End of the Year Reflections, and Here Comes the Attack on Hyper-Grace

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown looks back at 2013 and takes your calls and reflections on the year as well, also talking about the wave of attacks already coming against his new Hyper-Grace book, especially by those who haven’t even read it yet. This is the ultimate battle for the true grace of God.  Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.

 

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: When we look at the news of the world in 2013 we hear all the bad things that happened; how about looking back to all the wonderful things God has done?

 

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Never underestimate what God could do through a yielded life!  Never underestimate the role that you could play as a history maker by simply walking in obedience to the Lord, day by day.

 

SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!  

We were sent advanced copies of Dr. Brown’s new book, Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message, and this is your last chance to get these first edition, numbered, and signed copies that will only be available through AskDrBrown Ministries. Order yours today for $30, postage paid. (The book is 304 pages long and will be officially released January 7th.) US ONLY

Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!

Other Resources:

Hyper-Grace

God’s True Grace : Line of Fire

Grace, Sin, and the Believer

48 Comments
  1. I look forward to today’s show.

    I certainly don’t understand what Dr. Brown means by “Hyper-Grace.”

    I, personally, come from more of a Hypo-Grace church upbringing.

    I’m pretty sure no one accused we fundamentalists of being too gracious and forgiving!

  2. Here is my “top ten news story of the year” nomination.

    This story should have been ground shaking for conservative Christians, yet it was widely ignored in my Evangelical circles.

    ———————————-

    John Paulk Formally Renounces, Apologizes for Harmful ‘Ex-Gay’ Movement

    John Paulk, one of the most recognized former leaders from the now-crumbling “ex-gay” movement, renounced his past and formally apologized for the harm he and the movement have caused in a public statement Wednesday.

    “For the better part of ten years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what’s known as the ‘ex-gay movement,'” said Paulk, “where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination. At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not.”

    Last week, Paulk renounced his ex-gay past in an interview with a gay newspaper in Oregon, but today’s statement marks Paulk’s formal, public apology for his ardent involvement in the movement that claims “reparative therapy” can “cure” people of homosexual attraction.

    “Today, I do not consider myself ‘ex-gay,'” said Paulk. “And I no longer support or promote the movement. Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people.”

  3. Greg,

    It is sad that he has walked away from Messiah back into the wide road toward destruction.

    2 Peter 2
    19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
    20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
    21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
    22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.

  4. Bo,

    From the quotes I read, Paulk hasn’t rejected the Lord. He has just repented of the hurt he’s caused in the name of the Lord.

    The reason this should have been a bigger story, in Evangelical circles, is because it marks the beginning of the end for “reparative therapy”.

    All the money. All the hoopla. All the ranting. All the lectures. All the arguments. All the testimonies. All the moral finger wagging.

    Now, a top leader who led the charge tells us that “reparative therapy” is an epic fail. It doesn’t work and it can be very damaging.

    (exactly as many experts cautioned years ago)

    And, one more ugly stain on the church that history will hold against us for a long long time.

  5. I just heard on the news about the Boy Scouts now allow gay members.

    I was hoping they would hold the line.

    This is one I won’t easily forget, and it happened in ’13.

    I was a boy scout for a while, a very long time ago. I don’t remember much, but I still remember the words “brave, clean, and reverent.”

    Does that mean anything anymore? I think that was the last 3 words of some kind of oath or something.

  6. Greg,

    Wow. It’s really sad to read your post, which exposes a massive ignorance of the Lord’s compassion on homosexual men and women and the tireless service of those who help many of them deal with unwanted same-sex attractions.

    Ex-gays are the most rejected of the rejected (although wonderfully accepted by the Lord), and you heap scorn on their rejection. Truly a shame to read.

    If you genuinely care and are not just here to espouse anti-Jesus, anti-ex-gay rhetoric, then start here: http://restoredhopenetwork.org/.

  7. Hey Dr B,

    In case you missed my post in an earlier thread, I want to thank you for a great year of programming. There is less good radio over here, ESP Xian radio.

    My hubby and I are enriched by your informative and challenging content. Loved your guest hosts, too!

    Keep fighting the good fight, Brother Brown!

