Clark Carlton, Ph.D.
Department of
Sociology and Philosophy, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, TN
This article evaluates the
phenomenon of sexual reorientation therapy from the standpoint of Orthodox
Christian theology. It is argued that homosexual desire is the product of the
fall of mankind and cannot be considered “normal.” At the same time, however,
reorientation therapies, whether secular or Christian, are inherently
reductionistic and fail to address the underlying spiritual pathologies
involved in homosexual desire (or any other deep-seated passion). The purpose
of therapeia in the Orthodox Church is the psychosomatic transfiguration
of the whole person into the image of Christ, not merely the cessation of
homosexual activity or the “reidentification” of one’s “lifestyle.”
I. INTRODUCTION
We are, so social conservatives
tell us, in the midst of a “culture war,” and there is no public issue that
sends more rhetorical lead flying than homosexuality. The year 2004 is a long
way from the 1950s, with Ward and June Cleaver leading a traditional “nuclear
family.” Much to the chagrin of Pat Buchanan and Cal Thomas, things that were
once spoken of in hushed tones—if at all—are now public issues. Homosexuals are
no longer willing to hide their identity and what is to them a basic fact of
their lives; and social conservatives, both Christian and secular, can no
longer pretend that homosexuals do not exist at every level of society.
Americans have entered the twenty-first century pondering questions that would
have been unimaginable to Ward and June: Should homosexuals be allowed to
marry? Should they be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, or even in
the Boy Scouts? Should civil rights legislation be expanded to include “sexual
orientation”? Or—and this is potentially the most explosive question of
all—should homosexuals be offered the opportunity to change their orientation,
to go “straight”?
Inasmuch as most of these
questions are public policy issues that are to be decided either by the body
politic or the courts, the historic position of the Christian Church on
homosexuality is of little consequence for the general public. Regardless of the
Church’s view of the morality of homosexual acts, in a constitutional
democracy such as ours, persons who identify themselves as homosexuals [1]
cannot be denied the basic civil rights guaranteed to all citizens. The
question of reorientation therapy, [2] however, is not only one that comes
within the Church’s purview; it is one that demands a response from the Church.
This issue involves the determination of “normality” and the role of “therapy”
in our modern culture.
I know of no one who suggests
that homosexuals be forced into therapy against their will. All the literature
that I have read explicitly states that desire for change is the crucial
element in the success of reorientation therapy—so the question of the ethics
of such therapy must turn on the propriety of the enterprise in and of itself.
The dominant position of the secular therapeutic community is that such therapy
is unethical because 1) it does not work, and 2) it may actually harm the
patient. There is more to this approach, however. In its position statement on
the issue, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) stated:
Therefore, the
American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as
“reparative” or “conversion” therapy which is based upon the assumption that
homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption
that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation. [3]
A priori assumptions work both
ways, however. This rejection of “conversion” therapy is clearly based on the a
priori assumption that change is not possible, that homosexual
orientation is in some sense “normal” for some people. In contrast to this
presupposition, the position of the Orthodox Church in regard to homosexual
activity is that homoerotic desire is the result of the fall of man and that
homosexual activity is a sin.
Thus, Orthodoxy approaches the
question from a position that is diametrically opposed to that of the secular
therapeutic community. One might expect, therefore, a positive evaluation of
reorientation therapies from an Orthodox perspective. This, however, is not the
case. While the Orthodox would certainly agree with advocates of such therapy
that homosexual desire is not natural and is curable—to deny this
would be tantamount to denying the power of God—the nature of reorientation
therapies is in many respects at variance with the Orthodox understanding of
therapy. In short, in spite of whatever religious motivations and trappings
that may be added to popular reorientation therapies, they remain fundamentally
secular enterprises. From an Orthodox perspective, this, in and of itself, is
enough to guarantee that genuine healing does not take place. In what
follows I shall endeavor to explain this.
II. THE ORTHODOX UNDERSTANDING
OF HOMOSEXUALITY
To understand the Orthodox
Christian approach to the question of homosexuality, we must turn to the first
chapter of Romans. To be sure, there are many passages in the Scriptures in
which homosexual activity of one sort or another is condemned; yet these
passages fall short of providing a sound theological basis for
addressing the issue. For one thing, there is no biblical word for
“homosexual,” and the words translated as “homosexual” in some modern
translations are problematic and open to varying interpretations. In the Old
Testament (OT), homosexual acts are clearly and unambiguously condemned as “an
abomination.” However, lots of things are condemned in the OT as an
abomination, including falsifying weights and measures and (heterosexual)
adultery. One cannot help but feel some sympathy with homosexuals who argue
that the Christian use of the OT is highly selective. At any rate, no real
theological reason is given in these passages; that homosexual acts are a sin
is simply presented as a fact.
