text:
Posts tagged 'gay'
A Christian Psychology of and Response to Homosexuality
The Counseling Moment Editor's Note: The below article taken from a lecture by Dr. Sam Williams is lengthy but well worth the time invested to read. It presents an excellent, truthful, and graceful Christian perspective of this ongoing topic based on research under-girded by biblical thought.
Source: Taken from a lecture — Biblical Counseling Coalition by © 2011 Sam R. Williams, Ph.D.
Homosexuality has not been a biblical abstraction in my life. That doesn't mean I am coming out of the closet here. The skeletons in my closet don't look quite like that; they are probably worse, and they are not the topic of this lecture, thank God.
What it means is Dale: my best friend in college coming over to announce that he was gay and therefore intended to kill himself on his 23rd birthday–and then me spending the next year talking him out of suicide.
What it means is Roger: my roommate while in grad school, who died of AIDS before medicine learned how to keep people with HIV alive. Our last conversation on the phone a few hours before he died was one-way because he could no longer speak. It was just me sharing the gospel with him, trying to point him to Jesus again, knowing that was the day he would meet the Maker.
Dale and Roger, both dear friends, responded to same-sex attraction (SSA) by "coming out of the closet" and adopting a gay identity, a much less popular step to take in the '70s than in 2011.
But of course things have changed, to the point that such a step now may earn popularity points.
In a Gallup poll in 2010, for the first time a majority of Americans, 52%, called homosexuality morally acceptable, while only 43% said it is immoral.
For younger evangelicals, homosexuality is not a moral abstraction for them either. For them it brings familiar and friendly faces to mind immediately. For me now, as an elder in my church and a counseling professor in a Baptist seminary, I think of Terry and Karl and Dave (and I could go on) committed Christian men who came for counseling because no matter how much they tried, their sexual compass pointed more to men than women.
These men have had to grapple with the meaning of same-sexual desires.
• Does this mean I am Gay?
• Was I born this way?
• Did God make me this way?
• I surely wouldn't set my own compass in this direction. If God's design is for heterosexuality, what happened to me?
• I don't think I chose this, so can I choose my way out of it? Can my sexual compass be reset, redirected through prayer or some array of spiritual practices or through counseling or therapy?
• If I didn't choose to point my sexual compass in this direction, is it sinful?
• Do I repent of SSA…or is it merely a temptation and that I need to resist it as one would any temptation?
So that is the topic of this lecture – A Christian Psychology of and Biblical Response to Homosexuality.
How to think about the homosexuality of my friends was one of the first major cultural challenges I faced when I became a believer in my late twenties. The condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible didn't make sense to me. As a psychologist and an aspiring empiricist, I could see that homosexuality was atypical and in a sense abnormal, but does it really have to be wrong? Maybe it's just different, like left-handedness, or perhaps it's some type of disorder some people are unwillingly afflicted with – but this is a form of neurosis that requires treatment, and not a moral or spiritual issue.
Eventually however, regardless of my own attitudes toward homosexuality, it seemed clear, and beyond any hermeneutically sensible doubt that Scripture forbids and condemns both homosexual practice and passions, and does so using hard-nosed terms such as "shameful, unnatural, and dishonorable" in Romans 1, "unrighteous" in 1 Corinthians 6.9 and 1 Timothy 1.9-10, and "detestable" or "an abomination" in Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13.
Surely, homosexuality is a watershed issue with respect to the interpretation, authority, and relevance of Scripture. But that is not the torch I am bearing here. My intent in this lecture is not to provide a biblical theology or ethical analysis of homosexuality. (See Robert Gagnon's book The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001.)
I am going to presume the majority opinion, a conservative biblical hermeneutic and sexual ethic that views every aspect of homosexuality as a product of the fall and of sin–that it's not the way it's supposed to be. And, I shall avoid the political squabbles so ever-present in media world.
Even though political issues are not unimportant, I do believe that following Jesus at this point in God's plan is more rescue mission than culture war.
Someday when He is ready, Jesus will win the culture war, overwhelmingly–after His rescue mission is complete. And that mission is our mission for the time at hand, and also it is the mission of this paper.
I want in particular to note my debt to Mark Yarhouse and Ed Welch, both Christian psychologists whose thinking and writing in this area have in my estimation been seminal.
How will the church understand persons who struggle with SSA, and what should the hope and help that we offer look like?
What should you say to your friend or your son or your daughter if they come to you and say, "I think I'm gay."? How did their sexual compass get so offset?
Can they change, and if so, what type of change can be expected, even hoped for?
How will you counsel and minister to them?
Effective ministry, according to David Powlison, requires of us a triple exegesis: of Scripture, of people, and of this beautiful and crazy world in which we live.
The movement from Scripture to real lives in this world requires careful and clear-eyed understanding of all three. So, what I have tried to do is listen first to the Bible and then to the social sciences – at least those parts of them that from my perspective deserve a hearing. Let's start with defining what we are talking about, with a few descriptions and definitions.
Mark Yarhouse helpfully differentiates same sex attraction, homosexual orientation, and a gay identity. (see 1st figure, p. 16)
(1) Same-sex attraction is an intentionally descriptive term describing the direction of a person's sexual desire. SSA can vary in strength and also in durability or longevity. It can be weak or moderate or strong, and it can be temporary or enduring. The term "SSA" is merely descriptive and says nothing about how a person feels about his or her sexual attraction, or what they intend to do or actually do with their sexual desires, nor does it say anything about their identity – who they are or how they label themselves.
Approximately 6% of men and 4.5% of women report experiencing at least some degree of same sex attraction (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, and Michaels, 1994).
(2) Same-Sex Orientation (SSO) is the term I prefer to use since the term homosexual often connotes an identity. What it means is that some people experience SSA in such a manner that it is predominant compared to opposite-sex attraction, and such that it is strong and durable and persistent. Like the term, SSA, SSO is a merely descriptive phrase.
Approximately 2% of men and 1% of women report a same-sex or homosexual orientation, wherein their primary and predominant sexual attraction is to the same sex. [1]
It is possible for a person to be sexually attracted to both sexes, to varying degrees, and that person might identify themselves as "bisexual." It is also possible, although less frequent, for a person's experience of same-sex attraction to be limited to a specific person, and for them to be otherwise heterosexual.
(3) Gay or lesbian identity: Some persons choose to adopt a homosexual identity, taking as a key feature of their identity their same-sex sexual orientation, and usually along with that accepting same-sex erotic behavior as a morally neutral or morally good sexual alternative.
The percentage of adults who identify as being gay or lesbian is estimated to be 1.7%, approximately 4 million persons. An additional 1.8% of our population was estimated to view themselves as bisexual (Gary Gates, Press release April 7, 2011, Williams Institute).
What is crucial to recognize here is that these three categories are not coterminous. They do not or at least should not be collapsed into one another. While it may be the case that a person experiences SSA or even is completely SSO, a gay or homosexual identity is not an experience and it is not inherent. Identity is a decision based upon one's perspective on their sexual desires and their acceptability; in other words, the adoption of a gay identity is a value-based choice rather than a given fact of experience or of psychology or biology.
With respect to identities, they don't happen to us, they come from us: "I" am the central organizer and active agent in forming my identity. Even though most of us are not aware of choosing our identities, they are our construction built out of the raw materials of who we are, our life experiences, especially key relationships, and all of this construed or interpreted in light of some prevailing narrative or worldview or philosophy of life.