  8. Greg Re your first post-

    Start reading M.Brown books! What is our excuse not to read his books? I mean, he is writting books faster than we can read them! I am still in Queer thing happened to America- Waiting to get to Hyper Grace… Not to mention Authentic fire, Oh and wait there is another book coming.

    Greg, Did you ever get your free copy of the book I donated just for you a couple of months ago?

    Do not post on the subject until you give it a fair hearing reading the book given to you to read. It is not fair to you to have you not contemplate the best arguements in print.
    Find out why the media has black listed Brown.
    Start reading now, Then post.

  9. I suppose a man might try to quit smoking by going to classes, try nicotine patches, filters that gradually cut down on the amount of smoke that can be inhaled, or try some electronic timer that would increase time between cigarettes, and then say, “Well the urge to smoke didn’t go away, so I decided to go back to smoking. I mean it began to seem like a burden, (Rom 6:6, Gal 2:20, I Cor 15:21) and the going seemed to be uphill. I began to tire a bit, and the discomfort was still there, and when I looked up, it was still uphill….so I decided to…go back to smoking.”

    I wonder if they had cigarettes in Egypt. (Heb 11:25)

    But homosexuality isn’t exactly like cigarettes is it?

    But then there likely weren’t any cigarettes in Egypt either.

    He that practices sin becomes a servant of it doesn’t he? (John 8:34, Rom 6:16) And if a servant never leaves the house, I wonder if he would become a son.

    And in the end, is it better to say, “Well I believe I did the right thing. I took the easier way…and now…whatever the reward….heaven knows I’ve earned whatever I get…”?

    Or what if just before a man dies, he opens his Bible one last time… and he knows he resisted temptations all those many years even up until now, and the time comes to open the Bible one last time, and it opens to Heb 11:25… That might not be so bad.

    I mean….Moses didn’t even make it to the promised land did he? …But I trust he made it to heaven.

  10. Thank you Bo for your posts and your link ( http://josephnicolosi.com/my-old-friend-john-paulk ) and what Nicolosi reveals.

    “…John advises against Reparative Therapy, but he himself has never been in Reparative or any other professional psychotherapy. Rather, his sexual-identity change evolved as a result of his Christian conversion”. The same is true for former Exodus leader, Alan Chambers.

    Several things need to be said about what “failures” mean in ex-gay change methods.

    1.Many of the “ex-gay” self-help groups have been run by well-meaning people who have no idea what they are doing. They have no professional training and no concept of what to do or what to expect when individuals go through their program. They claim to be able to cure homosexuality, even though no professional therapist would ever make such a claim. When people go through such a program and are not completely cured, and become completely heterosexual, they suffer despair and consider themselves failures.

    We can see an analogy in our Christian lives. Although many people change dramatically after conversion and during their Christian walk, we all still struggle with sinful desires throughout our lives; we are never “cured” from sin. The same is true for “ex-gays,” both psychologically and spiritually.

    2. All legitimate psychotherapists know a rule of thumb called the “one-third rule”. On average, in any form of therapy, for any problem, about one-third of the people who enter the program will not finish it and will “fail”. Another third will finish the program but will not be helped by it, for a variety of reasons. But one-third will be helped: some will show dramatic change, while others will show more modest change. This very same phenomenon has been consistently manifested in “ex-gay therapy”: Many fail, some are helped significantly, others miraculously! Obviously, most people who enter some form of psychotherapy will be “failures”. If we were to outlaw therapies which have more failures than successes, we would have to outlaw ALL psychotherapy.

    3. No legitimate therapist will claim to “cure” anyone completely of anything. The idea of a psycho-therapeutic “cure” is a myth which exists in the minds of the uninformed public.

    I once sat in a room with a PhD professional psychotherapist who made exactly these points to his audience. When someone asked him how he would “cure” a certain problem, he immediately responded that he could not produce cures. Rather, he helped people develop strategies to cope with, and reduce, unwanted feelings, anxieties, or behaviors. This also happens in professional “ex-gay therapy”.

    4. Dishonest opponents of “ex-gay therapy” play on the ignorance of the public as to the above facts. These opponents claim that unless everyone is completely and permanently cured, they, and this form of therapy is false and needs to be outlawed. Even some Christians are deceived by these false charges.