In Romans 1, however, St. Paul
provides precisely a theological analysis of the phenomenon of homosexuality.
Indeed, it would not be an overstatement to say that the two thousand year
history of the Christian proscription against homosexual acts stands or falls
with Romans 1. Of course, this chapter is not about homosexuality per se; it is
about the fall of man. Whatever else one may wish to say about the subject, if
one is to approach it from within a genuinely Christian standpoint,
homosexuality must be placed within the context of the fall of man and its
aftermath.
For the
invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so
that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified
Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations,
and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed
the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than
the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up
unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that
which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which
was meet. (Romans 1:20–27)
This passage is most often
interpreted from the standpoint of natural law theory. Homosexuality, according
to this approach, is sinful because it is unnatural. Interestingly,
contemporary homosexual apologists have turned this argument on its head. What
St. Paul is condemning here, so the new theory goes, is someone who is
naturally heterosexual performing homosexual acts. To the person who has a
genuine homosexual orientation, however, homosexual desire and acts are
perfectly natural. Therefore what St. Paul is condemning is not homosexuality
per se, but those who act contrary to their own sexual nature.
Admittedly, this new twist on
Romans 1 shows imagination. Indeed, were this passage really about natural law,
this new interpretation would have to be given some credence. However, St.
Paul’s point in this chapter is not about natural law, but about the nature of
the fall of man. From an Orthodox interpretation of this passage, three things
become clear: First, homosexual desire is a result of the fall. Second,
in a very real sense, homosexual desire is an image or icon of the fall
itself. Third, homosexual desire is a passion, which can only be
overcome through genuinely Christian—that is to say churchly—therapy.
Throughout both testaments the
disexuality of human nature is presented typologically. That is, the difference
between male and female is presented as a type of man’s relationship with God.
The male—the husband—is the type of God or Christ, while the female—the wife—is
the type of humanity, Israel, or the Church. In Ephesians, St. Paul describes
Christian marriage and then says that it is a great mystery, but he goes on to
say that he is talking of the mystery of Christ and the Church. In Romans 1,
St. Paul presents homosexual desire as the type of the fall itself; it is the
type of creation’s attempt at self-deification. [4] Thus, homosexual desire is
not only a product of the fall, the desire for “another of the same
kind” instead of “another of a different kind” is an image of the very
nature of the fall. [5]
III. THE ORTHODOX
UNDERSTANDING OF THE PASSIONS
It is often argued that the
writers of the Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church considered homosexual
acts to be simply a choice, much in the same way that one chooses whether or
not to cheat on one’s spouse. While there is a good deal of truth to this—certainly
neither St. Paul nor St. John Chrysostom knew anything of “homosexuality” as it
is conceived in modern terms— we should not be too quick to dismiss the
biblical and patristic injunctions against homosexuality as simply being the
fruits of an unenlightened age. In Romans 1, St. Paul refers explicitly to
homosexual desire, not merely homosexual acts. The point is that
homosexuality is a lust; that is, a perversion of man’s natural sexual
energies. In other words, it is a passion.
For the most part, the Church
Fathers adopted a three-part division of the soul common among Greek
philosophers. In Book IV of The Republic, Plato speaks of the soul as
divided into the rational, appetitive, and excitable parts. [6] In the normally
functioning soul, the rational aspect seeks the good and leads man toward it.
Reason keeps the appetite under control, with the aid of the excitable power.
For example, a married man notices a beautiful woman and feels the pangs of
lust. He immediately reproaches—gets angry—with himself and reminds himself
that he is married and that adultery would jeopardize his marriage. Thus
rebuked, he fends off the lustful thoughts, and justice is established within
his soul.
In a diseased or unjust soul,
however, the appetites overrule reason and man lives not for the sake of the
good, but for the sake of the gratification of desires. To use a modern
example, consider someone who is addicted to cigarettes. The person surely knows
by now that smoking is bad for the body. It has been clinically connected with
emphysema, heart disease and cancer. The smoker knows smoking is bad,
but continues to do it because he or she is in the control of the desire for
nicotine. The appetites have charge of the person’s life. When the appetite
cannot be satiated—think of a smoker forced to endure an eight-hour smoke-free
flight—he or she becomes irritable. Instead of siding with the reasoning aspect
of the soul, the excitable faculty is employed by the appetites. This is why
smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts are willing to go to extraordinary means
to satisfy their craving. The same aspect of the soul that gives courage to the
hero in battle gives energy and determination to the soul enslaved to the
appetites.