So, our identity is a personal construction project composed of many conscious and subconscious choices which accumulate gradually over time. Of particular importance are the attributions that we make about ourselves and that others apply to us, which function like scripts for how we manage our lives. To a significant extent these identity scripts are provided by the various social authorities within our culture: parents, peers, religion, "science," "psychology."
Now, with respect to the development of sexual identity, some parts of that are biogenetically hard-wired and other parts are shaped by key relationships within particular cultures with particular values and views about the way things are supposed to be. And of course, at the center of all this is the active, responding, choosing person, made in the image and likeness of God but also fallen biologically and psychologically or spiritually, and embedded in a fallen world.
So, identity is personal and it is contextual; it is innate, but also it is formed in the context of a web of relationships, not unlike the way children develop language – with brains and tongues pre-designed to speak, but this innate capacity to communicate is formed by family, friends, and culture.
Most psychologists recognize that identity is as much a construction as it is an expression of one's essence, and that personal values, beliefs, and religious commitments are "grist for the mill" producing the identity that one constructs. Among developmental psychologists, there are two camps which emphasize different elements in identity development, essentialists (nature) and social constructivists (nurture).
The modern language of sexual identity, "homosexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian," is a good example of this mutual interaction between person and culture. Although homosexuality has been practiced for millennia, "gay" as an identity is an historical artifact, belonging only to contemporary western culture: it is a personal and social interpretation and not an incorrigible fact.
"Although homosexual behavior has been practiced in other cultures throughout history, we are the first culture in which people refer to themselves this way. There was never a language for it, and there has never been community support for this kind of identification or labeling. Until recently there was not even a way to say it" (Yarhouse, 2010).[2]
Sorting these matters out on a personal level is a process; a person who experiences SSA is confronted with a unique dilemma: what does this mean about me, that I am attracted to the same sex? People attracted to the same sex go through a process that could be summarized in two stages.
• Identity Crisis: this is a painful knot of emotion – shame, guilt, anxiety, depression – with lots of confusion and many questions. If you've never listened to a person in this phase, do so, or at least read about it. This will help you understand the challenge of finding hope when something so fundamental to your person and to your gender is upside down and you can't just flip a switch and set it right. (see Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill or Andy Comiskey's various books)
But people don't stay in crisis mode forever; eventually they come to some type of resolution.
• Identity Attribution: a synthesis and consolidation of same-sex attractions. Eventually, people come to conclusions about themselves and their sexual experiences based on some sort of interpretive paradigm, or script that is available to them in their world, and with respect or disrespect for the moral script that God has placed within every human heart.
These identity attributions occur much earlier these days, around 15 years of age; versus at 20 years in 1970 (Savin-Williams & Cohen, 2004). Another interesting recent phenomenon is that some young persons are choosing to avoid the adoption of any label at all regarding their sexual identity.
In contemporary western culture, there are two prevailing narratives or scripts, ways to respond to and integrate SSO. The first is to adopt a gay or homosexual identity. This is based on a Gay Explanatory Framework (GEF) (Yarhouse & Tan, 2004): the self is defined by sexual desire; sexual attraction defines who I am, categorically, just like an "alcoholic" defines who he is by his desire for alcohol.
This identity formula is very much at home in a culture of expressive individualism, which prizes self-expression above all else (see R. Bellah's Habits of the Heart, 1996). The GEF relies upon metaphors like "discovery" or "coming out" to describe identity attribution. The GEF reaches beyond personal experience into the academy, developing its own personality and developmental theories which include an ideal or "healthy" socialization process, and which has unfortunately been adopted in the public square and public schools in most of western culture.
Usually the Gay Explanatory Framework is characterized by simplistic explanations of cause, especially biological reductionism – i.e., "Since I am not aware of making a conscious decision to feel this way, I must have been born this way. This is obviously biological." According to this script, personal fulfillment depends upon sexual self-actualization, the embracing and expression of one's sexual desires, with some sort of "coming out" ritual whereby the person is initiated into a new lifestyle in which same-sex sexual and romantic relationships are deemed either neutral or good, and even sometimes superior.[3]
While most people struggling with SSA or SSO in our culture believe the Gay Explanatory Framework is the only plausible option, there is another option, one that does seem increasingly strange, even abnormal to modern and post-modern people. The second identity option is to understand SSA or SSO by means of a Christian Explanatory Framework, taking Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Final Restoration as the definitive narrative for explaining same-sexual desires. This framework is honest about the experience of SSA or SSO but views it as unnatural and disordered, inconsistent with God's will for sexuality.
The key issue, for anybody, and particularly for Christians, is which of our desires and affections we choose to be defined by. A Christian with SSA will, like the rest of us, emphasize their identity in Christ and in the body of Christ, and view same-sexual desires as a product of the Fall, just one of many forms of sexual deviation and temptation that can be overcome by God's grace. They will grieve over their SSA, and some will repent of it depending upon how they understand its origin and how they understand sin and guilt and repentance. A Christian Explanatory Framework comprehends the reconstruction of our identities upon adoption into the family of God: "Now, God is my Father, Christ is my brother, I am a son/daughter of the Lord. 'I' (in the deepest sense of that little word) belong to Him. He redefines and redirects every part of my being."
With respect to the origin of SSA and SSO, What causes it? Where does it come from?
While the person is the active and responsible agent with respect to their sexual desires, there are both nature and nurture factors related to the development of sexual attraction. So, there are things that come at the person and things that come from within the person. While there does not seem to be any single universal cause, "if this occurs, then that develops" the biological and social sciences do point out a few common factors that are helpful in understanding SSA.
The current scientific research and theory can be divided into three areas: biological, temperamental, and relational (see 2nd and 3rd figures on pp. 16-17):
• Biology (genetics, intrauterine hormones, neurological): while researchers in the '80s and '90s believed that genes or brains would offer the strongest contribution to SSA/SSO, more recent research has not supported earlier theories that genes or brains play a primary role in homosexual development. The better twin studies with larger sample sizes do not support a big genetic contribution to homosexual orientation. The concordance rate among identical twins was 20% for men and 24% for women (Bailey, Dunne, & Martin, 2000), which indicates that genes may play a role, but not in themselves an overwhelming one. Studies examining brain contributions are even less impressive. Even though there are some studies implicating brain structures, these studies have not been replicated. Even when brain differences have been found, sorting out cause and effect is nearly impossible with correlational research.
Another possible biological contributor still under investigation is the prenatal hormonal environment. Fetal development of sexual characteristics is a product of interaction with hormones, especially testosterone, and this may play a role in sexual orientation in some instances, but the data are not clear at this point.
Nonetheless, that there may be some biological contributions in some persons would not be surprising and does seem consistent with the research. The recognition that biology may play a role need not be resisted by Christians since God has created us as embodied souls, psychosomatic beings, and all things, including our bodies and brains and genes, have been infected by sin. In addition, that something such as the body or the brain is influential, or even formative, does not mean it is morally or spiritually determinative. It seems reasonable to accept, and clearly consistent with Scripture, that bodies and brains and genes along with parents and peers and cultures all play influential or formative roles in our lives. But that doesn't mean they are determinative.
• Effeminate temperament features or gender non-conformit: Both anecdotal and research evidence supports a positive correlation between gender non-conformity and homosexuality (Hamer, 1994; LeVay, 1996).[4] Many homosexual men report feeling different and less masculine than the other boys during childhood. They tended to be more sensitive, less naturally aggressive, and more aesthetically than athletically inclined. This is sometimes referred to as the "sissy" phenomenon. Dean Hamer, a gay geneticist, in his book The Science of Desire (1994) goes so far as to write, "Most sissies will grow up to be homosexuals, and most gay men were sissies as children. Despite the provocative and politically incorrect nature of that statement, it fits the evidence. In fact, it may be the most consistent, well-documented, and significant finding in the entire field of sexual-orientation research" (p. 166).
