Homosexuality and Therapy

I have a set of beliefs about whether or not a homosexual lifestyle is sinful. Is it right for me to share that with my clients? Is it right for me to implicitly make them question the moral nature of their behavior, suggesting that it is inappropriate? Is it right for me to help them simply to behave however they want but free from guilt? I don't think any of these are correct. The following thoughts may not be helpful for those who do not think of homosexuality as sin, but for those who do, I hope it allows you to see how therapy can help a client without confronting them.

What is the role of a therapist? To alleviate mental illness. What is the role of a Christian therapist? To alleviate mental illness within the light of the presence of God. A therapist would simply want to help the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender client transition into their new lifestyle in a manner that decreases their mental illness. A Christian therapist differs in two main ways. The first is by allowing the moral language of the client to unfold. The client may have ambivalent feelings towards their own behavior and these should not be stripped of their moral content. The second is by creating a longing for God. Regardless of the faith of the client, simply helping the client accept that the world is unjust can lead to enhanced spirituality. By keeping the moral language of the client and by fostering a spiritual longing, the therapist is actually helping the client learn a way of critical thinking and relating that allows them to continue to pursue God while still alleviating their mental illness.

Why shouldn't therapists confront "sinful behavior"? To some degree, the therapist's viewpoints will certainly escape at some point. However, direct confrontation can actually harm the work of therapy and can cause the client to retreat. By fostering the moral language and desire for spirituality in the client, the therapist may actually allow the client to become a more faithful follower of God than by directly challenging them. The client has almost certainly already heard that homosexuality is a sin, the therapist who reminds them disempowers clients from making their own decisions.

Therapists must also remain humble. I've heard the arguments that suggest that homosexuality is not a sin, teleologically and Scripturally, and they have some weight to them. I should not be so prideful to claim the truth without question. Finally, love towards our clients should underlie everything we do. Within our cultural context, many people with alternative sexual orientations are not willing to accept that their behavior is sinful. By remembering that God's kindness, not his condemnation, leads to repentance, we can show grace to all people.

Moral Appeals

In my last post, the issue came up about where we can look to find our moral values. I am reminded that as a Christian I have inherited a moral tradition from a number of arenas: the church I grew up in, my family, the Bible, plus a number of others. Each of these, and the following, have a number of difficulties around them, as will become apparent below:

Should we base our morals on what promotes a functioning society? Something could be wrong depending on whether or not it allows society to function well. Works well in explaining why we shouldn't steal but not for issues like exploitation of the poor. This might be considered the utilitarian viewpoint. The problem is that this ignores the individual in favor of the group and ignores the possibility of God and an ultimate morality.

What about on personal experience? Many are influenced to believe homosexuality is immoral because they have known (personally or through the media) homosexuals who were promiscuous and perhaps a little bizarre. Then there are people who have known homosexuals who were nice people and they are more likely to believe that homosexuality is not immoral. If experience is our guide then we claim that our life determines what is universally right or wrong and that is narcissistic in its own right. However, given that we cannot escape it, it can be useful in shaping our beliefs if we put experience in its proper place.

Genetics? As I said in my last post, we can't argue morals based on our design. Just because we have some sort of biological inclination towards some behavior doesn't make it right.

General opinion? I think that's where most people appeal for their morals. Didn't racism become wrong for most of the US only when it became unpopular? The problem is that morality is therefore completely relative.

Divine revelation? Some have argued that the Holy Spirit has made it clear to them that homosexuality is not a sin and others are saying the converse. Well when you have opposite sides claiming the Holy Spirit is on their side, you begin to wonder if the Holy Spirit is even involved at all in their conclusions.

The Bible? Besides the fact that most people don't see it as a moral authority, there is also the problem that there are Christians who believe that the Bible does not say that homosexuality (in terms of two consenting adults) is wrong. While I think that the Bible is the best place to look for authority, since it is the Word of God, the interpretation of it goes through fallible human minds.

In the end, we find ourselves in the precarious position of having to argue for morality with the full knowledge that we don't have a firm grasp on what truth really is. Unlike the anonymous commenter on the last post, I believe we need to look at more than just what the Bible says. We need to look at how the church has traditionally interpreted the Bible, we need to look to reason, we need to our own experiences and then we can humbly realize that we do not know without doubt what is right and wrong.

While that is an uncomfortable position, we must realize that our highest calling is not to protect a moral system but is, in Jesus' own words, to "love one another." In this light we see that we ought to act based on our best judgments as to what the Bible says is truth but keep our interpretations humble. Loving others means doing what we think is best for them, and while we can sometimes argue that our moral tradition would be best for them, we need to love them as servants not as ones who are in a position to command them how to live.

Is Homosexuality Genetic? A Theological Response

I just read an article on MSN about Southern Baptist Seminary president, Rev. Albert Mohler, Jr., who wrote an article on how homosexuality is likely to have a genetic basis and then raises the question of whether or not it would be right, if it were possible, to treat the babies with hormones to change their sexual orientation back to heterosexual. A provocative thought, to say the least. He's managed to anger both conservative Christians, who think homosexuality is a choice, AND gay rights, by suggesting a "treatment." I didn't read what Mohler actually wrote but it seemed like he merely wanted to dialog about it. I would like to address why I think a genetic cause for homosexuality does not mean that homosexuality is moral.

Do I believe homosexuality has a genetic component? Yes. Current research strongly supports this position. (Actually, research supports the finding that homosexuality has a biological basis - more likely to be associated with hormones than genes... but that can get confusing to the average layperson) Does that make homosexual behavior moral? No.

If morality is simply dictated by our biological makeup, then we have surrendered any belief in personal agency. It is each person's responsibility to do the most with their life that they can. Alcoholism is perhaps the simplest example, if there is a gene for alcoholism does that make it okay to be an alcoholic? Of course not. If there was a gene for pedophilia, would we excuse it? Absolutely not.

Now I would hate to insult homosexuals by equating them with pedophiles so let me make it clear that that is not my goal. I simply want to illustrate that genes = moral is a fallacy. It is unfortunate that both gay rights advocates and conservative Christians have fallen for this simplistic thinking. So how do we judge if homosexuality is immoral or not? If we cannot appeal to the "natural order" (whatever that is) then to what or to whom do we appeal? I cannot answer that question [for those who do not follow Christ (added 3/16)], all I can do is show you that we cannot appeal to science. Science is not ultimate truth.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment...