Real Heroes

Posted on December 24, 2007

One of the most popular television series of the past two seasons is called “Heroes.” It concerns a group of people who discover they have unique powers, and who use them to do good and fight against various kinds of evil. Analogous to the adventures in many comic books, this series taps a yearning in the human heart to transcend our mundane life and become a courageous champion, distinguishing ourselves in skill and valor. Humans appreciate the virtuous beauty in a real hero.

This admiration of heroes, evident as early as Homer’s Odyssey, would seem to be part of the created nature of human beings. The Holy Spirit takes this admiration and transforms it, by bringing it into a higher, spiritual framework, leading to a different understanding of heroism. In the kingdom of God, everything is the same, and yet everything is different. For example, from God’s standpoint, our strengths may be our liabilities, because we trust in them, rather than God (1Co 1:26-31). Conversely, from a divine perspective, our weaknesses are seen as strengths (Mt 5:3; 2Co 11:30, 12:7-10). Consequently, in the kingdom of God, one finds heroes in what might seem to be unexpected places.

Same-sex attraction (SSA) is an incredible burden for those who struggle with it. Whatever the full explanation of why it develops, anyone who knows well someone who has struggled with SSA knows that it is a monumental challenge. Those who feel strong desires for sexual expression with the same sex, but who, for moral and spiritual reasons, know they should not fulfill those desires, face a tremendous trial and an unsual degree of suffering and sorrow, that the typical heterosexual often finds hard to understand. They did not ask for it; most of them did not seek it, at least not at first. But they discovered in early adolescence that something was wrong in them, and unless enculturated by a post/modern agenda, they felt a powerful internal conflict, that resulted in a deep sense of shame and, to the extent it was pursued, guilt. The pro-gay movement tries to nullify that shame and guilt and encourages people to “come out of the closet” and celebrate their orientation. But such efforts only succeed in repressing the sense of shame and self-alienation they were aware of consciously in adolescence. But it works.

In contrast, consider those Christians who struggle against such desires, because of the law of God written on their heart and the indwelling Spirit—those who resist their “unnatural” desires (Ro 1:26,27) by following their ethical and supernatural desires to live their lives according to God’s design. This requires an enormous resolve and over time produces the proven character of a deep faith and a patient humility. There is suffering, to be sure—anguish, frustration, and pain, especially at first—but through their submission to divine norms, they increasingly attain an ennobling sense of purpose, a higher calling to the beauty of a virtuous life, and a meaning that far exceeds the fulfillment of faulty biological desires.

In the past, most of these individuals felt (and were sometimes treated) like they didn’t belong in the Church, and they hid their struggles from other believers, fearing that they wouldn’t understand, and that they might be rejected as moral failures. However, the Church needs to recognize that these folks are actually contemporary heroes of the faith, valiant warriors who are fighting symbolically on the front lines of the war between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world, for they are courageously pursuing God’s calling in the face of real suffering, often feeling like they are standing alone, between two cultures that do not appreciate them and their internal conflict (gay and Christian). Rather than hiding these struggles, it is good for ex-gays to be open about them with others, and this in turn could help the Church grow in its own psychospiritual maturity. Because of the sharpness of their internal conflict, ex-gays well illustrate the spiritual battles of all Christians against the desires of the flesh (Gal 5:17-21). In this they could serve the rest of the Church as role models and help other Christians better come to terms with the fact that, though saved by Christ from the penalty of our sin, we are all still less-than-perfect sinners, who are being saved by Christ from sin’s power (1Co 1:18).

How amazing would it be if God turned the brazen openness of the gay movement into the humble openness of the ex-gay movement, as gays seeking healing are drawn into a Church that is more known for its love for gays and its humility, than for a condescending attitude towards those outside the Church, and then God used ex-gays to help the rest of his people become more honest and more discerning about their own internal moral and spiritual ambiguities and struggles. What kind of God would do that? A God who came to earth as a baby, and later hung out with sinners and denounced hypocrites, and called both kinds to be his apostles. Today, in the kingdom of God, ex-gay Christians are real heroes.

“For all his bluster, it’s the sad province of man that he cannot chose his trials. He can only choose how he will stand, when the call of destiny comes, hoping that he will have the courage to answer.” (From the conclusion of the 2nd episode, first season of Heroes)

Same-Sex Attraction and Normal

Posted on December 12, 2007

By Eric L. Johnson, director of the Society for Christian Psychology

Underlying our culture’s current debate about gay marriage is the deeper issue of how we as a pluralistic culture ought to define psychological well-being. Though homosexuality was considered psychopathological for centuries in the West, in 1980, as is well known, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a disorder in the 3rd edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and all major mental health associations have similarly concluded that homosexuality should be normalized. Many influences contributed to this change, but one of the most important is the normative power of expressive individualism, the belief in the inherent right of individuals to fulfill the desires they wish and become the persons they wish, so long as others are not harmed. Consequently, many contemporary intellectuals believe that societies should not forbid pleasure-seeking activities among mutually consenting adults. On the contrary, it seems to many to be mean-spirited and even cruel to stand in the way of those who wish to enjoy such activities. Let’s call this the post/modern position.

Such a position, it is commonly believed, has been bolstered by research that indicates same-sex attraction (SSA) may be based on genetic factors and other biological processes, and therefore many have concluded that sexual orientation differences are just like race and gender differences. If there are biological factors in homosexuality, it is believed, those with SSAs have no control over them, and therefore they ought not to be discouraged from acting upon them. This has seemed to be further confirmed by the widely recognized difficulty that persons with homosexual desires have with changing them. As a result, many have concluded that homosexuality must be regarded as permissible and considered a kind of normal.

The post/modern position makes a great deal of sense to its proponents, and leads them to oppose vigorously the historic position of Judeo-Christian theism that SSA is a disorder. Nonetheless, it has some serious inconsistencies. For one thing, many desires and actions that are universally recognized as disordered are also influenced by genetic factors and other biological processes, including alcoholism, obsessive-compulsive behavior, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, severe personality disorders, violent behavior, and pedophilia. Western societies understand that such psychological conditions, regardless of their biological influences, are deficiencies, so they encourage people who experience them to seek help and, in some cases, they even intervene by arrest and enforced treatment, e.g., when violence or pedophilia is practiced. Moreover, there are many psychological disorders that are also known to be highly resistant to treatment, for example personality disorders, schizophrenia, and pedophilia. Yet most psychiatrists in our culture would agree that these conditions constitute serious psychological deficiencies. So the possibility of genetic and other biological influences and resistance to treatment cannot be used as arguments for the normalcy or legitimacy of homosexuality.

But let’s consider pedophilia a bit more closely, which most Westerners continue to regard as morally reprehensible, because its expression requires the involvement of those who are incapable of mature consent to such behavior. However, its basis in physiological conditions is also being documented (see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071128092109.htm), which, if true, would also help to explain its notorious resistance to treatment. Nonetheless, our culture rightly judges pedophilia to be a psychological as well as a moral disorder. On what grounds? Because of the recognition that the expression of such desires is hurtful to the young, irrespective of whether there are biological conditions that contribute to pedophilia. So in this case at least, the mere presence of possible biological factors and resistance to treatment are not considered adequate reasons to conclude that pedophilic desires are therefore legitimate and normal. This is good. But it seems inconsistent for some in our culture to celebrate homosexuality, yet treat those with pedophilia as moral lepers, when the biological predicament of both may be very similar.