The Fathers generally adopted
this Platonic schema, but went much further than Plato in elucidating how the
soul works—developing a true psyche-ology. The passions, according to
Orthodox tradition, are natural faculties and energies of the soul and body
that have been corrupted, deformed, and diverted from their
original—natural—purpose. This means that for the Orthodox, the healing of the
passions involves not the eradication of the passions but their
transformation—their transfiguration. [7]
Just as there are physical
energies and faculties and spiritual energies and faculties in man, so there
are passions of both the body and soul. Furthermore, the Fathers speak of both
voluntary and involuntary passions. In other words, there are some passions
that are so ingrained within us they are beyond our conscious decision-making
power. This is a very important point for our present discussion.
Homosexual desire must be classed
among the involuntary passions. It is commonplace among conservative Christians
to treat homosexuality as if it were simply a matter of choice. Yet anyone who
actually knows homosexual persons, and certainly anyone who has counseled them,
knows this is not the case. One does not wake up one morning and suddenly
“decide” to be attracted to persons of the same gender. However, to say that
homosexual desire is an involuntary passion is in no way to diminish the fact
that it is a passion—a corruption of man’s natural sexual energies.
It is widely accepted in
scientific circles that there may be a biological (genetic) predisposition in
some people toward alcoholism or obesity. This does not change the fact,
however, that drunkenness and gluttony are passions. Even if a genetic basis could
be found for homosexuality, one could not then argue that homosexual desire is
“normal” any more than one could argue that being an alcoholic or seriously
obese is “normal.”
While the Orthodox Church has
never accepted the idea of original sin prevalent in Western Christianity, [8]
Orthodoxy certainly realizes that we are born into a fallen world—a
world that does not function as it was originally intended. Although we often
speak of “fallen nature,” this term needs further refinement. According to St.
Maximus the Confessor, it is not the principle (logos) of nature that is
fallen, but rather nature’s mode (tropos) of existence. [9] God’s
creation is entirely good and remains so even after the fall of mankind.
There is no place for the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity in Orthodox
theology. It is the way nature now operates that is affected by the
fall.
The tragedy of man’s
predicament—and this has direct bearing on the topic of homosexual desire—is
that we are so used to this fallen manner of existence that we take it
for granted. The natural man, or the “fleshly man” as St. Paul would have it,
considers his fallen mode of existence to be normal. Thus what we consider to
be “natural” is from a biblical perspective unnatural or sub-natural,
and what we consider to be “supernatural” is, in fact, the natural or normative
state of existence. The homosexual feels that his desires are natural because
that is all he has ever known, and no amount of “natural law theory” will
convince him otherwise.
It is significant that there is
no biblical word for “homosexual.” Indeed, there is no such word in either
Latin or Greek; it is of modern origin. From this bit of linguistic archeology,
we are able to draw a theological conclusion: for the writers of the Scriptures
and for the Church Fathers, there is no “ontology” to homosexuality. This view
is normative for the Christian Church. To be sure, there are persons who have a
homoerotic orientation; this orientation may be exclusive and it may very well
have some basis in genetics. But, from a genuinely biblical perspective, there
is no such thing as “a homosexual.” For a man to describe himself as “gay” (or
a woman as a “lesbian”) is to grant ontology to his desires and define himself
according to his passions.
This self-identification is, of
course, at the heart of the contemporary gay movement. This is precisely the
one point where the Christian Church cannot deviate from Her historical stand
without changing Her entire theology. For the Church to accept someone as “gay”
would be to accept the fallen state of man as the natural state. The gay
anthem, “I am what I am,” from the musical La Cage aux Folles, is
instructive here. What a person is is a matter of biology and genetics;
it is an objectification of human life based on the givenness of (fallen)
nature. Who a person is—and this is what concerns the Orthodox
theologian—is the product of man’s freedom; it is the subjective realization of
what it means to have been created in the image of God.
Like the inhabitants of Plato’s
cave, however, we are unaware of our true nature. We take the shadows for
reality and define ourselves according to our passions. It is only when we
encounter someone who is free of the passions, someone who lives life according
to true nature, that we begin to realize our true situation. This realization,
however, is at first traumatic. We refuse to believe it. [10] A person truly
free of the passions seems to us to be inhuman, a creature from another
world. The world could not deal with Christ—the first authentically human
person—and it has not dealt much better with His Saints. Yet, Saints there are,
even today. The Saints are those who have been healed of the passions and who
live life according to nature—what we mistakenly consider supernatural
existence. They are living revelations of God, living revelations of what human
life is supposed to be.
IV. ORTHODOX THEOLOGY AS
THERAPY
According to the Greek bishop
Hierotheos Vlachos, the Orthodox Church is a spiritual hospital, and its
purpose is the healing of the human soul. [11] Orthodoxy is a therapeutic
science designed to heal the passions and lead man to his natural state in communion
with God. The Orthodox Church honors the Saints because they are the living
proof (martyrs—witnesses) that the therapy works, that it is
possible for man to be healed.
Given this Orthodox insistence
that Christianity is first and foremost a therapeutic science, one might
reasonably expect a positive evaluation of Christian reorientation therapies.