    Even though professional organizations claim there is no scientific evidence that ex-gay therapy works, they fail to tell the public that individuals in many ex-gay studies show dramatic changes, but some deficiency in the studies causes them to be labeled “not science”.

    There are other issues about how these organizations have been co-opted and strong-armed by their gay members to become agents of gay propaganda.

  11. Ruth,

    2 Peter is basically the expanded version of Jude. Most of the same topics. I is eye opening to read them together.

    Shalom

  12. Jon,

    I did read “A Queer Thing”. I didn’t just read it, I studied it.

    No disrespect to Dr. Brown but his book is a mess. It makes me very disinclined to read another one.

    I didn’t feel like endlessly arguing gay issues here, especially when the show’s topic was on something else, so I posted a review on-line.

    http://www.dinkypage.com/qthta

    (You’ll have to ignore the gay ads! Google puts those there, not me. I assume Google uses key words to place those ads.)

  13. Ok Greg, Glad you studied the book and you have your opinion. I do not understand your opinion or how in the study of the issue can continue to hold onto such classic secular views. I guess that is between you and God.

  14. Re Greg’s book review copied and pasted here.

    “This book is sorely lacking anything original.”

    If this was a pro today view, I would agree with this- However, The book did take a clear eyed biblical view. If the bible is “sorely lacking anything original” Then judge me so! I will take God’s view- and forget what the critics may say. Take on today’s view and you will be the fool.

  15. One last thing Greg, This is where I challenge you.
    Your said this is a 686 diatribe against Gays in this book??? NO- YOU COULD NOT HAVE READ THE BOOK IF THAT IS YOUR REVIEW- It most certainly was not a diatribe against anyone. What is the definition on Diatribe? = A bitter, abusive denunciation

    The book was not a bitter, abusive denunciation against anyone!!! You did not read it! Shame on you for your clearly abusive bitter review.

  16. Sheridan,

    I appreciate your thoughtful and fact-based response. That is sorely lacking in chat rooms like this.

    As a lay person in this debate, I don’t pretend to be an expert on why people are gay.

    But I do know that the APA, using peer reviewed studies and best-practice principles, reject “reparative therapy.”

    Reparative therapy is flawed at it’s core, not just because of some bad practice as you assert.

    Dr. Brown offhandedly dismisses the APA and the mainstream of science as “pro-gay” but that is a cheap shot.

    As a lay person, the best I can do is carefully consider my sources of information.

    Do I get my information about sexual orientation from James Dobson and my pastor? Or do I go to the experts in the field.

    I chose the experts in the field.

  17. jon,

    I read every page, studied the foot notes and took the time to read some of his key resources.

    I stand by what I say — his book is a diatribe.

    The book is mostly a dumping-ground of story after story about how terrible and debased the gays are.

    That’s a diatribe.

    And, frankly, was a huge waste of time for me.

    It’s also a waste of time for you to accuse me of not reading the book when I did.

    If you have a a logical or factual point you’d like to debate — I’m open to it.

    I might surprise you! I’ll guess there are some points we could agree on if we stick to facts and logic. (and, the bible if you want.)

  18. What I meant by “lacking anything original” is that Dr. Brown’s book is totally derivative.

    Worse, it’s derivative mostly from secondary sources. And often from very poor sources.

    And, ultimately it’s an exercise in bias-confirmation.

    I would LOVE some original thinking about this issue from my fellow Evangelicals… especially the conservative ones.

  19. Greg,

    What do you consider original thinking from conservatives? Are you wanting better arguments from the conservative position or really for them to take steps toward your progressive, liberal, unbiblical view of homosexuality?

    What original thinking do you offer us from your liberal view? You have not budged and inch or given any new arguments in favor of homosexuality. All of your arguments are no more than diatribe and regurgitation of liberal ideology.

    Your ideology is bias-confirmation just as much as the conservatives is. You are biased against what the scripture says and other facts about homosexuality. Conservatives are biased for what scripture says and other facts about homosexuality.

    You are concerned about the feelings of homosexuals more than their eternal fate. Conservatives are concerned more for their eternal fate and breakdown of morality than their feelings.

