Thursday August 26, 2021
I no longer believe in conversions. I mention this, because conversion therapy has become an election issue.
I had a classic conversion experience, once -- down on my knees, acknowledging my sinful nature, turning my life over to Jesus, emerging wrung out and tearful.
In truth, I’ve probably had a dozen conversion experiences. They might better be called Epiphanies -- moments when the pieces I had been shuffling suddenly snapped into place, a “Aha!” moment.
A couple of friends have been trying to change my mind -- and I theirs -- on several topics for about 20 years. I see no sign that I have influenced them.
And all they have done for me is push me farther along the direction I was already going.
Difficult to change
A gerontologist at Ryerson University, Gretta Riddell-Dixon, once explained that as we grow older, we become more like what we’ve always been.
People do change. But never, it seems to me, as a result of anything I have said or done. If change comes, it results from a self-analysis -- what they say, how they react, how they handle themselves.
People tend to hear agreement or disagreement, not facts. What you hear or read gets mixed with other things that you have heard or read. What your brain perceives is an amalgam of these, arranged according to your own preferences.
Philosopher and psychiatrist Frantz Fanon wrote, "Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance.
“Because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief."
No one ever got talked out of alcohol or drug or gambling addiction. They had to recognize their own weakness -- usually by hitting bottom -- before they could start back up.
Conversion therapy, to my mind, is a way of forcing people to hit rock-bottom against their will. You set up a situation where the victim desperately wants a break from the constant barrage of pressure to change. Sleep deprivation. Tag-team arguments. Aversion training. Noise. Pain. Never left alone.
Yes yes yes I’ll do it, I’ll agree to anything, just so I can get some relief…
Bingo. Suddenly everything’s wonderful. Everyone loves you!
Coercion
But that’s not free will. That’s not free choice. And that’s why I’m against conversion therapy as a means of changing someone’s mind.
First, because it’s too narrow. In its present context, conversion therapy deals only with sexual orientation. Only seven verses in the Bible -- out of over 30,000 -- condemn homosexuality.
By contrast, around 2,500 verses focus on our obsessions with money and wealth.
And second, because conversion therapy imposes one group’s will on an individual. It’s a pressure tactic. It denies individuals their right -- better, their responsibility -- to make up their own mind.
Conversion therapy is not about family discussions. It’s a form of bullying. It is not loving; it is brutal.
Persuasion is legitimate. Discussion is legitimate. Coercion is not. Regardless of the subject matter.
*****************************************
Copyright © 2021 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups, and links from other blogs, welcomed; all other rights reserved.
To comment on this column, write jimt@quixotic.ca
*****************************************
YOUR TURN
Last week’s column looked at the values of making communication personal.
Isabel Gibson recalled the line, "You talkin' to me?" from the movie Taxi Driver. “The line has moved into our culture,” she wrote. “The people I know use it as a joke -- a mock-aggressive challenge. But it's the question we all ask in many ways.
“When we break out of our mission orientation long enough to look up, startled, when a clerk calls out ‘Good day!’ from behind a cash register as tall as she is. You talkin' to me?
“When another shopper says, ‘Avocados are all about planning’ as we stand looking at a pile of rock-hard green lumps. You talkin' to me?
“When a fellow elevator-trappee says, ‘I like your scarf.’ You talkin' to me?
“Some of these interactions are scripted and painfully artificial; some are spontaneous and merely unexpected; some are genuine connection. I see you, and yes, I'm talkin' to you.
“There are risks in getting personal even at this superficial level (never mind on contentious topics) but it's what we all need, I think, even if we don't always welcome it.”
Steve Roney wanted to make a distinction: “There are two separate issues here, both being referred to by the term ‘personal’; it might be better to distinguish them as ‘personalize’ and ‘humanize.’
“You say, for example, that COVID rates don’t mean anything until a person you know is affected. That is ‘personal’ in the first sense, i.e., self-referential.
“It is similarly wrong to ‘take things personally’ when a general principle is at stake: that is putting yourself before others. It violates the universal moral principle: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
“The reason the revamp of Wood Lake’s editorial schedule worked, on the other hand, is not because it made things self-referential, but because it humanized things. Mary did not work harder because she was named, but because David was. She was always on the hook if the job did not get done, but now she did not want to let David down. It was not self-referenced but other-referenced.
“The value of humanizing and individualizing things, as opposed to self-referencing, is indeed important. This is one reason why the incarnation is vital, why it is necessary and necessarily correct to conceive of God as a personal being. This is the same point Buber makes with his ‘I-Thou’ relationship. We must understand God as a person, like ourselves. Indeed, every encounter with another person is indirectly an encounter with God: personhood or thou-ness is the essential divine attribute.”
Dave Winans offered a different distinction “to your assertion that everything is personal. I suggest that everything that we choose to be personal is as you say, personal. Consequently, this avid sports fan chooses to have no interest in National Basketball Association activities.
“Our ability to differentiate personal from impersonal has significant ramifications. For example, I take the COVID19 pandemic personally. This leads me to conclude that wearing a mask and getting vaccinated are contributions I make toward making all people safe. My nieces have decided to not mask and to not get vaccinated. Argh! I chose to set aside my personal pandemic choice in order to listen and learn the rationale underlying my nieces’ no mask, no vaccine actions. One result of the conversation is that we disagree on masks and vaccinations. Another result is that we personally choose our relationship to have priority over our pandemic choices.
“Our ability to choose when, what, where, and with whom we are personal will determine perpetuity!”
*****************************************
Psalm paraphrase
The NRSV calls Psalm 45 an “Ode for a Royal Wedding.” Would it be heretical to suggest that it feels more like sucking up to the corporate CEO?
1 Thank you for taking time to see me.
I’m so grateful.
2 I know you have much more important things to deal with;
you move in circles far beyond me.
6 This is a marvelous office you have here.
The view over the city is spectacular.
It makes all the other corporate towers look insignificant.
7 You make the rules we must follow;
You don’t bend them for anybody.
8 Your business suits must be hand-tailored, they fit you so well.
Is your after-shave custom-made for you too?
9 And your secretary is stunning!
Oh, and competent too.
She must be a joy to work with.
I would like to be more like you.
You can find paraphrases of most of the psalms in the Revised Common Lectionary in my book Everyday Psalmsavailable from Wood Lake Publishing, info@woodlake.com.