Love your show, you are truly Christ like compassionate yet without compromise. Prayer is integral to breaking the strong hold of deception. Father, Your Word exhorts us that if one of us should wander from the truth, someone shall bring him back. (James 5:19)
Show me Your ways, O Lord, teach me Your paths; guide me in Your truth and teach me, for You are God my Savior, and my hope is in You all day long. (Ps. 25:4-5)
A seemingly strong beleiver can be led astray if not held continually on the path of Gods Word and keenly aware of satan's schemes.
thankyou Sheridan and The Open House yours sincerely Brad Cruise God Bless

No homosexual orientaton can not be changed, it would be a waste of time trying. People are in control of their actions and decissions they decide that this ' will be their orientation and lifestyle. trying to change a person would only lead to contradictory behaviour and a way of life which becomes distructive for all other's who know the person trying. It would be better to live and let live.

Mr. Venn-Brown claims that the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation “discredits” our study. It does not. The Task Force Report does criticize and then dismiss our study, but are their criticisms valid? Good scientists do not simply concede to declarations of authorities (certainly, gay-affirming scientists did not simply concede in the days when prevailing professional judgment ran against them). Rather we ask if the criticisms are valid. Let’s look.

Anyone who cares to wade into this can find the focal dismissal of our study in footnote 65 on page 90 full of the Task Force report; the entire 120+ page Task Force report is available at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-response.pdf. Sheridan has posted a handy link where anyone can read our study as well.

The problem with the Task Force report overall is that they apply scientific standards very selectively. When seeking to establish that change is unlikely or unproven, they employ ultra-rigorous standards that few studies attain to dismiss studies that suggest change. But when they seek to establish the opposite kinds of claims, such as that “homosexuality per se is a normal and positive variant of human sexual orientation” (p. 119) or that harm is likely from the attempt to change, their high scientific standards are suddenly and conveniently set aside, allowing them to site methodologically questionable studies and surveys.

But let’s look at it the other way. On page 6 of the Task Force report, they assert that a GOOD study of sexual orientation change “would (a) use methods that are prospective and longitudinal; (b) employ sampling methods that allow proper generalization; (c) use appropriate, objective, and high-quality measures of sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity; (d) address preexisitng and co-occuring conditions, mental health problems, other interventions, and life histories to test competing explanations for any changes; and (e) include measures capable of assessing harm.”

Our study easily meets standards (a), (c), and (e): (a) Ours is the first prospective and longitudinal study of individuals seeking to intentionally change sexual orientation; we followed subjects over 6 years. (c) We used all of the best validated measures of sexual orientation used or published in the Journal of Homosexuality before 1999. Mr. Venn-Brown criticizes our methods as anecdotal, which they are not. They are self-report, however, which is the only validated way to access this highly personal dimension of human life. (e) We used the SCL-90-R, a mainstay of psychotherapy change research, as our standard measure of potential harm.

The Task Force’s point (d) is indeed a description of a wonderful study if you were studying etiology, co-morbidity, or correlates of change, but we were not doing so; instead we pursued two focused questions: Can people change and is the attempt harmful? Neither were we trying “to test competing explanations for any changes” but rather responding to the claim of APA that change is impossible (this would be Venn-Davis’s claim also). Lodging this criticism is a bit like saying that a breakthrough study showing for the first time clear evidence that heart transplants can be successful must be discarded because it did not conclusively show how transplants work with people with diabetes—it’s a good question for another study and not a criticism. And if Mr. Venn-Brown and the APA want to admit change is possible and join together to test competing explanations—to examine when and how change occurs—with larger studies, we would be happy to collaborate.

So what about (b): Did we “Employ sampling methods that allow proper generalization”? In other parts of the report the Task Force speaks as if the only sample that would meet their standards is an exhaustive internationally representative sample of all variants of sexual minorities. Set aside the fact that no such sample has ever been described or assembled, nor could it. The key issue is that there is no universal measure for what makes a good sample; rather, you must ask “is the sample good enough to answer the question?” For instance, if my question is “exactly what percentage of people with disease X will get better taking pill Y?” then I must have a very good, representative sample to answer the question. But if my question is “does anyone with disease X ever get better taking pill Y?” then I don’t need a good sample at all, as just ONE person getting better answers the question.