  20. Greg,

    I’m really glad you took time to read the book and amazed — truly amazed — you could post these comments here. Even your passing remarks about the APA indicate that you hardly READ what I wrote — as any unbiased reader recognizes the extreme biases of their almost all gay committee — but again, thanks for reading, and I hold nothing against you for despising the years that I agonized over these issues and prayed over them and studied them and for confusing my careful documenting of sources with lack of originality. In truth, though, your comments tell me far more about you and your views than about the book itself, so in that respect, they are most helpful (and grieving). I wish you God’s grace and truth.

  21. Dr. Brown,

    >> I hold nothing against you for despising the years that I agonized over these issues and prayed over them and studied them and for confusing my careful documenting of sources with lack of originality.

    I have also agonized and prayed and studied over this issue.

    And I came to a different conclusion than you. A conclusion, I believe, rightly considers the science and better applies the bible.

    … there is no need to jump to “despise” language.

    And I wish people would stop accusing me of not reading the book. I read every page. I studied he book!

    I gave special attention to your APA chapter and that’s an area where I went back and read original sources about the issue.

    You are correct that there was a political push to change the APA classification of homosexuality. (who disputes this?)

    But, you neglect to mention that the political push was needed because the APA leadership was ignoring the fact that their established position was based on flawed studies and precious few at that.

    (Sources, like the Kinsey Report and Freud which I have heard many Evangelicals criticize.)

    Your book would have been much better if you had considered the body of science established since thing indicating that the APA made the right decision and then given a science-based response to it.

    Instead of saying “The APA is full of gays. Don’t believe them”

  22. Greg,

    OK, I should have said:

    You have not budged and inch since you started posting here. You have budged a mile from the truth though.

  23. I would like to see Greg post exact statements from Dr. Brown’s book which he is in disagreement with and explain why, and also see Dr. Brown’s remarks, and then see who it is that has left the cross behind them.

  24. Greg,

    Are you saying that the “Kinsey Report and Freud” are good sources or that is wrong for conservatives to say that that is what APA is using to make its case?

  25. By the way, your sourcing was an exercise in frustration.

    You would often makes a outrageous claim or significant point-of-fact and then just paste a URL for it.

    And, when I could follow your citation, I’d often get to some equally agenda-driven site like Breitbart rather than a primary, source.

    And, very often, the Breitbart-style source would lead to a dead end.

  26. Ray,

    I took notes on every chapter and could re-post them here but, honestly, that’s not the kind of bickering I want to get into.

    I will make a point of fact about the science of homossexuality and people here will ask me questions like “what about the cross?”

    If you have a fact or logical point — make it and I’ll respond.

  27. Bo,

    What I learned was that the original APA stance on homosexuality was based on even-then disputed sources like Freud and Kinsey.

    There was no credible science showing that, all things being equal, homosexuals have more dysfunctional lives than heteros.

    Forty years ago, the APA leadership was ignoring this fact, so the pro-gay wing (and pro science!) put political pressure on the ABA leadership to respect the science and change the designation.

  28. If anyone cares to debate my core opinion on this subject, I’ll summarize it here:

    Homosexual orientation is not a moral choice. It is, most likely, a complex combination of nature and nurture.

    Paul did not — could not — know this. Back then, everybody was forced into heterosexual relationships and their main homosexual expression was through things like pederastic affairs and temple prostitution.

    Paul was certainly not condemning a committed, monogamous gay marriage because that simply did not exist in first century Hebrew culture.

    He (and GOD!) was condemning pederasty and temple prostitution, something condemnable by today’s standards.

    To apply Paul’s condemnation of pederasty and temple prostitution to today’s monogamous, committed gay couples is a misapplication of the bible.

    THAT is my position. And, like Dr. Brown, I came to it after much agonizing, prayer and study.

  29. I need to go.

    By the way… I encourage everybody to re-read Dr. Brown’s post.

    Notice how quickly he turns my honest disagreement into questioning my faith and good conscience.

    This mirrors much of his book.

    Rather than fact-based, logical debate he quickly launches into diatribe.