• Exotic Becomes Erotic theory by Daryl Bem (1996) contends that at puberty we will experience sexual arousal by the gender that we find exotic, or by that gender which seems so different from oneself. In other words, "opposites attract." So, if as a child a boy feels like the other boys, but different from the girls, at puberty he will find girls no longer abhorrent but fascinating and then attractive and arousing. On the other hand, if a boy does not feel like he fits in with the boys and instead is more comfortable with the girls, at puberty he finds himself fascinated by the boys and then erotically attracted to them. The biogenetic variable in this theory is the child's innate temperament, especially traits such as aggressiveness and activity levels.
• Parental relationships: Early theories, rooted in Freud's psychoanalysis, viewed homosexuality as a kind of developmental disorder – an impairment in psychological development (which does often seem to be the case) with parents as the culprits (which does not necessarily seem to be the case). However, these psychoanalytic explanations were based more on clinical experience and less on empirical research. More rigorous recent research lends little support to the traditional view that SSO is a direct result of absent or critical fathers and smothering mothers. The research does not indicate a primary role for parents as a sufficient cause of homosexuality; most children with troubled parental relationships do not turn out with SSA. At the same time, of course, there can be no reasonable doubt that parents play an important formative role in most aspects of child development. And, there does seem to be a preponderance of difficulties in the father-son relationship for many SSO men, and on the other hand a preponderance of negative experiences with men in SSO women. Even though these factors are not sufficient or determinative, they do seem to be significant influences in some instances of SSO (Yarhouse, 2010, p. 230, n. 21-24; Yarhouse & Burkett, p.175, n. 2).
Faulty development of masculine traits may be related to the father-son relationship, especially the extent to which the son feels connected to and then identifies with his father as a male, so that he develops the sense that "I'm like him" or "I want to be and can be like him." On the other hand, it may be that for some boys the sissy phenomena may be more innate (related to genetic predisposition or to the brain or to prenatal hormones), and then subsequently the boy and his father find it difficult to relate to one another because they are so temperamentally different, which of course would further diminish the boy's sense of masculinity.
• Peer influences: Boys who are less aggressive and masculine understandably feel disenfranchised and different. Unfortunately, they are often avoided or are the subject of derision or bullying by their peers, which can be devastating to a boy's gender identity and masculine confidence.
• Early sexual experiences (abuse; early debut): While neither physical abuse nor neglect are correlated with homosexuality, studies have found some correlation between early sexual abuse and homosexual behavior in men, but not in women.[5] It is not difficult to imagine how sexual abuse, especially of a boy by a man, could be extremely disruptive to the boy's developing sexual identity.[6] At the same time, it is important to remember that most boys who are sexually abused by men do not become same-sex oriented. Early, consensual same-sex behavior is also found more frequently in the history of male homosexuals. But, cause and effect are difficult to sort out in these correlational studies.
• Personal choice? The personal experience of most, but not all, persons with SSA is that it is not chosen, but instead is found, and often with shock and shame. This is particularly true for men and for at least half of the women. While most men with SSA/SSO believe their homosexuality was not consciously and explicitly chosen, 30-50% of lesbian women report that it was a choice.
So, what "causes" homosexuality? According to the human sciences, there are two honest answers to that question: "We don't know for sure" and "Probably several things." The principle of equifinality is helpful here. Equifinality is the principle of multi-causality: that in open systems a given end state can be reached by many potential means. In the same way that there are several ways to get from here to San Francisco, there are several ways a person may develop SSA or SSO.
So there are a handful of common factors that seem significant, but there is no one-size-fits-all formula.[7]
Transitioning now from this overview of social science research and theory, we can now take up the question:
Can people change SSA or SSO, and if so, how do they change?
Change efforts come in a variety of contemporary secular formats: traditional psychoanalysis (C. Socarides, E. Moberly), reparative psychotherapies (J. Nicolosi), and gender-affirming encounter groups such as Journey into Manhood.
Do they work? It depends who you ask.
In 2009, The American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation "concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful. . . Given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, claims that recent SOCE [sexual orientation change effort] is effective are not supported" (pp. v and 2). [8]
Unfortunately, the composition of the task force was not methodologically sound either. Their objectivity was doubtful since each of the six authors, five psychologists and one psychiatrist, is on record as gay affirmative and several of them publicly identify as gay or lesbian.[9]
There are a couple of studies which indicate some degree of success in changing SSA by means of secular therapies, with 44 to 66% of persons reporting significant change of some sort, but the degree of change and what changes is quite variable (NARTH, 1997; Spitzer, 2000).
There are several different Christian counseling or ministry options:
Leanne Payne's charismatic approach blends psychoanalytic theories of homosexuality with a focus on the inner healing of traumatic memories through "listening prayer."
Christian recovery groups such as Courage, a 12 step program for Roman Catholics, and Homosexuals Anonymous (14 instead of 12 Steps).
Andy Comiskey's Living Waters groups blend biblical teaching on gender, identity, and sanctification with some of the theories of the reparative therapies and inner healing, and emphasize the role of the Church as a healing community.
Mark Yarhouse and Warren Throckmorton's Sexual Identity Therapy, which is less focused on changing same sex attractions and more focused on choosing one's identity in Christ and the incorporation of behavioral and cognitive methods to facilitate the process of progressive sanctification.
Finally, there are other approaches that incorporate theories about the development of masculinity into the process of progressive sanctification. (Alan Medinger; Gerard van den Aardweg).
Do these work? Here also there are only a couple of good studies and they found that 23-29% of persons reported a complete change in orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, and 60-70% reported behavioral success. (Schaeffer, et al., 1999; Jones and Yarhouse, 2007, 2009)
Mark Yarhouse's summary of this research is helpful:
Those who argue that there is "insufficient evidence" of sexual orientation change are often thinking of categorical and complete change, as though sexual orientation were a light switch that is in one of two positions: on or off. Homosexual or heterosexual. Gay or straight. On the other hand Christians can sometimes add to the problem by claiming this kind of complete change happens frequently. . . . Some people do report a change in attractions over time. For those who report a change, it tends to come in the form of a reduction in homosexual attractions, but these reductions are typically not complete. A smaller number of people also report an increase in heterosexual attraction. [In some instances this may be attraction to the opposite sex in general; in other cases it may reflect attraction to only one individual or the opposite sex, such as a person's spouse]. . . . It may be helpful to everyone involved to recognize that 180-degree change or categorical change is less likely. That doesn't mean people shouldn't attempt change or feel discouraged about it, but it does help us identify the more likely outcomes. In some ways, understanding this will free a person up to focus on other important considerations, such as vocation, stewardship, and Christlikeness (2010, pp. 89-90).
Listening to the Bible
Regardless of the particular causes identified by science or the success of sexual orientation change efforts, God aims to interpret and govern and redeem every part of our us, including our sexual experiences, desires, identity, and even one day our bodies. The good news of God is that whatever is distorted and broken can and will in God's good time be restored and healed. Christ assumed a full human nature to heal all of human nature. The incarnation and bodily resurrection of Christ is God's pledge of full and final healing (Gregory of Nazianus).
But the reception of God's grace begins with a humble acceptance of what is wrong with us, with a kind of biblical psychopathology.