But there remains a greater inconsistency in the contemporary position that SSA is normal. Most of its proponents hold to an evolutionary account of human origins. Yet if any model would lead to the conclusion that SSA is disordered and deficient, one would think that evolutionary theory would. Evolutionary criteria for normalcy and disorder would seem to be based on that which promotes reproductive success and the proliferation of one’s genes. Consequently, from an evolutionary standpoint, at the very least, heterosexuality would seem to be the normative ideal and homosexuality would seem to be problematic, to say the least. This would seem to be a fairly serious, largely unacknowledged incoherence at the base of the post/modern attempt to normalize and sanction SSA, due to the conflicting values of expressive individualism and evolutionary theory. Here the Judeo-Christian tradition and evolutionary theory would seem to concur.

How could the proponents of the post/modern position become more consistent? By simply acknowledging that SSA is a disorder. The norms of expressive individualism would prevent viewing SSA as a moral disorder, so its proponents would still continue to support people with SSA expressing their sexuality as they wish. But this at least would be more consistent with their evolutionary assumptions.
However, because of the Bible’s teaching and natural law, Christians believe that homosexuality is also a moral problem, in spite of any biological influences, and are free to do so, because they reject the assumption that morality and the biological are mutually exclusive, for that assumption has no logical basis. All disorders, including moral, are in part biological. We are, after all, embodied; everything has a biological side to it, and a Christian holism is easily able to accommodate such complexity.

At the same time, we Christians have our own contradictions. We often convey a “holier-than-thou” attitude towards others, even though we believe that we are all sinners, and we have so far done an abysmal job of explaining how Christian love of the stranger, the disenfranchised, and the moral leper is compatible with affirming the Bible’s teachings on immorality. Our contradictions are due to many factors, but perhaps the most perverse is the unconscious appeal of focusing on the sins of others, rather than our own. A second, less condemning factor is simply the cognitive complexity of holding high moral standards like those in the Bible while simultaneously loving people who live immorally (the position of God). The first contradiction—due to self-deception and pride—may very well be more reprehensible in the eyes of God than homosexuality is (consider how strongly Jesus reproached the Pharisees!), and it too requires repentance and forgiveness in the cross of Jesus Christ. The second contradiction—due to the limited capacities of our reason—is more simply resolved by trust in the harmonious heart of our loving and holy Creator and Redeemer God.

Yet if any model of humanity would lead to a compassionate stance towards those with same-sex attraction, as well as pedophilia, one would think Christianity would. It teaches that none of us is normal—none of us are the way we are supposed to be. We are all disordered and deficient, for we are all moral lepers. Yet the Bible makes clear that God is especially concerned for the rejected, broken, and sinful (Mt 5:3; Mk 2:15-17; 1Co 1:26-28); the Son of God was himself crucified and forsaken for our abnormality of sin (Is 53). And He came to heal us of our diseases and wants us to work through our difficulties by means of the soul-healing intervention of his life, death, and resurrection (though a growing appropriation of this healing usually takes time). Gay people deserve our respect and love, even if we Christians must interpret SSA as a moral and a biological problem. Let us as a Christian psychological community repent of our sins and believe in this God and his gospel of holiness and love, as we work with those seeking to overcome their psychopathology, whatever it is, in the name of Christ.

The Temptation of Same-Sex Attraction

Posted on December 3, 2007

[Editor's note: This is the first post for December 2007 by our very own Dr. Eric Johnson, director of the Society for Christian Psychology. He plans a series on homosexuality this month with posts made each Monday.]

What is temptation? Anything that offers to humans an opportunity to sin. Consequently, it is an important psychological category within a Christian framework. To use behavioral terminology, it is a kind of stimulus. But we need better theoretical resources than behaviorism offers, because temptation is more than a generic stimulus, since it comes morally contextualized, loaded with potential negative ethical and spiritual significance. Perhaps we could define temptation as an evil ethicospiritual stimulus that provides an opportunity for sin.