Sadly, however, this is not the case. While there are obvious parallels, the
similarities between the Orthodox notion of therapy and that which is practiced
within the Protestant world are superficial. To understand this, we must first
take a closer look at the Orthodox understanding of therapy and cure and then
examine current reorientation therapies in light of the Orthodox standard.
To understand the Orthodox notion
of therapy, one must understand that for the Orthodox, sin is not God’s
problem, but man’s. This may seem axiomatic, but in reality it is not. Since at
least the time of Anselm’s Cur deus homo, Western Christianity has been
saddled with the notion that man’s sin somehow affects God—it insults His
infinite honor and calls forth His wrath. Such anthropomorphic notions are
unacceptable to Orthodox theology, however, because they violate the first
principle of theology, namely that there is no analogy of being between God and
man. God is impassible and unchangeable. He has no pride to wound. Sin,
therefore, does not affect God’s ability to relate to man (as if God were an
upper caste Hindu prevented from coming into contact with an Untouchable); it
affects man’s ability to relate to God.
In the Scriptures we are told
that no one has ever seen God and lived and that God is a consuming fire, yet
we are also told that the pure in heart shall see God, that Christians are
called to become partakers of the divine nature. The difference is not that God
hates sinners and loves the righteous (He loves both without differentiation),
but that the sinner is prevented by his sin from experiencing God as light and
life. For him, God’s presence is fire and judgement. The Saint, on the other
hand, is cleansed of his passions and, therefore, open to God’s love. For him,
God’s presence is light and life. Metropolitan Hierotheos describes what the
Orthodox mean by the cure of the soul:
We are not
struggling simply to become good people, adjusted to society. The aim of
therapeutic treatment is not to make people sociable and to be an
anthropocentric exercise, but it is to guide them to communion with God, and
for this vision of God not to be a fire that will consume them but a light
which will illuminate them. (1994, p. 270) [12]
One must understand that the
passions are not merely bad habits, and the cure of the soul is not merely a
matter of behavior modification. The passions are a spiritual pathology. They
are deviations and malfunctions of man’s most basic bodily and spiritual
faculties. They are so ingrained within us that they appear quite natural.
Furthermore, the passions are related to one another in very complex ways. To
give but one example, the passion of anger is frequently tied to the passion of
lust. For every passion that comes to the surface, manifesting itself in
outward behavior, there is probably a complex of related passions at work in
the deepest recesses of the soul.
How then are these passions cured
and the heart cleansed? A person with cancer would not go to a university or a
mall for treatment, but to a hospital, because that is where he or she will
find treatment appropriate to the disease. In a hospital there are doctors who
have knowledge of the disease and, through experience, have learned the best
way to treat it. The hospital also contains the facilities and medicines needed
to treat the disease.
According to Metropolitan
Hierotheos, the Church is a spiritual hospital. The doctors are the spiritual
fathers and mothers (usually, but not exclusively, monks and nuns). Their
qualification is not an academic degree, but their experience of having
undergone spiritual treatment themselves. They are at varying degrees along the
way toward the cure of the soul, and they are able to direct others because of
their own experience. The medicines and facilities of the hospital are the Holy
Mysteries (sacraments). In Baptism, man is regenerated, is “born from above.”
In the Holy Eucharist, man receives, according to the phrase of St. Ignatius of
Antioch (1999, p. 151), the “medicine of immortality.” Confession and penance
are the spiritual equivalent of surgery. It is in confession that the hidden tumors
of the soul are laid bare for treatment. In addition to all of these, the
physician will prescribe various therapies, much in the same way that a
cardiologist will prescribe cardiac rehabilitation therapy. These therapies are
the Church’s ascetic disciplines: prayer, fasting, vigil, and obedience.
From the above, it is evident
that the cure of the soul requires both the grace of God and the
cooperation of the one seeking the cure. As the author of the Makarian Homilies
puts it, “We do not reach the final stage of spiritual maturity through divine
power and grace alone, without ourselves making every effort; but neither on
the other hand do we attain the final measure of freedom and purity as a result
of our own diligence and strength alone, apart from any divine assistance.”
[13] To return to the medical analogy, what good would it do for a doctor to
prescribe expensive drugs to a bad cardiac patient, if the patient insists on
smoking, continues to eat food with high levels of salt and cholesterol, and
refuses to exercise?
I cannot stress enough the
importance of ascetical effort. When confronted by obstinate demons whom the
Apostles were not able to exercise, Christ exclaimed that such demons can be
expelled only through prayer and fasting (cf. Mark 9:29). Of course, it is not
beyond the power of God to simply remove passions or inordinate desires from
us, but almost two thousand years of Christian history teaches that this is not
the usual modus operandi. Indeed the ascetical Fathers repeatedly say
that there is great virtue in the struggle itself.