It seems that a biblical macro-psychology of homosexuality begins with the Pauline version of the Fall in Romans 1: an account of the origin of sin, with homosexuality as a vivid example of its dynamics. In that passage Paul attributes the origin of same-sex passions and practices to a failure to "thank and honor God," in other words to disordered worship. Humanity's original rejection of God then incurs His judgment and His passive, and yet terrible, wrath, wherein the passage says, God "gave them up" (v. 24, 26, 28). He simply lets them alone, leaves them to their own devices, giving them over to impure lusts, dishonorable passions, and a debased mind. So, in this passage, disordered desires of all sorts result from disordered worship. St. Augustine's biblical psychology is helpful here: The root of all evil is wrongly directed desire.
Both Richard Hayes and Ernst Kasemann note that in this passage homosexuality, along with a string of other disordered desires and practices, is the consequence of God's wrath, not the cause of it. Homosexuality is probably singled out because it is such a clear rejection of something so obvious – God's complementary design for the sexes and of sexual intercourse itself.
But it is important to note that Paul's account here is archetypal or generic; he is giving the history of humanity and of sin in general, with homosexuality as a particularly graphic case in point. He is not giving us a history of any particular person's development of homosexuality. The Bible's account of this chapter in human history goes like this: As a result of the rejection of God's rule, God steps aside, and the consequence is the reign of sin and satan, a Kingdom in which everybody is born defective (Rom. 6.17) with deformed desires, some of which are common to all men, such as selfishness and pride, and others that are unique to some men. And this is where personal psychopathologies begin.
The typical experience of same-sex attraction, that it is not consciously chosen, is in fact consistent with our innately sinful condition, which in itself is not chosen – we are born that way. Sin is a chronic condition and sometimes, but not always, a conscious choice. This is the human condition Paul describes in Romans 7, where he goes back and forth, but he ultimately cites "sin in me" as the source of his sinful behavior. So, the starting point for a biblical psychology of homosexuality is fundamentally no different than the origin of many of our sin-driven character flaws, whether it is selfishness and narcissism, or jealousy and envy, or a bad temper, or worry and anxiety, or mania or depression, or addictions or whatever. Everybody is born congenitally defective with some innate bio-psychological weakness, which finds its origin in the fall and subsequently in hearts and bodies riddled with the cancer of sin. (Eccl. 9.3; Jer. 17.9)
According to New Testament scholar Robert Gagnon:
For Paul, all sin was in a sense innate in that human beings do not ask to feel sexual desire, or anger, or fear, or selfishness – they just do, despite whether they want to experience such impulses or not. If Paul could be transported into our time and told that homosexual impulses were at least partly present at birth, he would probably say, 'I could have told you that' or at least 'I can work that into my system of thought.'. . . Paul paints a picture of humanity subjugated and ruled by its own passions; a humanity not in control, but controlled (2001, p. 431, 430).
In the same vein but with more emphasis on human accountability, Richard Hayes writes,
As great-grandchildren of the enlightenment, we like to think of ourselves as free moral agents, choosing rationally among possible actions, but Scripture unmasks that cheerful illusion…the Bible's sober anthropology rejects the apparently commonsense assumption that only freely chosen acts are morally culpable. . . . The very nature of sin is that it is not freely chosen. . . . We are in bondage to sin but still accountable to God's righteous judgment of our actions. . . . In light of this theological anthropology, it cannot be maintained that a homosexual orientation is morally neutral because it is involuntary (1996, p. 390).[10]
Up to this point we have been talking about SSA, a particular dis-orientation of a person's sexual compass, but we could be talking about the infinite variety of sinful orientations of any of our hearts which are less than consciously chosen, but for which we will be held accountable by God. I think this is Paul's point in Romans 2 and 3, when he segues from God's judgment of homosexuality to God's judgment of everybody, in what Richard Hays calls a "homiletical sting operation": "Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself. . . . Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God?" (Romans 2:1-3) Paul makes it clear: no one has a secure platform to stand upon to judge others. (R. Hayes, 1996, p. 389)
MINISTRY/ COUNSELING
The truth is that each and every one of our sex lives, every look, every touch, every fantasy, and every desire within our hearts will be judged by our holy, holy, holy God.
According to Jesus, in Matthew 5.29-30, when it comes to sex, what we do with the desires of our hearts is a matter of life or death. So, "If your eye or hand causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell." That ought to give all of us pause. This is serious business, according to Jesus.
So, the church's response to SSA must be just as serious. It must be as theologically bold and as morally clear as Jesus is, and at the same time as pastoral and gracious as Jesus is. And we must bring hope: like oxygen for the soul – to those who struggle with same sex attraction. And this is that hope:
The Gospel changes the most important things initially, and it changes everything eventually.
What I mean by Gospel and change is a type of faith in and obedience to Christ that flows out of a fundamentally re-oriented heart, resulting in a changed and changing life.
In closing, there are four ways we can promote change in our churches and families for those who struggle with same-sex attraction.
First, the essential starting point is BE HONEST WITH YOURSELF, OTHERS, AND GOD.
In view of the mercy of God, it makes no sense to avoid, deny, or minimize SSA. I would like to propose that there is a properly Christian form of "coming out of the closet." Should we not all come out of the closet with anything we find inside that is broken and wrong? We do this so that we can repent more thoroughly and receive all the help and healing that comes through authentic Christian relationships.
That which we keep to ourselves tends to fester and swell, and what is left is that painful knot of shame and guilt. The alternative to authenticity is not a pretty thing: loneliness, duplicity, secret sins, anxiety, self-hatred, and sometimes suicide.
It is here that the response of parents, peers, and church is so important. It is the responsibility of Christian families and communities to cultivate openness to the acknowledgment and confession of same-sex attraction. What can we do to move in this direction?
Second, we can CULTIVATE A RENEWED RESPECT FOR DIFFERENCES.
We need relationships characterized by respect and acceptance in which various forms of masculinity are affirmed, of course, that are true to one's God-given gender, but also cognizant of a variety of temperaments. We should not presume that cultural stereotypes are biblical norms or guidelines. There is more than one type of man, and not all of them like to camp or play sports. (Could somebody explain to me how Ultimate(ly Foolish) Fighting became a fad among young evangelical men!?) My colleague Robert D. Jones says that the greatest man he has ever known described himself as gentle and humble in heart! It was this Lord who said, "Blessed are the meek/gentle, for they shall inherit the earth." If the character of Jesus is not the main part of your view of manhood, then it is not biblical manhood.
Probably one of the most important changes would be to eliminate within our communities, especially among men, the unedifying words that denigrate men whose masculinity is not so evident, who may have some effeminate characteristics. Such words are unconscionable. What if that were your brother or your son that was being made fun of? How would Jesus speak to him? And how would Jesus speak to those who spoke to him that way???
I still remember my best friend Dale announcing his homosexuality to me. He had heard me use terms like "fag, queer, homo" and many other false bravados characteristic (I wish only) of teenage boys. He said he would have told me sooner, but he was afraid of my reaction, even that I might attack him physically. That changed how I talk.
Third, we can EXPRESS A TYPE OF EMPATHY FOR PERSONS WITH SSA THAT COMPREHENDS HOW LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD IS UNDER THE CROSS.
It is important to realize and openly acknowledge that at the deepest and most important level we are much more like the person who struggles with SSA than we are different. They have their particular sin tendencies and temptations, and you have yours. Every one of us has a weak link, a form of remnant sin for which we need Jesus and one another. Therefore same-sexual sin should not be singled out as a red-letter sin.
Fourth, PROVIDE BIBLICAL HOPE FOR CHANGE.
