reaction formation…

Posted on Wednesday 5 May 2010

The Family Research Council responded to TPM with this statement about Dr. George Rekers:
    In the past 24 hours FRC has received calls regarding Dr. George Rekers and his connection with the Family Research Council. After reviewing the historical records we did verify that Dr. Rekers was a member of the original Family Research Council board prior to its merger with Focus on the Family in 1987.

    Reports have been circulating regarding Dr. Rekers relationship with a male prostitute. FRC has had no contact with Dr. Rekers or knowledge of his activities in over a decade so FRC can provide no further insight into these allegations.

    While we are extremely disappointed when any Christian leader engages in the very activities that they "preach" against, it is not surprising. The Scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people. We each have a choice to act upon that nature or accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and do our best to ensure our actions, both public and private match our professed positions.
Something about this bothers me. Oh, it’s not the lame attempt to disavow Rekers ["After reviewing the historical records we did verify that Dr. Rekers was a member of the original Family Research Council board prior to its merger with Focus on the Family"], as if they didn’t know. It’s this part that sounds odd, "The Scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people. We each have a choice to act upon that nature or accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and do our best to ensure our actions, both public and private match our professed positions."

I suppose that this is consistent with their party line, but it just sounds odd. They are equating homosexuality with the "fallen nature of all people," implying it’s something we each have and should fight against. They go on to say that "[w]e each have a choice to act upon that nature or" do something else – which is to "accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and do our best to ensure our actions, both public and private, match our professed positions."

I’m having trouble finding a way to say what seems so odd about this phraseology. Homosexuality is equated with sin – and it’s in all of us? We can then either give in to it, or we can "do our best" to live up to our "professed positions" [that homosexuality is a sin?]. There’s a generalization in this that sounds like Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden on the one hand, and all people are homosexual or at least have sinful homosexual impulses, on the other.

So, while they are "extremely disappointed when any Christian leader engages in the very activities that they preach against, it is not surprising." Since everyone struggles with homosexual impulses, they aren’t surprised when some of them give in to those urges. I would presume that they mean that Christian leaders that preach against homosexuality struggle with homosexual urges of their own – so it’s not surprising that Pastor Ted, Doctor George, and others are repeatedly exposed as having homosexual trysts – slips.

I think a lot of the rest of us believe that too – that the very people that get into the anti-Gay [ex-Gay, Focus on the Family, Family Research Center, NARTH, etc.] business are constitutionally homosexual men who are struggling internally with their sexual urges and working to be heterosexual. I actually think that James Dobson is a gay man "by nature," for example. I suppose that would be fine with me [and most everyone else] if they didn’t demonize other homosexuals, didn’t campaign against gay marriage, didn’t block other gay people from adopting, didn’t become purveyors of hatred and negative labeling. And it may well be that these homosexual men who are working at living heterosexually are doing something that’s difficult and requires a lot of support, but that doesn’t mean they have the right to hurt other people in the process [I’m reminded of some priests who apparently choose a celibate life to run from sexual urges towards children, and then "give in"]. 

It’s fine for these men to reject their own homosexuality if that’s what they choose to do. What’s not fine is for them to ask the rest of us to reject homosexuality in general in order to bolster their own choices [see reaction formation].
  1.  
    May 5, 2010 | 11:39 PM
     

    I checked out the NARTH website, http://www.narth.com. One of their mottoes is: “Helping clients bring their desires and behaviors into harmony with their values.”

    George Rekers, MD is one of 12 members of the governing Board and also a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee, along with our own Atlanta colleague Downing Tait.

    Although they have a section called “News Watch,” it consists of rather old summaries or critiques of stuff in the media and journals. News of Dr. Rekers’ vacation trip with a “travel assistant” hasn’t found its way onto the News Watch yet.

  2.  
    May 6, 2010 | 12:05 AM
     

    “Helping clients bring their desires and behaviors into harmony with their values” Looks like it worked for Rekers. I’ve been reading Rekers’ science all day off and on. Pretty pitiful…

  3.  
    Carl
    May 6, 2010 | 12:44 PM
     

    Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve seen the Sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ on CNN a few times and thought “man, this guy puts me in mind of J. Edgar Hoover’s girlfriend”. Now that I understand that we are all gay (FRC), I feel rather better.

    Hypocrisy is wearisome wherever it may be found.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.