60 - Christians Against Christian Therapy Part III

In this series, we’ve been reviewing the amicus briefs to the US Supreme Court filed by numerous Christian leaders in favor of the ban against making Godly professional counseling available to young people who are confused about their gender or sexuality. We will continue examining the statement of Joshua Proctor, who joined Gregory Coles and Bill Henson in one of these briefs.

Proctor makes the following claim:

“Minors from traditional religious communities cannot make a free and informed decision to pursue efforts to change their orientation or identity because they internalize the message often reinforced by parents, faith leaders, and peers that their acceptance, dignity, and even salvation depend on change.”[1]

Licensed Professional Counselor Andrew Rodriguez notes, “That is quite an assumption to make, such a sweeping judgment of all traditional religious communities.”[2] We cannot presume that all minors with questions about their sexuality or gender are receiving legalistic messages from their parents, faith leaders, or peers. This conjecture is typical among Side-B leaders. While minors cannot make informed decisions about the consequences of medicalization in an attempt to change their sex, they can make informed decisions about exploratory talk therapy. Rodriguez also reminds us that not everyone seeking such therapy comes from a religious background:

I’ve got some [minor] clients…who sought therapy from me. They initiated seeking counseling, and they come from a little more moderate-to-liberal home. They’re the ones who initiated. Their parents are actually pretty gay affirming. Shouldn’t they have access? Shouldn’t they have the ability to seek out the counseling that aligns with their values?

In an effort to prevent the bad counseling Proctor may have participated in, he is willing to deny any younger person access to good counseling. Rodriguez suspects that Proctor was indeed raised in a strict spiritual environment:

I mean, just look at how he goes on. Quote, “This remains true even when loved ones claim acceptance because the underlying belief of conversion therapy is that LGBT orientations and identities are more corrupt than that of heterosexual and cisgender peers, which communicates that they are less than unless change occurs. When these youth regularly hear negative or exclusionary messages about LGBT people and are told their salvation depends on therapeutic outcomes, especially from their loved ones, they internalize those messages as directed at them.”

There is so much jumping to conclusions and overgeneralizing cognitive distortions in this statement. It’s amazing to me that this was submitted as a brief to the Supreme Court. Baseless generalizations and saying that pretty much…if they don’t experience the change they want, they will be uh totally shamed and be suicidal after that.

Throughout his statement, Proctor repeatedly asserts that all exploratory talk therapy in a professional environment is directly connected to the idea that one’s salvation hinges on changes in attractions, identity, and/or behaviors. This is not a realistic portrayal of what happens in a clinical setting, nor is this a mainstream belief in Christian circles. I can understand how this raises the possibility that part of the problem Proctor had was due to cultish spiritual beliefs, not therapy in itself.[3]

Rodriguez continues:

So exactly what was the incriminating thing his therapist did? Well, he says, quote, “In my case, my therapist from NARTH[4] believed that my sexual orientation was rooted in the challenges of my relationship with my father as well as my lack of healthy connection with male peers. Not only did this belief put strain on my relationship with my father as the cause of my attractions, but it caused my father to struggle with unnecessary guilt because of this narrative. Through intentional, honest conversation, we rebuilt our relationship, and today it is the strongest and healthiest it has ever been.”

Okay. So, he’s saying…his therapist proposed pretty much the developmental model explanation for his same sex attraction. And he’s saying that this caused a poor relationship with his dad. But at the same time, he seems to be acknowledging that there were challenges in his relationship with his dad.

Well, let’s use the same logic here, that same argument for a teen seeing a counselor for some other issue, like, say, depression. And what if, in the course of hearing the client’s story, the therapist suggested that the root of the client’s depression was the client’s experience of emotional disconnection with the father? Would that necessarily cause the client increased distress and irresolvable, unnecessary guilt and shame in the father?

No. Even if the therapist was way off, that that wasn’t the cause of the depression, that shouldn’t be sufficient or necessary to cause the distress the client is experiencing. How that became his outcome, I don’t know. You know, we’re only hearing his side. We’re not hearing the therapist’s side.

…But my main point is simply that just because the therapists are proposing …whether we’re talking about sexual attraction or a lack of attraction…in the realm of emotions, or if we’re talking about another emotional situation like depression. If that therapist proposes a theory that at the root of it is attachment issues or family dynamics, that is not necessarily going to be harmful.[5]

Again, we see a repeated theme of jumping to conclusions and projecting this onto others. Not everyone will respond to the examination of family dynamics in the same way that Proctor has. I doubt the therapist Proctor saw was blatantly blaming his father for causing his attractions to the same sex. Rodriguez goes on to clarify the counseling process:

My colleagues, even those who are trained by Nicolosi, if they had someone who was a minor and it’s clear to them that one of the main root issues is a lack of connection between the client and his father. Well, what are they going to do? They’re going to be encouraging better connection with the dad. They’re going to be encouraging the dad to enter into his son’s world, not try to make his son conform to him and his expectations or his vision of masculinity, but be more curious about what is your son interested in? Your son seems to like the arts more or writing or books or fiction. Show more interest in that. Don’t just try to get him to do sports because that’s what you like. You know, this is something common that we see.

So, just as an example, don’t know if that’s the case for Joshua here, but they’re going to be working with the family generally. I think of some of the main therapists I know within the Alliance who were trained by Nicoloi, and their main thing when they’re working with minors is to increase family connection and parent-child relationships and strengthen those bonds. Put the sexual orientation issues to the side.

…Stop focusing on the sexual attractions or gender identity issues as much as just building that bond. This is the approach I take when I work with minors.[6]

Strengthening one’s relationship with their parents is a common theme in any counseling of youth, and it is not a bad thing to work on. Rodriguez reminds us that this is “one anecdote” from one perspective, and this is not representative of everything one may discuss with their client in exploratory talk therapy. I agree with him that, “There’s a lot that’s left unsaid here about what the actual treatment was.”

The critiques of exploratory talk therapy consistently rely upon mischaracterizations of what the treatment actually involves. It is so easy to take what may well have been a bad experience with counseling and surmise that it represents the entire field of care. Thankfully, quality care exists, as I can readily attest from my own experience with professional counselors.

In the next edition of this series, we will review the Amicus Brief filed by leaders with ties to Christian Colleges and Universities.

[1] 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 8

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgGHSSvJKGc

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://www.therapeuticchoice.com/

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgGHSSvJKGc

[6] Ibid.