Real and substantive change can be expected for people with SSA or SSO, as it can and should be for all who have chosen to follow Christ. Tim Wilkins says when he turned away from homosexuality, "I decided that although I honestly did not know how to become heterosexual, I did know how to be obedient. . . . Same-sex attractions continued throughout college and seminary, but to a lesser degree. I remained steadfast in refusing to give in. . . . I told God 'it does not matter if I am ever attracted to a woman as long as I get You!' What mattered most to Tim was becoming a disciple of Jesus Christ."
Change for the Christian is a grace-fueled process that for good reason is called progressive sanctification: a long obedience of faith down a narrow and often difficult road, in the company of other Christian men and women within the local church. All this is rooted in the transformative power of the Gospel of God and the rich soil of the body of Christ. The cross of Christ signifies the beginning of the end of the old self, a progressive and radical reordering and re-orientation of every one of our distorted desires. But sin is stubborn, especially at the level of desires, and the old man dies slowly. Nonetheless, according to Paul, that old man is history: "Such were some of you. . . . But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified. . . ." (1 Corinthians 6.11) That sounds like past tense.
As it is with many root sins that are lodged deeply within us, change may or may not be associated with a complete elimination or reversal of SSA, for now. But make no mistake about it: under the cross and in Christ neither the past nor our desires determine our identity or our future. Paul's instruction in Romans 6 is to be who you are, in Christ.
Romans 611 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. . . . 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
This Spirit-fueled, Christ-following progressive sanctification includes an understanding of who we are: identities that originate in God's good creation–made by and like and for Him, and then born again in a miraculous New Creation. Change like this includes a type of humble authenticity that does not flinch in examining and repenting of the distorted but dwindling effects of sin on all things: "Where sin abounds, grace abounds even more."
Someday this grace will culminate in our final sanctification, when the King returns and resets everything. On that day, True North will be irresistible. Such is our hope.
[1] These figures rise in urban centers; in other words, those with a homosexual orientation are more concentrated in cities.
[2] Coincidentally, this is often a part of the gay critique of the biblical passages on homosexuality; they are correct when they claim that these categories and terms did not exist in the ancient biblical languages. Instead, more descriptive terms that described what that person does, or terms like natural and unnatural were the verbal categories relied upon to discuss these matters (Hays, 1996).
[3] It is this incorporation of homosexuality into the center of that person's identity that makes even the most sensitive and winsome conversation so difficult with a person who identifies themselves as "gay". If "gay" is who you are, then even the kindest challenge or disagreement is perceived at least as a personal rejection, and at worst as hateful or "violent." Since this is the accepted normative narrative in most of the First World, any other view seems to be just so much nonsense. David Wells captures this dislocation well in his definition of worldliness as "that system of values, in any given age, which has at its center our fallen human perspective, which displaces God and his truth from the world, and which makes sin look normal and righteousness seem strange. It thus gives great plausibility to what is morally wrong, and for that reason makes what is wrong seem normal" (Losing our Virtue, 1999, p.4).
[4] In its most extreme manifestation, Gender Identity Disorder, ¾ of boys with this disorder later report a homosexual or bisexual orientation (DSM-IV, 1994, p. 536).
[5] Wilson, H., & Widom, C., 2009. Does Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect in Childhood Increase the Likelihood of Same-sex Sexual Relationships and Cohabitation? A Prospective 30-year Follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39 (1), 63-74).
[6] Dube, S. et al. (2005) found that 16% of adult men reported being sexually abused before age 16. They had been abused by men 70% of the time. Am J Prev Med;28(5), p. 433.
[7] The APA (American Psychological Association) states the following about etiology in their pamphlet, Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality: "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."American Psychological Association (2008). "Answers to your questions: For a better understanding of sexual orientation and homosexuality".
[8] A review of 83 studies published in peer reviewed journals from 1960 to 2007 discusses people who attempted to change their sexual orientation through counseling or therapy.
[9] Joseph Nicolosi, of the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality, commented, "The Task Force's standard for successful treatment for unwanted homosexuality was far higher than that for any other psychological condition. What if they had studied treatment success for narcissism, borderline personality disorder, or alcohol/food/drug abuse? All of these conditions, like unwanted homosexuality, cannot be expected to resolve totally, and necessitate some degree of lifelong struggle" (The 2009 APA Task Force Report – Science or Politics?, posted Jan. 10, 2011, NARTH website).
[10] Perhaps a good example of this is our dreams at night. And, if yours are like mine, I bet some of them are not morally neutral. And yet even though they are involuntarily and subconsciously created … whose dream is it? Who created and produced that dream? And if it is your production, who should repent of it?
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th Edition. Washington, DC: Author. 1994.
American Psychiatric Association. Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: Author. 2009.
Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkely, University of California Press, 1996.
Bem, Daryl. "Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation." Psychological Review, 1996.
Dube, S. et al. "Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim." American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28.5, 2005.
Gagnon, Robert. The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001.
Gates, Gary. "Press release April 7, 2011." Williams Institute. Web. 15 Sept 2011.
Hays, Richard. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation, A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco: Harper, 1996.
Hamer, Dean. The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.
Hill, Wesley. Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
Jones, S. & Yarhouse, M. Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2007.
Kasemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J.H., Michael, R.T., & Michaels, S. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.
LeVay, Simon. Queer Science. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996.
Savin-Williams, R. C. & Cohen, K.M. "Homoerotic Development During Childhood and Adolescence." Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 2004.
Schaeffer, K. W. et al. "Religiously-motivated sexual orientation change: A follow-up study." Journal of Psychology and Theology. 27 (4), 1999.
Spitzer, Robert. "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation" Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2003.
Wells, David. Losing Our Virtue: Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Wilson, H., & Widom, C. Does Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, or Neglect in Childhood Increase the Likelihood of Same-sex Sexual Relationships and Cohabitation? A Prospective 30-year Follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2009.
Yarhouse, Mark. Homosexuality and the Christian: A Guide for Parents, Pastors, and Friends. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010.
Yarhouse, M. & Burkett, Lori. Sexual Identity: A Guide to Living in the Time Between the Times. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2003.
Yarhouse, M. & Jones, S. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2000.
Yarhouse, M. & Tan, E. Sexual Identity Synthesis: Attributions, Meaning-Making, and the Search for Congruence. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2004.
Addiction/Life-Controlling Problems, Biblical Counseling, God's Perspective, God's Will, God's Word, Healing, Homosexuality/Same Sex Attraction, Moral Choices, Sin, Spiritual Growth-Transformation
bio-chemical factors
hormonal factors
lesbian issues
parenting factors
same-sex identity
same-sex orientation
sexual experiences
spiritual factors
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible
The Counseling Moment EDITOR'S NOTE: Given all that is taking place in society along with all the information available via the media, much confusion exists about whether one desiring to explore and/or seek change from unwanted same-sex/homosexual desires and behaviors can ever hope for change. One position emphatically says, "No Way!" Another position says change is possible. A Christian position lays claim that nothing is impossible for God who wants those who have a faith-relationship with Him through Christ to progressively continue to be transformed by Him into the very likeness of Christ. This transformation includes movement toward holiness in thought, emotional responses, behaviors, and relationships. Furthermore, this transformation includes aspiring to a holy, blameless, righteous, and pure life that increasingly exhibits the fruit of the Holy Spirit. God desperately wants what is best for us as He loves us each so much–so much that He sacrificed His own Son on our behalf. Our becoming like Christ is the best that God can offer us. There is nothing better or of greater value.