Furthermore, simply refraining
from outward sin is insufficient. In the context of homosexual desire,
refraining from committing physical homosexual acts may not be terribly
difficult for many homosexuals, but this is not the same thing as healing. For
the Orthodox, the purpose of all spiritual effort is true God-likeness, not
mere moral improvement. Indeed the passions of the soul are more insidious and
dangerous than those of the body. Even if one has been able to manage one’s
bodily passions, that does not necessarily mean one has conquered all passions.
Nor, indeed, does ascetical effort guarantee sanctification if there is no
accompanying union with God. Ilias the Presbyter (1986, p. 55) writes:
Bodily passions
are like wild animals, while passions of the soul are like birds. The man
engaged in ascetic practice can keep the animals out of the noetic vineyard;
but unless he enters into a state of spiritual contemplation, he cannot keep
the birds away, however much he strives to guard himself inwardly. The man
engaged in ascetic practice cannot rise above ethical propriety, unless he goes
beyond the natural law—as Abraham went forth from his own land—and beyond his
own limited state of development—as Abraham left his kinsmen (cf. Gen. 12:1).
In this way, as a mark of God’s approval, he will be liberated from the
all-embracing hold of pleasure; for it is this veil of pleasure, wrapped around
us from our birth, that prevents us from receiving complete freedom.
The goal of Orthodox therapy,
therefore, is dispassion, which opens the soul to the possibility of
communion with God. As Bishop Hierotheos is at great pains to point out,
however, this is not the same as the stoic concept of dispassion. The goal here
is not an insensate state of apathy, but rather the redirection of man’s
natural energies (Hierotheos, 1994, p. 296). To put it another way, the goal is
transformation rather than eradication. Bishop Hierotheos goes on to state that
there are different levels of dispassion:
St. Maximus sets
out four degrees of dispassion. The first type of dispassion is observed in
beginners and is “complete abstention from the actual committing of sin.” In
this stage the man does not commit the acts outwardly. The second dispassion,
which occurs in the virtuous, is the complete rejection in the mind of all
assent to evil thoughts. The third dispassion, which is complete quiescence of
passionate desire, is found in the deified, and the fourth is the complete
purging even of passion-free images, in those who are perfect. It seems from
this passage that according to the degree of a man’s purity, the corresponding
dispassion is manifested. (1994, pp. 299–300)
There is no way to adequately
explain Orthodox ascetical theology in a few paragraphs. Allow me to conclude
this section, however, with a brief summary that will at least provide some
background for the critique of reorientation therapy that follows. (1) The goal
of human life is union with God. This is conceived not in terms of moral
imitation, but of genuine God-likeness (theosis, in Greek): to become by
grace what God is by nature. (2) Sin is the barrier between God and man not
because it offends God, but because it cripples man’s ability to relate to God.
(3) With the fall of man, sin becomes ingrained in man like a second nature.
Sin is not merely the result of bad choices, but is rooted in the passions,
which are the malfunctioning of man’s natural capacities. (4) Salvation is not
access to a cosmic theme park (the popular view of heaven), but union with God.
Salvation presupposes, therefore, the healing of man’s passions and the
restoration of his natural faculties. (5) Salvation is, therefore, a process of
healing—a therapeutic process. (6) In keeping with the original goal of
creation (1, above), this therapeutic process has as its goal not moral
improvement, but the total transformation of the passions and, ultimately, the
transcendence of man’s natural capacities.
V. REORIENTATION THERAPY
With this background let us
consider why modern reorientation therapy fails to “measure up,” as it were, to
the Orthodox standard of therapy. There are two separate, albeit related,
aspects of reorientation therapy that demand our attention. First of all, there
is the psychological explanation that lies behind most versions of this
therapy. This explanation seems to be shared by both secular and religiously
oriented therapists. Second, there are specifically Christian programs that
combine such therapy with prayer and support. I shall address each of these
aspects in turn.
Not all reorientation therapists
agree on the ultimate causes of homosexuality. [14] However, it is safe to say
that the predominant theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder
regarding gender identity. For whatever reasons—and therapists who hold this
view acknowledge that each case is different—the homosexual fails to identify
properly with the same-sex parent, prompting a crisis of his or her own gender
identity. [15] This may or may not be accompanied by an overbearing
relationship with the opposite-sex parent. [16] This failure to identify with
the same-sex parent occurs in very early childhood.
There are two problems with this
theory. The first problem has to do with the determination of causality. As in
many cases of concomitant variation, it is not immediately evident which is the
cause and which is the effect. Even assuming that the majority of homosexuals
have not properly gender identified with the same-sex parent, this may well be
the effect of a prior disposition, rather than the cause of later
homosexual desire. [17] If this were the case, then gender identification
therapy would be treating a symptom rather than the underlying cause.
