Conversion therapy

[Sketcher]

For comparison, I draw on my own experience of mental illness (not gender or sexuality related), and having religious leaders I trusted tell me that that illness was demonic, attempt deliverance ministry, dismiss and downplay medical diagnoses, and so on. They might have thought they were "seed-planting" with reference to what they saw as my sin, but in fact they did significant harm.

In contrast, pastoral relationships which facilitated healing and growth were much more about giving me the space and the emotional safety to acknowledge my own thoughts and feelings and bring them to God.

To clarify where I'm coming from, I'm not advocating any of that stuff.

If the aim is to make that person "not gay" then I guess it could be. But I would note that lots of people, even happily married straight people, at times desire to reduce their sexual desire and seek assistance in doing so, so I wouldn't automatically say that "desire management" (for want of a better term) is conversion in the way it is meant for the purposes of this thread.

What I am talking about is a person who struggles with temptations to homosexual lust, or homosexual romantic desires, and wants them gone. These people exist. Would praying with them for that at their request be "conversion" that this bill would forbid?

I'm saying it's impossible to answer this kind of pastoral hypothetical. You'd have to care for the person in front of you as you found them in the moment. But in general, my approach is not to try to tell God how to change people, but to bring people into relationship with God and then let God be God.

I'm not talking about telling God how to change people. I'm just talking about calling out the change that needs to happen. We're obviously supposed to have character like Christ's, and none of us are there yet, but Scripture does provide us with a pretty good idea of what the Christ-standard for many areas of life are at. Back to the example of a violent offender, their violent attitudes and tendencies are point A, and the grace that Christ had toward everyone is point B. How God gets the offender to point B is up to him, but is it so wrong to call out point B as the goal? Assuming that there isn't going to be nagging the person as to whether they've gotten there yet.

 

[Paidiske]

What I am talking about is a person who struggles with temptations to homosexual lust, or homosexual romantic desires, and wants them gone. These people exist. Would praying with them for that at their request be "conversion" that this bill would forbid?

I think that would depend on what is done and how it is done, but it could fall within the definition of conversion therapy if not approached carefully.

Back to the example of a violent offender, their violent attitudes and tendencies are point A, and the grace that Christ had toward everyone is point B. How God gets the offender to point B is up to him, but is it so wrong to call out point B as the goal? Assuming that there isn't going to be nagging the person as to whether they've gotten there yet.

I think that when someone struggles with something like sexuality, it's presumptuous of us to think we know how God will work through that. Some people report an end to their struggles. Some people report grace despite their struggles. (I think for comparison of the thorn in Paul's flesh that God refused to remove). God may be at work in someone's life despite their sexuality issues, bringing about emotional maturity, relational healing, and so on. Us assuming that we know what point B will be, in this individual person's life, and trying to make point B happen, is often exactly where the harm comes in.

 

[seeking.IAM]

...
What I am talking about is a person who struggles with temptations to homosexual lust, or homosexual romantic desires, and wants them gone. These people exist. Would praying with them for that at their request be "conversion" that this bill would forbid?
...

I believe the prohibitions against conversion therapy apply to persons who hang out a shingle and represent themselves as a therapist or counselors and practice conversion therapy. There is nothing that would prevent others from praying with persons at their request.

As a licensed therapist, I would tell inquirers for conversion therapy, "Sorry, I don't do that." Away from the office, I'm a person and who I chose to pray with at church or in the community, or what I wish to pray about is beyond the scope of regulation. It's not under my shingle or guise that I'm performing therapy.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think that's quite accurate, @seeking.IAM, because so much conversion therapy happens outside the regulated environments of mental health professionals and counselors.

 

[seeking.IAM]

I don't think that's quite accurate, @seeking.IAM, because so much conversion therapy happens outside the regulated environments of mental health professionals and counselors.

Yes, I agree but there is a difference between providing a service, if one can consider it that, than praying with someone. I wanted to make that distinction.

 

[Sketcher]

I think that would depend on what is done and how it is done, but it could fall within the definition of conversion therapy if not approached carefully.

And I believe the utmost care should be used, but shouldn't the possible labeling of legitimate ministry as "conversion therapy" that could get you in trouble with the law concern you? I get that there are frauds out there and I understand the desire to primarily go after them, but shouldn't the possibility that a responsible, caring minister could be sued or locked up for doing responsible care ministry be enough of a concern to at very least adjust the legislation?

I think that when someone struggles with something like sexuality, it's presumptuous of us to think we know how God will work through that. Some people report an end to their struggles. Some people report grace despite their struggles. (I think for comparison of the thorn in Paul's flesh that God refused to remove). God may be at work in someone's life despite their sexuality issues, bringing about emotional maturity, relational healing, and so on. Us assuming that we know what point B will be, in this individual person's life, and trying to make point B happen, is often exactly where the harm comes in.

But I'm not talking about defining how God will work. Nor am I talking about making assumptions beyond what Scripture teaches should be clear goals. I get that sexuality can be a bit nebulous, so that is why I went with the more concrete example of violence to see where you're at here. Do you not want to define point B, ever?

 

[Quartermaine]

Well the textbooks still define orientation as teh gender what prefers to have sex with. And identity as what sex one identifies as. Totally different.

What "textbooks"?

 

[Quartermaine]

I

His doesn't no. Satan tempts. So Christians who are struggling with LGBT are maybe being tempted by satan?

tempted to do what? fall in love? get married? have families? form life long bonds?

