst pertains to homosexual persons. esecond pertains to homosexuals God.

First,

Documents

Edification 4(2). 2010. A Christian in Gay, Lesbian, And Bisexual Studies