The second problem is the
sufficiency of this profile in explaining the origins of homosexuality. Quite
simply, not all homosexuals fit the pattern. The stereotype of an effeminate
man with an overbearing mother is just that, a stereotype. Furthermore, there
are heterosexuals who fit the pattern to a tee. Part of the problem here is
that therapists only work with a minute minority of homosexuals, namely those
who are unhappy and come to the therapists for treatment. It may well be that a
high percentage of those who come for treatment fit the profile, but that does
not mean that all or even a high percentage of the homosexual population as a
whole fits the pattern.
If I may be permitted to address
the problem as a logician for a moment, I would put it this way: Let y stand
for the occasion in question; in this case, homosexual orientation. Let A, B,
C, D, E, and F stand for subjects, where half of the subjects are homosexual
and half are not. Thus, we have Ay, By, Cy, D, E, and F.
If we say that x is the determinative factor for occasion y in any given
subject, then we should see this pattern: Ayx, Byx, Cyx,
and D, E, F. However, the reality is more like this: Ayx, Byx, Cy,
D, E, Fx. If this is indeed the case, what conclusions can be drawn?
First of all the presence of factor x in a subject that does not exhibit
occasion y tells us that whatever the relationship between x and y,
x cannot be considered a sufficient cause for y. In other
words, the instance of a heterosexual who fails to properly gender identify
with the same-sex parent—and surely there are many—negates the possibility that
failure to gender identify is the sole cause of homosexuality. [18] In the same
way, the absence of factor x in subjects with occasion y negates the
possibility that x is a necessary cause for y. Thus, the failure
to gender identify can be considered neither a necessary nor sufficient cause
of homosexuality.
This does not mean that
the failure to gender identify is not a possible cause (among many).
From what I have read and observed, I would argue that homosexual orientation
is a multifaceted phenomenon with perhaps a multitude of possible causes, some
psychological and some, perhaps, genetic or biochemical. This is perfectly in
keeping with the Orthodox view that the passions are a complicated complex of
factors. The problem with reorientation therapy, however, is that it operates
with the assumption that a gender-identity deficiency is the primary, if not
the only, cause. Reorientation therapy is, therefore, reductionistic.
If Orthodox Christian theology is
true, that is, if God has indeed created man in His image, and if, as St. Paul
says, the union of man and woman in marriage is somehow related to the mystery
of the union of Christ with His Bride, the Church, then homosexual desire must
be as much of a spiritual condition as a psychological or physical condition.
Thus, to treat homosexuality as merely a psychological developmental disorder
is to ignore what may very well be the most important aspect of the issue. The
case is somewhat analogous to the modern attitude toward demonic possession. As
far as secular—and a great many Christian—therapists are concerned,
“possession” is nothing more than some sort of psychotic episode or disorder.
That one might actually be possessed by demons is never even considered. Now I
am not suggesting that homosexuality is caused by demons, merely trying to
point out that gender identity theory, whatever limited merits it may have, is
at root a secular and reductionistic explanation for a phenomenon that is to a
large degree spiritual and complex.
This brings us to specifically
Christian therapeutic programs, such as those promoted by Exodus International.
Although Exodus refers homosexuals to a variety of different ministries, there
does seem to be a general acceptance of the gender-identity theory. This is
evidenced most convincingly by the fact that Exodus and many of its partner
ministries insist on the importance of non-sexual, same-sex relationships as a
key factor in the healing process. However, these Christian therapies at least
recognize the spiritual dimension of the problem.
Perhaps it is because of this
realization that Christian reorientation theories are generally less bold in
their claims of success than their secular counterparts. While all affirm that
healing is possible, it is not so clear that all believe that homosexuals can
be converted into fully functional heterosexuals without any remaining
homoerotic desires. An Exodus FAQ puts it this way:
What’s your
“success rate” in changing gays into straights?
What you are
really asking is whether there is realistic hope for change for men and women
who do not want their sexual orientation to be homosexual. And the answer to
that is yes! (www.exodusnorthamerica.org)
[19]
Further on in the same FAQ, it is
stated: “Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30–50% are not
unusual, although ‘success rates’ vary considerably and the measurement of
change is problematic.” On the face of it, there should be little problem in
measuring success: one is either completely free of same-sex desire or one is
not. But things are not that clear-cut and Christian reorientation advocates
seem to realize this. [20]
The fact of the matter is that
the number of people who claim to have lost all same-sex desire is very
small—certainly less than 30%–50% of those who have undergone therapy. For the
secular reorientation therapists, the primary goal seems to be functional
heterosexuality, with a corresponding decrease in homosexual desire. This decrease,
however, need not be complete for most theorists to claim “success.”