 

[Quartermaine]

Well the gays who hold debauched parties for just raw sex, their orinetation is defined as homosexual. NO love, intimacy, attachment, romance there.

just like the straights who do that. do you have a point?

Yes if ones orientation is same sex, then they will seel sexual andemotional satisfaction from a same sex partner. but say two men are single, close firens and find their emotional intin=macy and attachment to each other without sex, that is not an orientation, just deep friendship like David and JOhnathan!

it is orientation. you don't have to have sex to have an orientation

Sexual identity is simply what one gender of teh supposed current 53 or so out there.
I am sure these labels will change as so many do.

Sexual identity is component of an individual's identity that reflects their sexual self-concept, heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, I agree but there is a difference between providing a service, if one can consider it that, than praying with someone. I wanted to make that distinction.

But in the blurry-lined worlds of pastoral care, there can sometimes be no difference at all. And it's important to recognise that.

And I believe the utmost care should be used, but shouldn't the possible labeling of legitimate ministry as "conversion therapy" that could get you in trouble with the law concern you? I get that there are frauds out there and I understand the desire to primarily go after them, but shouldn't the possibility that a responsible, caring minister could be sued or locked up for doing responsible care ministry be enough of a concern to at very least adjust the legislation?

There are all sorts of situations where ministry has to have boundaries. For example, I am never to be alone with a child in my pastoral care, no matter how responsible, caring or legitimate what I am doing is. That's now something legally required of me.

Again, this is coming about because churches have been irresponsible, careless and illegitimate in what we have done. We need to accept that this boundary is being put in place to protect vulnerable people, because we have shown time and time again that we, the Christian community, are not capable of doing so without the force of the law behind it.

So - (and I note that I have never seen a suggestion that this offence would carry a gaol sentence as a penalty) - no, I am not particularly concerned about this. If we can't responsibly and with care, minister in such a way that we don't fall foul of such a law, the problem is likely with our ministry, not the ban.

But I'm not talking about defining how God will work. Nor am I talking about making assumptions beyond what Scripture teaches should be clear goals. I get that sexuality can be a bit nebulous, so that is why I went with the more concrete example of violence to see where you're at here. Do you not want to define point B, ever?

I would want to be very, very careful in defining "point B," if by that we mean prescribing how people should change. Sure, it would be good for a violent person to become less violent, but the path from here to there is not mine to control.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Again, this is coming about because churches have been irresponsible, careless and illegitimate in what we have done. We need to accept that this boundary is being put in place to protect vulnerable people, because we have shown time and time again that we, the Christian community, are not capable of doing so without the force of the law behind it.

Do you think Jesus as head of the Body of Christ needs the Law as well to maintain order?

Didn't Paul say the opposite.

 

[Paidiske]

Do you think Jesus as head of the Body of Christ needs the Law as well to maintain order?

Didn't Paul say the opposite.

I recall in Romans 13:1-6 Paul argues that civil law and authority are our servant, to do us good.

 

[Carl Emerson]

So - (and I note that I have never seen a suggestion that this offence would carry a gaol sentence as a penalty) - no, I am not particularly concerned about this. If we can't responsibly and with care, minister in such a way that we don't fall foul of such a law, the problem is likely with our ministry, not the ban.

This was not the case when the anti-smacking Law was introduced, neighbours called the police on good parents who were giving their child a deserved smack without any abuse.

I cant understand why the church cant face up to failure and sort it out before God - change the way accountability works, deal with it like the early church did - engaging the law in church life when church discipline fails is a serious compromise. Is the system and the culture too proud to admit fault and seek God's correction?

 

[Paidiske]

This was not the case when the anti-smacking Law was introduced, neighbours called the police on good parents who were giving their child a deserved smack without any abuse.

This has nothing to do with church or ministry.

I cant understand why the church cant face up to failure and sort it out before God - change the way accountability works, deal with it like the early church did - engaging the law in church life when church discipline fails is a serious compromise. Is the system and the culture too proud to admit fault and seek God's correction?

I would have thought a read through this thread would have demonstrated that facing up to our failures is not exactly something we're awesome at, collectively.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I recall in Romans 13:1-6 Paul argues that civil law and authority are our servant, to do us good.

Of course but he also said believers should not use the law to settle issues.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This has nothing to do with church or ministry.

But the same principle applies - invite the law to sort out your own issues and you have a mess.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course but he also said believers should not use the law to settle issues.

That's not what this is, though. This is the government protecting vulnerable people from harm.

 

[Paidiske]

But the same principle applies - invite the law to sort out your own issues and you have a mess.

You seem to have a discomfort with laws designed to regulate harmful practices; I don't. Any "mess" in that situation isn't due to the law, it's due to the problem the law is trying to address.

 

[Carl Emerson]

I would have thought a read through this thread would have demonstrated that facing up to our failures is not exactly something we're awesome at, collectively.

So the law gets involved - this is shocking - honestly there needs to be some serious soul searching from the top down.

 

[Paidiske]

So the law gets involved - this is shocking - honestly there needs to be some serious soul searching from the top down.

From the top down of what, though? Conversion therapy happens in secular organisations, in non-Christian religious organisations, in para-church organisations, and in churches. There's no "top" that can deal with it as a phenomenon, apart from the law.