Even a casual reading of Scripture makes clear that as God enables us to move toward Christlikeness, He empowers us to move away from a host of things that He declares counter to His plan for us and destructive to us.
These things counter to His will for us, as called out in Scripture, include anything that would "gratify the desires of the flesh" such as: any hint of sexual impurity, homosexuality, sexual immorality, adultery, extra-marital sex, debauchery, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, bitterness, anger, brawling, slander, malice, greed, filthy language, unforgiveness, idleness, love of money, deceitfulness, pride, lack of self-control, loving pleasure over God, enslavement to passions, conceit.
God loves us and chooses to be in a personal relationship with us knowing that we are challenged with these types of issues in our lives. And, He loves us too much to allow us to continue to embrace these things. Therefore, God wants us to depend on Him to help us move away from any and all of these types of hindrances to becoming more holy like Christ. And, He promises that freedom from these things is possible in His way and His timing.
So, yes, change is possible whether it is change from homosexual orientation or change from any of the other issues of life that God highlights as detriments to our being made into the likeness of Christ. God wants change to take place concerning ALL of these! We are all involved in God's change process concerning whatever things we find in us that are on His "list." He will work uniquely and lovingly within each one of us to accomplish change in His way, in His timing, to the extent He determines until He carries it on to completion (Phil. 1:6).
As a result, it should be no surprise that solid, credible, truthful research as summarized in the below article supports what God, the Author of all truth, says and desires about change.
Finally, as Christians, it is important that we do not respond to those dealing with homosexuality (or any other less than Godly life issue) with ignorance and fear. Nor should we ignore or uphold any lifestyle or life issue which is counter to God's desire and will. Either extreme fails to convey the divine balance of grace and truth which is so pleasing to God. Blessings……..
ARTICLE SOURCE: NARTH/Reviewed by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D.
Change in Sexual Orientation is Possible, Harm Unlikely, according to New Evidence of Long-Term Outcomes
The best-designed study of sexual-orientation change efforts (SOCE) to date, has just concluded in a follow-up report that some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts.
The original study was published in 2007 by Stanton Jones, Ph.D., of Wheaton College, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., of Regent University, in their book, "Ex-Gays?". The follow-up study has just appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy.
In the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, the authors conclude:
Evidence from the study suggested that change of homosexual orientation appears possible for some and that psychological distress did not increase on average as a result of the involvement in the change process" (Jones & Yarhouse, 2011, p. 404).
The authors followed 98 individuals (72 men and 26 women) who undertook SOCE through the assistance of a variety of Christian ministries over a period of 6-7 years. The authors' motivation for conducting this study was, in part, that the American Psychological Association had gone on the record indicating that change in sexual orientation was not possible, and that risks to those who engage in such efforts could be significant.
The authors note that the APA has moderated its viewpoint somewhat since then, fluctuating between statements that sexual-orientation change is "uncommon," to the view that science "cannot yet" make conclusive statements about such change from the available literature.
The rigor of their own research standards, Jones and Yarhouse indicate, in fact meets many of the requirements that the APA itself has asserted are necessary in order to make reasonably definitive conclusions about the actuality of such change.
Participants in the Jones-Yarhouse study were first assessed at the beginning of their involvement in SOCE (from 1-3 years); again at 3 years, and again at the 6-7 year mark. Findings from the first two assessments were published earlier in the book, Ex-Gays? (2007).
Standardized and widely accepted measures of sexual orientation and psychological distress were administered at each assessment period. At the final time of assessment, attrition had reduced the available sample to 64%, which is not unusual for longitudinal studies.
The results after 6-7 years of SOCE involvement, presented below, indicate that change does indeed occur, although not for
Success: Conversion: 23% (n = 14) of the sample reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.
Success: Chastity: 30% (n = 18) reported that homosexual attraction was still present, but only incidentally or in a way that did not seem to bring distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.
Continuing: 16% (n = 10) reported modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.
Nonresponse: 7% (n = 4) reported no significant sexual orientation change; they had not given up on the change process, but some were confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.
Failure: Confused: 5% (n = 3) reported no significant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process, but without yet embracing a gay identity.
Failure: Gay identity: 20% (n = 12) had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.
Jones and Yarhouse observed that from the point-of-view of the ministries involved in their study, 53% of the sample therefore had self-categorized as achieving "some version of success," and 25% had self-categorized as failure.
As regards harm, the study participants on average did not report experiencing harm due to SOCE during the course of their pursuit of change. In fact, two of the indicators of psychological distress actually improved significantly over the time of the study.
Jones and Yarhouse conclude that "the findings of this study appear to contradict the commonly expressed view that sexual orientation is not changeable" (p. 425). and that attempts to change are not likely to be harmful.
While the authors believe their research clearly contradict the pessimism regarding SOCE that has been promulgated by the APA, they do acknowledge that their study has limitations.
First, the average change in sexual orientation was modest, although they noted that this is likely to be an artifact of average change scores including some participants who made dramatic shifts away from homosexual orientation and fewer participants who reported dramatic shifts to a gay identity. In other words, the dramatic changes toward heterosexual response clearly made by some participants may have been offset by changes toward homosexual response in others, so that the overall average change in sexual orientation for the sample appeared to be modest.
Second, participants who had begun the change process prior to the start of the study appeared to have disproportionately positive outcomes compared to participants inducted into the study early in their pursuit of change. This may indicate that some weeding-out of individuals who were not successful in changing sexual orientation occurred in the time between the onset of pursuit of change and the initial collection of data. Although there is no way to know this for sure, Jones and Yarhouse imply that it is probably wise to view their study's success rate for the change process undertaken in Christian ministries as a somewhat optimistic figure.
A third limitation is the relatively small sample size, which makes any generalization of these findings to the population of individuals pursuing SOCE tentative. That said, the size of the sample is not uncommon in the longitudinal research that has been widely accepted as representative of samples in other subject domains. Finally, the authors note that, given the study design, it was not possible to determine which components of the participants' change process were responsible for the outcomes reported.
No doubt this study will be dismissed by skeptics who for ideological reasons remain dogmatically unwilling to acknowledge the reality of sexual orientation change in some people. However, Jones and Yarhouse's study of SOCE should go a long way toward putting to rest two extreme positions: i.e., that change always occurs and is simply a choice, or that change never occurs and is generally harmful.
It is also worth remembering that this study did not examine SOCE's that occur in the context of psychotherapy. The subjects in this study received their counseling in Christian ministries. It is certainly within the realm of plausibility that the inclusion of professional psychological care, over and above participants' involvement in Christian ministries, would increase positive outcomes.
The hallmark of a scientific organization that is not beholden to socio-political interests is a heightened curiosity at unexpected findings, and a subsequent dedication to understanding how such findings came to be. In the case of change in sexual orientation, which had been purported to be impossible, this implies a dedication to study those individuals who report change in order to identify the active ingredients of change and thereby maximize its potential among SOCE consumers.
Unfortunately, however, the major mental-health associations appear to be moving further away from a purely scientific approach and toward one apparently directed by activists, whereby the purpose of their science does not seem to be understanding those who report change, but rather debunking, dismissing, and ignoring them. Thus while Jones and Yarhouse will win no accolades or awards from the APA, they will have the satisfaction of knowing that their research exemplifies the best in scientific curiosity and courage.
Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M.A. (2007). Ex-gays? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Jones, S. L., & Yarhouse, M. A. (2011). A longitudinal study of attempted religiously mediated sexual orientation change. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 37, 404-427. DOI: 10.1080/009263X.2011.607052
Addiction/Life-Controlling Problems, Adultery, Anger, Anxiety, Emotions/Moods, Encouragement, God's Perspective, God's Sovereignty, God's Will, Healing, Homosexuality/Same Sex Attraction, Idols, lust, Moral Choices, Relationship with God, Sanctification, Sexuality, Sin, Spiritual Growth-Transformation, Strongholds/Temptation
change efforts
life-controlling issues
scientific approaches
scientific study
Christ & Sexual Sin
SOURCE: John Freeman
Homosexuality has embraced our culture and our culture has embraced homosexuality. It's part of the fallen nature of things, and fallen man has always been an expert at creating ingenuous ways to celebrate his brokenness.
Homosexuality is one of those topics that draws vibrant reactions. Complex issues of the heart usually do. Christians are in a sort of no-man'sland here. Suggesting that homosexuality is sinful can appear, to the world, as uneducated, rude, and stupid. On the other hand, suggesting that God loves and forgives sinners who struggle with homosexuality and that we should do the same may appear compromising and wishy-washy.
While we can oppose the advancement of this movement by vocalizing our concerns and participating in the political process, for the Christian a far deeper response to homosexuality and the gay community is needed. In such a heated debate, Christians have a responsibility to represent Christ to a fallen world in four ways.
Patiently Listen: "Let every person be quick to hear" (James 1:19). I don't mean just to look for loopholes or a chance to criticize or find fault. We must listen so as to get to or gain the "heart thrust" of what a person is saying. This is hard work and an art — a skill to be learned. It's not natural. It takes practice. Listen to what moves other people. Listen for where their passions lie, what they value, what their experience has been (especially with other Christians), and what they fear.
The more you understand a person's point of view, the more you can profit from it. Why do they think that way? What events led up to their adopting that worldview? What's been their experience of Christianity — of other Christians or the church? What wounds from their family of origin and from other people lie festering in the background? As adults, we're usually a composite of all this.
Personally Repent: "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans? … No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:1–5). Only a redeemed sinner, knowing he stands condemned apart from Christ, can reach a sinner who doesn't know he needs redeeming. What's your motivation? Is it to reach lost people with the enduring love that has found you out — that has exposed you as a cut-throat and depraved sinner? Is it your own awareness that, at heart, you're a sham, misfit, counterfeit, and phony? Or is it to make a nice, neat little package of this messy aspect of life? Are you concerned about making a complex world seem simple? Where are you walking in hypocrisy? Do you really care about homosexuals — or only want them to shut up and disappear? Luke 7:47 says that "he who is forgiven little, loves little."
Gently Instruct: "The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone … correcting his opponents with gentleness" (2 Tim. 2:22–25). Is the Holy Spirit instructing us as we seek to instruct others? Do we pray for Christlikeness as we seek to correct others? Are our unloving and impatient hearts a hindrance to the gospel message? It should always be the truths of Scripture, not our demeanor or presentation of it, that people reject.
Talking to those who are blind to the reality of their hearts but who live in a world that applauds their sin is both a privilege and a challenge. They are victims of their own sin and the lies and sin of others; therefore, they're caught. But they're also accountable before a holy God. We must represent both aspects of the truth as we share Christ.
Mercifully Pursue and Then Engage the Heart: "Have mercy on those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh" (Jude 22–23). God calls us to be neither reclusive nor rude, but to move boldly into confusing, high-stakes situations with the gospel of God's mercy. We bring the gospel where it is most needed: to the vocally anti-Christian progay activist; to the mild-mannered clergy who says the love of Jesus means affirming homosexuality as God's gift; to the quietly confused and scared teenager who fears he's gay and there's no other option. Showing mercy means practically caring for people. It means being patiently and persistently available to help those who live in a fallen world.
As we do this, we're able to move into other people's worlds. Engaging people by asking good questions, respectfully, is an important part of this. I once stopped a protester who was marching at a gay rally and subsequently had a two-hour conversation that ended with this man thanking me for stopping him to speak with him — in spite of the fact that I shared the gospel with him! I listened and engaged his heart, and that was infectious to him. Listening, asking questions, and engaging people with respect, even if we have fundamental differences, gets people into their story quicker than anything else.
Jesus was the master of all that I've just spoken about (though He was in no need of repentance). We should be too. His methods are the most under-utilized and missed aspects of evangelism.
Addiction/Life-Controlling Problems, God's Perspective, Grace, Homosexuality/Same Sex Attraction, Relationships
representing Christ


text:
Zionist issue has unmasked a lot of left-wing, diaspora Jewish "human rights" operatives as self-serving, opportunistic Judeofascists they truly are
Perfect match: Bob Bernstein uses settler sources for racist anti-Arab 'WaPo' Op-Ed
(Mondoweiss) -- by Adam Horowitz --
Robert Berstein has an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post that shows just how truly desperate Israel's cheerleaders have become. Bernstein, a founder of Human Rights Watch who now seems to hate human rights, responds to the push for Palestinian statehood by recycling the tired argument that it is Palestinian words that are driving the conflict, not the Israeli boot on their necks. Here's the nut:
The real obstacle to long-term peace is the endless and overwhelming words of hate and incitement to genocide effectively spread to Arabs and Palestinians. One example is the textbooks given to millions of children in Saudi Arabia, distributed in the Arab world and beyond, that label Jews "monkeys and pigs." This continues to foment discord, radicalism and violence.
The "monkeys and pigs" link goes to a 2008 article about a book used in the UK. It's unclear whether they are still being used today, or how exactly this is relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is too bad Bernstein doesn't mention that current Israeli school books do much the same thing.
Most notable in the piece is Bernstein's source. He commends the reader to "be aware of the work of Palestinian Media Watch," explaining, "the group, an Israeli research institute focused on monitoring the messages of all aspects of Palestinian media, has detailed some of the deception of the Palestinian Authority, even during moments of peace talks." What Bernstein doesn't mention is that Palestinian Media Watch is run by the Islamophobic settler Itamar Marcus.
Marcus has worked for years to present the Palestinian people as a homicidal death cult in an effort to derail a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His work has been debunked multiple times, and he is quite open about his agenda...MORE...LINK

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


iFixit、A9チップが採用されたiPhone 6sの分解レポートを公開。Taptic Engineや3D Touch用のICなどが新たに追加。 | AAPL Ch.
A blast of X-ray radiation reveals a peek at the linear oscillating mechanism underlying Apple's latest mechanical wonder, said to reach peak output after just one oscillation.
The li-ion pack comes in at 3.8 V, 6.55 Whr, and 1715 mAh. It's a small but notable decrease from the 1810 mAh battery in last year's iPhone 6.


text:
May 25, 2016by Stop The BreaksNo CommentsFeatured Artists
W A V E S: Interview With Independent Artist Von Alexander
Highly regarded as one of the leaders of Milwaukee Hip-Hop, Von Alexander is the perfect blend of artistic lyricism that meets no creative boundaries.
In 2015 Von released MEMOIRS which was quickly followed by the 2016 V O N EP where he breaks away from his former moniker Vonny Del Fresco. Evolving in sound, writing, and image you can witness his Influences by artists such as Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, Pharrell and more.
Diving into his new sound of high energy, melodic flows, and hypnotic songwriting, Von is solidifying his presence and individuality in the music industry.
1) Tell us a little about yourself and your background.
I'm Von Alexander, a 22 year old Hip-Hop artist based in the midwest (Northside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin to be exact). I began writing poetry in 3rd grade, grew as an early obsession as I learned more about how to express myself through rhyme, and learning different techniques of writing.