The Task Force authors hold the study of Evelyn Hooker in high esteem. About 50 years ago, Hooker challenged the prevailing wisdom of her day, the assumption that “All homosexuals are necessarily and manifestly emotionally disturbed.” The Task Force authors describe her sample as merely “nonclinical.” This is not an accurate description: her sample was deliberately and clearly unrepresentative. She gathered a sample of homosexual persons who were pre-screened for being emotionally healthy and having never been in counseling or psychotherapy. Professionals could not tell the test results from these gay people from those of straights. What did Hooker prove? She did not prove all gay people are healthy. No, she proved that it was not true that all homosexuals are necessarily and manifestly emotionally disturbed. Should her study be dismissed because it did not employ a representative sample? Of course not—her sample was adequate for her hypothesis.

So was our sample adequate for our hypotheses. We took our hypotheses from prevailing professional declarations that homosexual orientation cannot be changed and the attempt is likely harmful. Our sample was adequate to show that change is possible for some and the attempt not harmful on average.

Finally, Mr. Venn-Brown speaks of all the people he hears from who felt change failed them. I have no reason to dispute those reports; I am sad to hear them from him, and I have heard them from others. But what about the people I also hear from who he does not discuss—people who say “Thank you for telling my story; I came out of the gay lifestyle years ago, experienced significant change, and have been happily adjusted for many years”? An anecdote of failure does not invalidate a report of success—if it did, we would not do heart transplants at all because of the anecdotes of failure.

In conclusion, yes, the APA Task Force dismisses our study. But was it for good reason? No, it was to eliminate a strong piece of evidence that did not want on the table. Read our study for yourself at website http://www.ivpress.com/media/pressreleases/index.php. Come to your own conclusion.

Dr Stanton Jones

Hi Anthony.

Thanks for weighing into the discussion. I read your book when it was first released and found it both an enlightening and a disturbing read. While I may not be convinced on the issue of biblical support for the homosexual lifestyle, I do appreciate your love and care towards people who have wrestled with their sexuality and been damaged during their journey. I hope we can be just as caring.

It was interesting to hear Dr Stanton Jones mention in our interview that the APA's response was actually delivered to the conference before the Wheaton/Regent study had been presented, and that it was based on a previous study's data. To our eyes the research looks credible, but ultimately it is stimulating discussion like this, which can only be a good thing.

You mention towards the end of your post: 'To tell someone they are gay or lesbian they are sick and need therapy or that God only accepts those who are heterosexual is not only outdated but very cruel.' It should be strongly pointed out that at no stage during the interview or during Sunday evening as a whole was any such comment made. We took callers living in homosexual relationships and nothing of the sort was said.

Thanks for your comments Anthony. I hope by us airing them here we can stimulate further discussion about being Christ-like in every way about the issue of homosexuality and those living with/in it.

Blessings to you.

Sheridan

Hi Sheridan

A recently released document by the American Psychologist Association discredits the claims made on your show. The task force examined the peer-reviewed journal articles from 1960 to 2007, which included 83 studies. http://alifeofunlearning.blogspot.com/2009/08/insufficient-evidence-that-sexual.html

There probably would not be another person in Australia who has communicated with more people in this area than I have. Emails I've received from readers of my autobiography consistently speak of the damage people experienced whilst trying to change their same sex orientation attending 'ex-gay' programs. These include mental health issues such a depression, self- destructive behaviours as well as attempts and actual suicides.

What 'ex-gay' ministries don’t have access to are the people who have left these kinds of programs/therapies. I do....and its tragic. People are left with a sense of failure and shame that takes many years to recover from if ever. These people have been traumatised.

I attended Australia’s first live in 'ex-gay program in 1971 for 6 months. Eventually I married. But after 22 years I had to admit that actually nothing had changed I was still gay. This is confirmed by the constant stream of emails from people in their 40's who are having the same experience....and leaving all concerned very hurt. Recently a 40 year old man who was involved in the Exodus ministry for 20 years here in Australia tell me...."I was sold a very cruel lie".

What the Jones & Yarhouse study failed to do was use more reliable scientific methods than anecdotal. Jones constantly referred to change. But this is not clearly defined or documented. People can suppress or deny their sexual orientation (I did) but they can’t actually change from being gay to straight. Being married to a woman and producing children is no more of an indicator that this has happened than saying men who have sex with men in prison have become homosexual. When they come out of prison they are still heterosexual. I was a ‘situational heterosexual’ for 16 years.

When people speak of ‘unwanted same sex attraction’ the issue is not the orientation but why is it unwanted. In the majority of cases I’ve dealt with it was unwanted because of attachments to sexual abuse or addiction, total misconceptions about what it is meant by being gay or fear of rejection by God and others if I accept my gayness.

Considering that there are now many many 1000’s of gay Christians such as myself who have discovered our morality is not determined by our sexual orientation, the ‘ex-gay’ message is becoming increasingly obsolete.