    I stand by my review.

    http://www.dinkypage.com/QTHTA

  30. Greg,

    The Septuagint uses the Greek words for male and bed in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to describe literally a male-bedder/homosexual intercourse. Paul combines the two words into a compound form to describe the same thing in 1 Corinthians 6:9. He is speaking of the same thing that Torah is speaking of.

    Literally, Moses says bedding with a male is wrong for a male and Paul says that male-bedding is wrong. The terms are general terms. All male-bedding is wrong. It is not some specific about temple prostitution or homosex with a boy. There are Greek words for such. Paul and the translators of the Septuagint did not use those specific terms. They obviously wanted to say that all male-bedding was sin and abomination.

    The supposed “monogamous, committed” Homosexual relationship is exactly against what Paul says. The Greek indicates and the English agrees that anyone that is in the state of male-bedding will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Neither the Greek nor the English says that one time sins are unforgivable, but that those that are committed to a sinful practice or who are unwilling to repent of them are in deep trouble.

    The feelings of attraction between people, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are not damnable sins, but they lead to sin when we cross the line into lust and especially into unmarried sex. And marriage is only between a man and woman according to Messiah and Moses. That modern man has come up with the misnomer of homosexual marriage is only proof that he is rebelling against YHWH’s design and His commandments of what is moraly right and good.

    Both Paul and Moses were writing for YHWH by revelation from Him. Whatever they could not know because of it not being experience socially by them in person or by natural knowledge, is no barrier to YHWH using them to pen His knowledge of things present and things to come. The general proscription in the totality of scripture of homosex covers all the bases.

    No argument from silence, like Messiah not mentioning it by name or that it had not been invented yet, is an excuse for accepting a falsehood against the principles and proclamations that are quite clear in scripture.

    Some of these are:
    1) YHWH made woman for man.
    2) Marriage is only between a man and woman.
    2) Homosex in general and in total is called sin in scripture.
    4) There is no example in scripture showing that homosex of any kind is good.

    The idea that we have made or discovered a way for homosex to be good or righteous in our modern ideas and worldview is simply not possible to justify by what the Bible declares…unless one changes the obvious and historic definition of words, equates things that are not equatable and looks for loopholes in YHWH’s word.

    Paul and Moses and the One that inspired their writings are condemning the modern “committed, monogamous gay marriage” even though it “did not exist in first century Hebrew culture.” It is absolutely the worst kind of homosex because it gives the false impression to those that participate in homosex this way are not rebelling against YHWH. It gives a false security that they will have an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven. It deceives the doers thereof and those that justify their actions.

    Jeremiah 17
    9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
    10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.

  31. Greg, I reread the post- and reread it looking for a diatribe…

    You definately misinterpreted the post- and that my good freind is not a DIATRIBE!

    Your review of both is clearly a misrepresentation. I do not understand how you can get a post so wrong- and from that I draw a conclusion on the review. However, your views are still interesting.

  32. Greg,

    And do not forget…ideas are not wrong simply because they are old…scholarship is not right simply because it is new. Right is better than scholarly. Being scholarly wrong is a good indication that it was probably not scholarship, but was actually brazenness or ideologically motivated.

    So maybe it is a good thing that Dr. Brown used tried and true, old and tested ideas that are common instead of brazen, progressive and new ideas. Maybe you have fallen for a deception and He has rightly collected that which can be verified…and you just do not like it.

    And it will be good to see your answer to my previous post #35.

  33. The hinge point of the argument I keep hearing is that ‘Paul didn’t understand same-sex relationships the way we find them today.’

    The problem I have with that is that we could do that kind of re-interpretation with any of the apostles, even Jesus, if we’re willing to go there. And that is truly destructive…like yanking a thread from a sweater, to put it mildly. People could say, “Well, Peter didn’t really know what it was to be gay because he was heterosexual, so…”

    I’m not willing to go there. I think the gospel as delivered was meant to be — and its essential truths are timeless.

    The other problem I have with that argument is the implication that there is essentially one kind of same-sex relationship which is the “ideal” — and this is what we’re (society at large) supposed to bear in mind. It is two upwardly-mobile, good-citizens who are well-adjusted and happy, posing no threats to anyone’s community, even contributing positively to these.