Temptation is an important concept in Scripture and the Christian tradition (see Owen, 1965). In the Bible, from the divine side, temptation has the connotation of “testing,” for God allows it in order to strengthen the faith and virtue of believers. On the other hand, from the side of Satan, it has more the idea of “seducing” humans to sin (Lewis, 1995). Temptation can lead to sin when the tempted person succumbs to it and commits a deed contrary to God’s norms. The Bible opens with the story of the first temptation, by which Adam and Even disobeyed God’s sole prohibition, and became sinners. This narrative indicates that humans were placed by God in an environment where they would be exposed to temptation. Now, after the Fall, humans exist in a permanent state of temptation. In profound contrast to the rest of humanity, Jesus Christ successfully resisted the temptations, he faced when he lived on earth, being “perfected” by them. (Heb 5:8,9), and now he is able to aid believers in their temptations (Heb 4:15,16).

For soul-care purposes, one of most important things for us to remember is that it is not sinful to be tempted. It opens the opportunity to sin but is not itself sin. This follows necessarily from the life of Christ who was “tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). This point is especially important for people to keep in mind when they are struggling with temptation.

Most often we think of temptation as external and coming from outside of us, whether through Satan or the “world”: someone cuts us off in traffic, we get criticized by our spouse, or we see a hotel advertisement for an erotic movie. But all believers also face another class of temptations: internal temptations, due to our flesh (Gal 5:17-21) or indwelling sin (Ro 7:14-24). Perhaps one of the greatest kinds of suffering imaginable is to be faced with an ongoing, indwelling temptation for years. This is the situation that many of our brothers and sisters face who struggle with same-sex attraction.
Except for those who reject and distort its meaning, the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality as sin is clear (Ro 1:26,27; 1Co 6:9; 1Ti 1:10; see Gagnon, 2001). However, the Bible does not directly address the issue of how to understand same-sex attraction. When a person experiences sexual attraction to persons of the same sex, something disordered has occurred in the region of the brain known as the hypothalamus, where sexual arousal is initiated. Sexual arousal is a physiological state; it cannot be created out of nothing—no one experiences sexual attraction to trees. Consequently, it makes good Christian sense to regard the condition of same-sex attraction as a biologically-based state of temptation that is related to our fallen condition.

What are the benefits of this recognition? First, it is important for those with same-sex attraction to know that simply experiencing it is not itself a sin. It becomes an immoral deed only when one succumbs to it in imaginative action or actual behavior. Rather, same-sex attraction may be better understood as simply evidence of one’s falleness and indwelling sin–indicative of our common human condition and warranting earnest prayer and fresh cleansing–and therefore analogous to any internal temptation. But so long as one doesn’t act on those temptations, one is not committing sin. Second, those without such temptations ought to be extremely sympathetic to the plight of those who struggle with them. What an enormous challenge to have to face such temptation over a prolonged period of time!

The recently published research by Jones & Yarhouse (2007) should come then as encouragement for such believers, for it documents that over time Christians have experienced an undermining of the power of such temptation. They followed 98 persons involved in an ex-gay Christian ministry for as long as three years and found that over a third experienced a “dramatic change in lessening their homosexual orientation” (p. 325), while less than a third experienced no improvement, with the rest somewhere in-between. As the authors point out, such results would be considered positive in research on psychotherapy outcomes, but it is important to note that this research was not done on those involved in psychotherapy, but were simply in an ex-gay ministry. This study is momentous and ought to provide real encouragement for those experiencing same-sex attraction, but it also points to the slow and uneven nature of change with this condition, and therefore the long-term struggle faced by many of those afflicted with this tragic temptation. May God grant them increasing grace in their pursuit of His holiness and wholeness.

References

Gagnon, R.A.J. (2001). The Bible and homosexual practice: Texts and hermeneutics.
Nashville: Abingdon.

Jones, S.L., & Yarhouse, M.A. (2007). Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously
mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Lewis, P.H. (1995). Temptation. In D.J. Atkinson, D.F. Fields, A. Holmes, & O.
O’Donovan (Eds), New dictionary of Christian ethics and pastoral theology (pp.
837-8). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Owen, J. (1965). Of temptation. In W.H. Goold (Ed.), The works of John Owen (Vol. 6,
pp. 88-151). Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust.

Designed by Business Broker