Religion-based therapy programs, however, seem to focus more on behavior
modification (avoiding sinful acts) and identity (disavowing the “gay”
self-image). Indeed, when groups such as Exodus offer deliverance from
homosexuality, it appears that they really mean deliverance from the
“homosexual lifestyle.” This is not, however, the same thing as deliverance
from a true homoerotic orientation.
I would argue that the closest
analogy to Christian reorientation therapies would be Alcoholics Anonymous. The
alcoholic is not said to be completely “cured,” but is helped to stay “on the
wagon” and put his life back in order. Similarly, Christian programs provide
the wherewithal for a person to leave the “homosexual lifestyle” and find a new
identity as a Christian within a loving community that will reinforce positive
behavior and inhibit negative behavior (sin).
No Orthodox Christian would deny
that homosexual acts are sinful or that the “homosexual lifestyle” is
self-destructive. Furthermore, the question of identity is of paramount
importance: a Christian may certainly have homosexual desires, but a Christian cannot
identify himself as “gay” and remain Christian. Thus, an Orthodox Christian
would be hard pressed to find anything necessarily wrong with such an approach.
Certainly it is better to abstain from sin than commit it. However, this is a
far cry from dispassion, which is the goal of Orthodox therapy.
My problem with reorientation
therapies, whether secular or Christian, is not that they are incapable of
producing some change, but that this change is less than the healing of
the passions. Where secular therapy is concerned, simply replacing homosexual
lust with heterosexual lust is but a shallow victory. Christian therapy, on the
other hand, seems much less concerned with producing functioning heterosexuals
than with healing emotional wounds and providing the person struggling with
homosexuality the support needed to “re-identify” himself as a Christian and to
avoid the commission of homosexual acts (in thought as well as deed). To this
end, Christian therapy is much to be preferred over secular therapy. Yet, at
the risk of beating a dead horse, this is not the same as dispassion and
union with God.
Why are the Orthodox so insistent
on this point? The answer lies in the Orthodox understanding of salvation
outlined above. Sin is not a legal barrier between man and God; it is a
disease that renders man incapable of receiving God’s love as light and life.
The Orthodox do not assume, as do many Evangelical Protestants, that because
one had initiated a “relationship with Christ” one is definitively and
irrevocably “saved.” On the contrary, salvation is viewed as a process. The
transfiguration of the passions is a necessary element of this process. Thus,
ethics, for the Orthodox, is a matter of salvation.
The Orthodox Church fully agrees
with St. Cyprian’s famous statement that there is no salvation outside the
Church. This is a confession that the Church—and the Church alone—possesses the
therapeutic science necessary to heal man of his passions. Admittedly, this is
not a very “ecumenical” sentiment, but it is the belief of the Orthodox Church.
When, therefore, an Orthodox Christian is asked to evaluate sexual
reorientation therapies from an ethical perspective, he is bound to do so
against the backdrop of his own Orthodox understanding of sin and salvation.
There is nothing inherently wrong
with either the secular or the Christian reorientation therapies. Surely it is
ethical to offer those struggling with homosexual desire the opportunity to
find healing. Thus, all of these therapies are fine as far as they go; it is
just that from the standpoint of eternity, they do not go very far.
NOTES
1. For reasons that shall become apparent, I am reluctant to
use the term “homosexual.” At this point in the discussion, suffice it to say
that the more correct term would be “person(s) with a homosexual orientation.”
As this phrase is exceedingly cumbersome, however, I am yielding to the modern
convention of using the term “homosexual.” My use of “homosexual” as a
substantive, however, should not be construed to imply any “ontology” of sexual
orientation.
2. Alternate terms are “reparative” and “conversion” therapy.
3. The statement was prepared by the APA Committee on Gay,
Lesbian and Bisexual Issues and is dated September 11, 1998. The statement was
unanimously adopted by the APA’s Board of Trustees during its meeting of
December 11/12, 1998.
4. Notice that St. Paul mentions women turning away from the
natural desire for men before speaking of male homosexual desire. This is the
only place I know of where the writers of Scripture mention lesbianism. This
makes perfect sense in this context, however, for in the Pauline typology it is
creation—the female—that has turned from its natural desire for God—the male.
Paul mentions male homosexual desire almost as an afterthought. This is not to
suggest that male homosexuality is less sinful or somehow less of an image of
the fall—no doubt St. Paul wanted to avoid that interpretation—but it does
explain why St. Paul mentions lesbianism here.
5. There is an inherent narcissism in homosexual desire, but
is this not also an image of the fallen state of humanity—human nature obsessed
with itself?
6. Plato (1968, 435a–445e). For a detailed discussion of the
patristic appropriation of this schema see Staniloae (2002, pp. 96–108).
7. Some Fathers treat the passions as an inherent evil to be
eradicated. I would argue, however, that this is a minority viewpoint. See
Bishop Kallistos Ware’s definition of “passion” in The Philokalia, Vol. 1, pp.