    But if we want to conceive of same-sex relationships in this preferred sense, then we need to throw out all of the dysfunctional, messy ones from consideration into that picture, and we know that’s not possible.

    Everyone knows that heterosexual marriages can be dysfunctional messes, too. So what was it that Paul was supposed to have “missed” in his conception of same-sex relationships that should marginalize his passages now? Stressing such an ‘ideal couple’ – which clearly isn’t the case for everyone?

    Paul’s only ideal for the married state was the same as the Lord’s — one man, one woman, for life, in a hierarchy which held Christ at its head. Without Christ, all was lost. That was the perfect pattern of marriage since creation, and there was never a need to alter the pattern, but rather, to bring humanity back into a harmony with it – hence the function of the law at all.

    Paul was not afraid of using his powers of deduction. He was astute, his thinking profound. If there were a good reason to rethink the issue of homosexuality, I don’t believe Paul would have shied away from that. There is evidence that in some parts of the Hellenistic world surrounding first-century Jewry, homosexual relationships between males of the same social status were celebrated.

    And if Paul would have suggested that this should continue, he would not have had the support of his fellow apostles at the First Jerusalem Council. He would also have had to erase all of his own admonitions against “lawlessness” — standing in direction contradiction with the Lord on this pivotal matter.

    Piers Morgan has proposed the heresy that the Bible can be, like the Constitution – a “living document” – amended. No, it simply can’t. It has withstood the test of time, and it will endure. It’s Morgan who needs to divest himself of the public moniker “Christian”, as others have done, so long as his faith is that wavering.

    We all need the mercy of God. I may not be gay, but I’ve committed my own forms of sin. I am, and have been, just as much in need of God’s great merciful grace as any sinner.

    Straight or gay — we do need to love one another, even while holding fast to what is true.

  34. About moral choice, a man might make the case that he did not choose to become a smoker, he simply chose to smoke a few cigarettes, or a man might not have chosen to become an alchoholic, he simply decided to drink a bit.

    It was more about pier pressure and his nature.

    But wouldn’t all this be an argument that seeks to avoid the cross?

    I suppose we could say that men don’t make the choice to become slaves to sin, they simply make the choice to sin.

    So where do they want to shift the blame to?

  35. As long as people avoid the cross, they avoid the power that will make them free.

    As Christians what should we do? Should we seek to lead them away from the cross or what?

  36. Greg,

    I didn’t find honest disagreement with my book in your post (I warmly welcome that); I found an assault revealing biases in your own heart, which is helpful for others to see here (although you’ve already made those biases totally clear repeatedly, in fact, glorying in them to some degree).

    In terms of real issues, I would expect disagreement from you until your heart and mind change.

    I do hope your heart and mind will change, not to agree with my book, but with God and His Word.

  37. Part One

    Greg:

    Greg:

    1. There is no such thing as “the APA”. There are two “APA” organizations: the “American Psychological Association” and the “American Psychiatric Organization”.

    2. The American Psychological Association has issued the following statement, called “Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts: Research Summary”. This document contains the admission:

    “There are NO STUDIES OF ADEQUATE SCIENTIFIC RIGOR to conclude whether or not recent SOCE DO OR DO NOT WORK to change a person’s sexual orientation…Be it further resolved that the American Psychological Association concludes that there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation…” (emphases mine)

    http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx

    My statement is accurate, Greg.

  38. Part 2

    3. Peer-Reviewed Studies

    i) One “peer-reviewed” source in this APA statement is from that celebrated bastion of scientific rigor, the Southern Poverty Law Center, cited in paragraph 2 of this Research Summary. The link in the bibliography takes you to an article, no author stated, attacking pro-family, “Religious Right” pro-family
    groups as “Anti-Gay Crusaders”. How could a statement from a “major” scientific organization use such a biased, un-scientific, political article in the same way it cites other studies? Could the answer be that entire APA statement is a political statement, trying to further an “identity-politics” gay cause?

    ii) Another work cited is by Dr. Douglas Haldeman, a gay psychologist, who co-authored “the American Psychological Association’s policy statement on Conversion Therapy and its Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian and Gay Clients” ( http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/about.php )

