58 - Christians Against Christian Therapy

In this edition of R4R, we return to a review of the Amicus Briefs submitted in the Chiles v. Salazar Supreme Court case. There, we encounter the startling addition of several ministry leaders who claim to support the Christian sexual ethic but oppose mental health professionals applying it in therapy. These individuals are Gregory Coles, Joshua Proctor, Bill Henson, Dr. Julia Sadusky, Dr. Michele Willingham, and Dr. Nathan Willis.

Gregory Coles works for Preston Sprinkle’s “Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender,” and his work has been covered extensively in R4R.[1] Joshua Proctor describes himself as “a Spiritual Director, LGBT+ Inclusion Consultant, Educator, Podcaster, and Pastor, defining “Inclusion Consultant” as offering “training on LGBT+ inclusion and equity for teams and organizations both in secular and religious spheres.” He hosts several podcasts from a “Side-B” perspective and has worked for Posture Shift. Bill Henson is the founder of Posture Shift, which has “four missional goals: enhance church inclusion, increase family acceptance, protect against victimization, and nourish faith identity in LGBT+ lives.”[2] All three of these men have spoken at past Revoice conferences.

Dr. Julia Sadusky “is a licensed clinical psychologist in Colorado and a Catholic Christian.”[3] She spoke at the infamous “Unconditional Conference“ hosted by Andy Stanley’s church in September 2023, and has coauthored two books with Dr. Mark Yarhouse.[4] She was also a keynote speaker at the 2025 Revoice conference.

Dr. Nathan Willis, is a Christian and “a licensed mental health counselor in Florida” in private practice. “He has served as an adjunct faculty member at the University of South Florida and Liberty University.”[5]

Dr. Michele Willingham, is “a licensed clinical psychologist in California and an Evangelical Christian. … She is active in the California Psychological Association and serves on the American Psychological Association Commission for Accreditation, which is the primary programmatic accreditor in the United States for professional education and training in psychology.”[6] Dr. Willingham has a private practice and also currently serves as the Director of the Biola Counseling Center at the Rosemead School of Psychology, overseeing the education of all counseling students at the school.

To find these individuals actively involved in petitioning our government to outlaw exploratory talk therapy for those with unwanted same sex attractions and distress about their gender is stunning. This is the kind of therapy I found beneficial, and I am so thankful Christian counselors were able to provide it.

Similar laws have been used to set up tribunals seeking to punish anyone who prays with someone who has unwanted same sex attractions in Australia and Canada. This ban also directly impacts those who experience confusion/insecurity about their gender, creating the pathway for “affirmation” through medicalization as the only option for those seeking professional care. The ripple effects of these types of laws prevent research into the fluidity of attractions and reconciliation with one’s biological sex. Restricting talk therapy also reduces the quality of care available for individuals in these circumstances.

Exploring the Briefs

In the brief filed by Coles, Proctor, and Henson, we find disappointing statements from Coles and Henson. Coles writes:

My voice speaks in unity with a growing group of gay Christians who are committed to historic Christian beliefs about sexuality and who live according to these beliefs while also accepting the psychological consensus about the reality of sexual orientation, the unreliability of sexual fluidity as a strategy for pursuing heterosexuality, and the inefficacy of sexual orientation change efforts.[7]

The “psychological consensus about the reality of sexual orientation” is continuing to deteriorate as more studies verify the fluidity of identity, behavior, and attractions. The framework of sexual orientation does not hold up theologically, philosophically, or scientifically. There is no evidence regarding “the unreliability of sexual fluidity as a strategy for pursuing heterosexuality.” People who experience attractions to the same sex find that their attractions, identity, and behaviors change across their lifetime – this isn’t a “strategy,” it’s simply a fact of life. Every study done on sexual orientation change efforts demonstrates some degree of success, even though these studies, for the most part, do not live up to rigorous scientific standards. We need more research in this area to improve results, rather than bans that make it impossible for anyone to learn more.