363–364. Boston: Faber and Faber, 1988.
8. Cf. Romanides (2002, esp. pp. 17–39).
9. Cf. Maximus the Confessor, Opscula Theologica et
Polemica 20 (PG 91, 236C–D). “Pure and simply human, our will is not
in any way impeccable, because of its inclination which is produced sometimes
in one sense, sometimes in another. This inclination does not change the
nature, but it detours the movement, or to speak in a manner more correctly, it
changes the mode. It is clear in fact that the one who does many things
contrary to reason never transforms his rational nature into irrational.”
10. In Book VII of The Republic (515c–e), Plato states
that the man suddenly released from his fetters and turned toward the reality
of life outside the cave would not, at first, believe his eyes.
11. In this section, I have drawn heavily from the writings
of Metropolitan Hierotheos. I particularly recommend The Illness and Cure of
the Soul in the Orthodox Tradition (1993) and Orthodox Psychotherapy:
The Science of the Fathers (1994).
12. Cf. this passage from the Makarian homilies: “What is the
will of God that St. Paul urges and invites each of us to attain? It is total
cleansing from sin, freedom from the shameful passions, and the acquisition of
the highest virtue. In other words, it is the purification and sanctification
of the heart that comes about through fully experienced and conscious
participation in the perfect and divine Spirit.” (St. Makarios of Egypt, 1986,
p. 285).
13. St. Makarios of Egypt (1986, p. 285).
14. Some therapists are agnostic on the subject, tailoring
their therapy to the desire of the patient. If the patient is unhappy as a
homosexual and wants to change, the therapist will act accordingly. This is
done without any prejudice as to the normality of homosexuality.
15. One of the chief proponents of this theory is an Orthodox
Christian, Dr. Elizabeth Moberly. Cf. Moberly 1982 & 1983.
16. The overbearing mother and the “momma’s boy” is a common
stereotype. However, the point of the gender identity theory is that it is not
the relationship with the opposite-sex parent that is determinative, but the
failure to identify with the same-sex parent.
17. Andrew Sullivan (1995, p.10) makes this point. This is
perhaps the most cogently presented argument for the rights of homosexuals.
18. Lest I be accused of sleight of hand here, while a
sufficient cause need not be the sole cause, the sole cause must be the
sufficient cause.
19. I am normally loath to reference internet sites in formal
papers. I am making an exception in this case because this material is not
scholarly material available from a library. Those who wish to view Exodus
materials may do so at www.exodusnorthamerica.org
20. This same ambiguity as to what constitutes success is to
be found in Orthodox writers as well. Fr. John Breck (1998, pp. 116–117) lauds
organizations such as Exodus as “invaluable” and affirms the possibility of
true change, yet in the very next paragraph he writes, “It is clear, however,
that the homosexual condition is often irreversible: the orientation is
permanent.”
REFERENCES
Breck, Fr. John. (1998). The sacred gift of life: Orthodox
Christianity and bioethics. Crestwood, NY: SVS Press.
Ignatius of Antioch, St. (1999). Epistle to the Ephesians.
In: Michael W. Holmes (Ed.), The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English
translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books.
Ilias the Presbyter. (1986). Gnomic Anthology IV. In:
Sts. Nikodimos and Makarios (Eds.), (G.E.H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, &
Kallistos Ware, Trans.), The Philokalia, Vol. 3. Boston: Faber and
Faber.
Makarios of Egypt, St. (1986). Spiritual Perfection.
In: Sts. Nikodimos and Makarios (Eds.), (G.E.H. Palmer, P. Sherrard, & K.
Ware, Trans.), The Philokalia, Vol. 3. Boston: Faber and Faber.
Maximus the Confessor, St. (1857-1866). Opscula Theologica
et Polemica. In: J.P. Minge (Ed.), Patrologia Graeca 91:9–285.
Moberly, E. (1982). Psychogenesis: The early development
of gender identity. London: Kegan Paul.
Moberly, E. (1983). Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic.
Cambridge: James Clarke.
Plato. (1968). The Republic of Plato (A. Bloom,
Trans.). Basic Books.
Romanides, J. (2002). The Ancestral Sin (G. S.
Gabriel, Trans.). Ridgewood, NJ: Zephyr.
Staniloae, D. (2002). Orthodox Spirituality
(Archimandrite J. Newville and O. Kloos,Trans.). South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s
Seminary Press.
Sullivan, A. (1995). Virtually normal: An argument about
homosexuality. New York: Vintage.
Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1993). The illness and cure of the
soul in the Orthodox tradition. Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos
Monastery.
Vlachos, Hierotheos. (1994). Orthodox psychotherapy: The
science of the Fathers. Levadia, Greece: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery.
Source: Christian Bioethics, Vol. 10, Issues 2-3,
February 2004, pp. 137–153.