    Haldeman has also authored a study titled “When Sexual and Religious Orientation Collide…” In this article Haldeman makes the following startling admission:

    “Conversion therapies are often marketed with the notion that sexual orientation is freely chosen and therefore changeable, which, according to some, jeopardizes the civil rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals (Haldeman, 1999 http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/WhenOrientationCollide.pdf )

    In another article, Haldeman adds: “But if sexual orientation can be freely chosen, as conversion therapists claim, then why not change it therapeutically? And why pass laws that protect the rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people in the same way that laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or national origin?” ( http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf )

  39. Part 3

    3. Peer-Reviewed Studies

    i) One “peer-reviewed” source in this APA statement is from that celebrated bastion of scientific rigor, the Southern Poverty Law Center, cited in paragraph 2 of this Research Summary. The link in the bibliography takes you to an article, no author stated, attacking pro-family, “Religious Right” pro-family
    groups as “Anti-Gay Crusaders”. How could a statement from a “major” scientific organization use such a biased, un-scientific, political article in the same way it cites other studies? Could the answer be that entire APA statement is a political statement, trying to further an “identity-politics” gay cause?

    ii) Another work cited is by Dr. Douglas Haldeman, a gay psychologist, who co-authored “the American Psychological Association’s policy statement on Conversion Therapy and its Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian and Gay Clients” ( http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/about.php )

    Haldeman has also authored a study titled “When Sexual and Religious Orientation Collide…” In this article Haldeman makes the following startling admission:

    “Conversion therapies are often marketed with the notion that sexual orientation is freely chosen and therefore changeable, which, according to some, jeopardizes the civil rights of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals (Haldeman, 1999 http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/WhenOrientationCollide.pdf )

    In another article, Haldeman adds: “But if sexual orientation can be freely chosen, as conversion therapists claim, then why not change it therapeutically? And why pass laws that protect the rights of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people in the same way that laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or national origin?” ( http://www.drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf )

  40. Part 4

    Gay scientist–Dr Simon Levay–author of an early “gay brain” study has a more detailed look at the NYT study, in an interview with “The Advocate,” an important gay magazine.

    Advocate: Do you really think that grounding sexuality in biology can help win political equality?”

    Levay: All the civil rights legislation passed in the ‘60’s is based on the knowledge that there is a genetic and immutable difference between blacks and whites. Of course, a blacks are still discriminated against, but the legal advances they’ve made are based on those genetic differences. And I think that is a major stumbling block for our gaining the same protection as other groups. There was a survey in The New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a life-style choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay-friendly. (“The Advocate,” 6-1-93, pg. 41, emphasis added)

    Here is another, hidden reason, or perhaps the real reason for such vicious treatment of ex-gay therapy.

  41. Greg, Even if a person’s sexual orientation never changes, no matter what it is, he is still to resist the temptation to sin, no matter what the sin is, and it’s not being unfair in any way to say so.

    What’s unfair is when someone says to another, “Go follow your orientation whatever it is, for how can anyone say that it’s wrong, as long as that is your orientation?”

    It’s not being fair to the person who is the subject of this matter first of all, and maybe before even that, we should recognize that it’s not being fair to God. It’s also not being fair to everyone else who may be around, for unfairness will produce some residual fallout.

    How would we be encouraging someone to follow the example of Christ as he resisted temptation, carried the cross that we might be saved, and always did the Father’s will whatever it was, if we were to tell them to simply follow their orientation whatever it might be?

    When I practiced land navigation in the Army, my orientation was many times off.

    Shouldn’t we be about doing what it will take to bring people to the cross, that they may bear their own whatever it is, and have real hope to be with Christ, no matter what it is that they might have to endure, for shouldn’t Christ get his full reward….everyone that he died for?

    We will not be fair to him if we should discourage someone from the cross that has the power to save them.

  42. Greg,

    You asked for people to respond to you with facts and logic to you stance. You said that you would reply. How long do we wait?

  43. Dr. Brown,

    Would you consider asking Greg to actually answer the arguments against his position. Could it come with an ultimatum…that he cannot post hit and run comments if he doesn’t. Seems like you held my feet to the fire on more than one occasion.

    Shalom

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*