We love the same God, read the same bible, see the same answers to prayer that our heterosexual brothers and sisters do. We live moral lives and use our gifts to serve God. The many stories on our Freedom 2 b[e] site reflect this….http://www.freedom2b.org/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8…and we are only just scratching the surface.

To tell someone they are gay or lesbian they are sick and need therapy or that God only accepts those who are heterosexual is not only outdated but very cruel.

I’d be happy to come on your show and chat more about this if you’d like and to take calls from listeners.

Hi Lexy.

Firstly, I am horrified to hear of your friend's suicide attempt after wrestling with his sexuality and seeking help. I have no doubt that if I had a friend with a similar story I would be equally concerned about such treatment programs. I know a number of gay people and would be devestated should they ever feel that desperate. I'm glad your friend remains alive today.

I must, however, respectfully disagree with some of the comments you've made.

Our discussion was hardly handled in an 'ill informed manner'. We spoke to Dr Stanton Jones, one of the authors of the Wheaton / Regent study 'Ex-Gays?: An Extended Longitudinal Study of Attempted Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation', not an ill informed commentator or ignorant zealot. (You can listen to the interview again by clicking on 'Listen Again' above, or read Dr Jones' paper by clicking the link in the above text.) The study was one of the most significant studies of its kind conducted in recent years, the results of which were delivered at the American Psychological Association's convention on August 9. You can't present just any research paper at the APA convention.

The study was conducted on Exodus International clients and found that around a quarter of the program participants experienced what they called 'conversion' to heterosexuality, roughly another quarter were living comfortably in celibacy, another quarter returned to a homosexual lifestyle with the rest undecided. We presented all of these facts, plus the APA's comments. We were fair.

We certainly were not 'putting people back into closets of shame, guilt and self hatred'. We gave an opportunity for anyone within the gay community to call and express their stories and views. We had callers who once lived a homosexual lifestyle and now no longer did, some who chose to live celibate lives but still 'struggled', some who believed homosexuality was morally fine, etc. All got to air - none was censored or excluded - and all were treated with respect.

I believe - as the APA must have in allowing it to be presented at their convention - that the research results were of a significant calibre. You'll note that Dr Jones was quick to point out in our interview that not all participants of programs like Exodus change and his research shouldn't be read as implying so. But some do. The research shouldn't be disregarded.

I can't comment on the aligations you've levelled at programs like Living Waters and Exodus. Perhaps the leaders of both may like to comment if they happen upon this post?

Lexy, thanks for posting. I hope you'll also feel free to call the show sometime. I'll be praying for your friend.

Yours in Jesus.

Sheridan

I was utterly dissapointed with the counter-productive and ill-formed manner with which this discussion was framed.

Ex-Gay therapy is wrong and harmful.The 'success rate', if you can call it that, is around 4% of people who actually have completely changed and converted to hetereo sexuality. Even one of your callers admitted that he could not completely change his sexuality. The risk of suicide in these programs however is much higher, as my friend, who went through Living Waters can attest. He tried to kill himself twice but luckily survived but his close friend could not take the shame and the guilt these programs instill, and took his own life.

http://bennygresham.blogspot.com/

If Ex-Gay therapy actually worked, why is it then that groups like Exodus and programs like Living Waters use vastly different and uncontionable methods? Such as electro-shock therapy, banning certain underwear brands such as Abercrombie and Fitch and negative reinforcement therapy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsYsusY1ALQ

Two of the founders of Exodus International, Michael Bussee amongst them, recently broke with Exodus International and publically stated that he was wrong to try and convince people to change their sexuality, something that the vast majority of the scientific and medical community has affirmed.

These include The American Medical Association, The American Pyschiatric Association, The American Pyschological Association, The American Pyschoanalytic Association, The American Academy of Pediatric and the National Assoication of Social Workers.

Yes promiscuity and substance abuse is wrong for a Christian, but for so many in the GLBT community that is not how they choose to live their lives. There is a silent majority who live in committed,loving and monogomous relationships. It is possible to not run away from your sexuality but still live a moral life committed to following Jesus. The six verses that do vaguely mentioned homosexuality (and I wont go into detail in this message) have been taken out of context. The word homosexual wasnt even in the Bible until 1948.

This radio station should not be in the business of putting people back into closets of shame, guilt and self hatred.

How about interviewing former high court judge Michael Kirby? Surely he would provide a facinating insight into living a combined homosexual and christian life. How does he reconcile scripture and living as a homosexual? His biblical knowledge together with a brilliant legal mind would lead to a compelling discussion. Bring it on, please ask him on your show.