Coles also states in this brief:

My primary concern in Chiles v. Salazar is not how the Court rules on Colorado law, but whether the Court’s ruling recognizes the crucial legislative distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior.

The “distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior” is an odd nit to pick, as “sexual orientation” typically includes behavior, attractions, and identity, each of which has been demonstrated to change over the course of an individual’s lifetime, particularly among those who have experienced attractions to the same sex. And this is even more common among young people (especially in an age where kids have experienced more exposure to sexual orientation ideology in school and culture than in any prior era):

Among adolescents and youth — fluidity is more common (identity, attraction, behavior)

· A 2023‑2024 longitudinal study of U.S. [non-trans-identifying] youth (ages 13–20 at baseline) found substantial fluidity: across multiple waves from 2010‑2019, sexual minority identities increased over time; same-gender sexual behavior increased too. CDC Stacks+1

· Another 2025 prospective study of youth (roughly 14–25) found 12.8% changed their reported sexual‑orientation identity between baseline and follow-up; and 21.9% reported changes in attractions. PubMed

· Retrospective self‑reports in that same study were lower (5.0% recalled identity change; 12.4% recalled attraction change) — showing that method (prospective vs retrospective) matters a lot. PubMed

· A synthesis of adolescent research (2022) estimated that among youth, identity fluidity rates vary widely depending on measurement, with many surveys finding 18–37% (females) and 6–16% (males) reporting a change over short periods. Statistical Modeling+1[8]

Henson’s reasoning to support the ban against exploratory talk therapy is ridiculous. He writes:

In 19 years of full-time work in this space, we have never encountered any individual who reported that their faith or healing journey was dependent upon access to a licensed conversion therapy counselor.[9]

Perhaps this is because Christians tend to credit Jesus as the One they rely on in their faith or healing journey. What an astonishing red herring! It is difficult to take Henson seriously after reading this. No one labels themselves as a “licensed conversion therapy counselor.” “Conversion therapy” is widely regarded as a slanderous term, especially among Christians. One would think that after almost 20 years in ministry, Henson would be well aware of this. Disagreeing with the ministry approaches of fellow Christians is one thing, but using limited, biased personal experience to file a brief to the Supreme Court to make exploratory therapy illegal takes things to a completely different level.

We will continue to examine the statements of these individuals in the next edition of R4R.

[1] Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part VII Manipulation, Aug 3, 2023

Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part VI Boundaries, Aug 1, 2023

Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part V Family Confusion, Jul 27, 2023

Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part IV Lost the Plot, Jul 18, 2023

Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part III Fixation, Jul 13, 2023

Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part II, Jul 11, 2023

Bad Idea Jeans – A Paper on Celibate Partnerships, Part I Framework, Jul 6, 2023

A Framework of Bad Ideas – A Book Review, Part III, Jul 12, 2022

A Framework of Bad Ideas – A Book Review, Part II, Jul 7, 2022

A Framework of Bad Ideas – A Book Review, Part I, Jul 5, 2022

Terminology, Labels, and Language – Part 3 – Within Christendom, Dec 31, 2020

Terminology, Labels, and Language – Part 2 Changing Trends, Dec 30, 2020

Terminology, Labels, and Language – Part 1, Dec 28, 2020

[2] https://postureshift.com/about/

[3] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/370705/20250826104808419_24-539%20Chiles%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

[4] Emerging Gender Identities: Understanding the Diverse Experiences of Today’s Youth (Brazos Press) and Gender Identity & Faith: Clinical Postures, Tools and Case Studies for Client-Centered Care (Intervarsity Press)

[5] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/370705/20250826104808419_24-539%20Chiles%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

[6] Ibid.

[7] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/370617/20250825134315970_Chiles%20v%20Salazar%20Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20Gregory%20Coles%20Joshua%20Proctor%20and%20Bill%20Henson.pdf pg 4

[8] Chat GPT search

[9] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/370617/20250825134315970_Chiles%20v%20Salazar%20Brief%20of%20Amici%20Curiae%20Gregory%20Coles%20Joshua%20Proctor%20and%20Bill%20Henson.pdf pg 11