Slowly stopped playing sports during my years in junior high, and what I knew as poetry started to become me rapping, whether it was to a beat or just in the middle of class writing in my notebook.
I don't come from a musical or artistic background at all, so I kind of just found this passion on my own. I come from a quite rough and different upbringing than most people, which I do give some detail about throughout my music.
This is what helped me realize my story, find myself at a young age, and take recognition of the person I desired to become in the future. Here now at 22, you get to see where I am in the middle of my growth but still the beginning of a patient journey.
2) Who were some of your musical influences coming up?
Well throughout my actual childhood, I listened to whatever was being played around me, didn't take any certain liking to anything, just kind of soaked it all up.
From the age of 6-12, I lived with a different family than my own, and couldn't listen to Hip-Hop until I was given a Walkman at age 9, but for the most part before that moment Gospel was the main thing genre being played.
I didn't really like it too much as a kid, so once I had my Walkman, I'd turn to our local station known for Hip-Hop & R&B, but since I wasn't allowed to listen to it, I'd often just listen to the rock station, which is what conditioned me to like different genres of music.
I didn't tap into what I actually found influential until I was about 13/14, I started watching Rap City, TRL and 106 & Park on a daily basis and LimeWire was a huge factor to where I got a lot of music when I wanted to learn about certain artists.
Coming up during my years in junior high and learning more about myself the artists I liked and paid attention to the most began to show up through my daily life, from how I dressed to how I spoke and wrote raps.
Lupe Fiasco, Kanye West, Pharrell, Common, Little Brother , Kid Cudi and Lil Wayne were some of the artists I gained the most influence from the year 2006 until now. Most people can actually see it in me, and say I carry myself as if I want to be these guys, which is no mistake, I always did want to be these guys.
3) How would you describe yourself as an artist? Has your style changed much over the years?
At this point in time as an artist I would describe myself as experimental and on the verge of hitting a streak of brilliant creativity, whether that goes noticed or not I see it for myself. I know that's something that's going to take much patience and constant practice.
Over the years my style has become something I didn't even see coming. I see it as my own, a few years back, I couldn't tell you a hook I wrote, I didn't know how to write any, I couldn't give you a bridge, or even adlibs.
I literally was just a rapper, that's what I worked on all the time, rapping. I started recording at 16, so I was just happy to be recording raps I would always choose beats with samples for hooks because I wanted to give you bars. I didn't focus on hooks until around the beginning of 2014, kind of shaky, but here we are in 2016 and It's not hard for me to do so now.
My style is made up of nothing but constant progression in elements of my techniques. I can play you music from a few years back, and you can really see how far I've come with learning the art form of the music I want to create.
4) Can you run me through the making of your latest project – V O N (EP)? Where were the studio vibes like?
Well, before I the idea of the 'V O N' project came about, my name was Vonny Del Fresco (Youtube that name and you'll see the artist I referred to being in the last question). Last year was a very intense year for me, I learned a lot, experienced a lot of failure and growth as an artist.
I released a full length project called 'Memoirs' which will be 1 year old in two days (May 26th). I worked on that release for at least 6-8 months, trying to really make something I could consider a real album for myself, which at the time, sounded great to me, and was some of my best music (at that time).
After I dropped it, I really didn't feel any kind of happiness from it, I had gotten so used to working on it, I still wanted to work on it, but was kind of rushed on the release. Had too many expectations for myself, some of which others placed in my mind, that I just didn't meet. That confused me.
Over the Summer, I was kind in the largest funk I've ever been in, from my personal life to my music, just needed a break. So from June to about September I stopped doing things, and just lived my life, went and actually lived a little.
Though no music was being released, I was still trying to find what was next for myself, and that's when I decided I would change my name to Von Alexander. I wanted an entire new feel, a new energy man.
Recorded "W A V E S" after bumping into one of my favorite and go to producers DMND on Soundcloud late September. "W A V E S" changed everything for me, I had gotten back into my grind mode, and from the time I released "W A V E S" to the time I dropped 'V O N' I had a month of what I consider a real creative streak.
Here's the creation for the EP: wake up, got to work, come home and lock myself in the basement banging beats and writing every single day and I did not stop until about a week before I dropped the EP when I released my song "D R E A M S" which I wrote a week or so before I dropped it.
It was pure instinct for me to move fast during that 1 1/2 month span. 4 hour studio sessions almost every week ready to record something new, and add something to songs that were already drafted.
The studio sessions were crazy, that's when the songs really came to life for me. Sitting at home I'd just write the hook out & the verses out, but in the studio, I'd just do things like sing under the hook in different tones a few times (something I began to do on my 'Memoirs' project), yell out my adlibs that were not pre-planned, just impulsive.
Everything I do in the studio is off of impulse, me doing something and a new idea coming to mind as soon as it's done. The songs you see released on the EP are the only songs recorded, some artists have to record a bunch of songs to know what they want on their projects, I figure all of that out during the writing process.
I may record random song drafts before going into a project just to get a sense of direction, but once that's figured out, I know exactly where I'm headed. Everything was a constant vibe, from the basement writing sessions to the recording and mixing sessions.
5) What sort of promo and marketing channels are you using to stand out from other indie artists?
One thing I do to stand out from other indie artists that I know, is that I literally can do everything on my own to certain point. I dropped 'V O N' with no management, no PR. Just me, my laptop with a large amount of patience to research and find out who to reach out to hoping to get blog placements.
I really was just banking on hope. That hope worked for me, Mass Appeal reached back out to me about a week after I sent my EP out for premiere placements, really the only people to reach back to me on that. I'm the guy that takes the time to really figure things out before I make my moves, like predator and prey.
6) How do you go about booking gigs for your live performances?
People have always reached out to me, I'm just now stepping out on my own and putting my own things together, making my own moves. I've been performing since I was 18, and I'm just now really getting comfortable, I guess that comes from the music I make now.
7) Did you go on tour following the release of V O N (EP)?
Nah I didn't, I thought about it, but I want to wait for something like that. I'm a person that wants things to be in demand or have some sort of sense of need from others.
I do plan on doing that next go around, I used 'V O N' just to get my feet wet on the net, see how people would gravitate toward my work. We'll see what the people want next release.
8) What has been the most important lesson you've learnt grinding as an independent artist?
Never waste your time sitting around waiting on others to move for you, or for things to happen. Too many people fall victim to idle time or expectation, and that's when you really place a low ceiling on yourself.
Expanding my creativity has helped too, I've learned that the people who support you are the most important outlet for everything. Letting the people who support you know that they count, as well as gaining new support.
Establishing genuine relationships and paying attention to what my supporters react to as well as want the most is what I'm learning to go with. I'm not trying to have fans for a year or success overnight, I want fans for life and longevity within the industry of my craft.
I want to hear my name mentioned in the same conversation as the word goat man. I won't stop until I've gotten those things, and even after.
9) What has been the best moment in your music career so far?
Right now is the best moment in my music career so far. I've never had this much exposure, this many people reaching out to me, and this much passion in my music before. All of it is new to me, and it feels more than great.
10) So what's next for you?
What's next for me is ascension, that's all I aim for.
No Sound In The Jungle: Interview With Bronx Recording Artist Prince Wiser
The Easy Truth: Interview With Independent Brooklyn Rapper Skyzoo
Room 39: Interview With Independent Detroit Rapper Ty Farris


text:
The Schoellkopf Power Station was built on land owned by Jacob F. Schoellkopf above the Niagara Gorge near the American Falls,  downriver from Rainbow Bridge. Understanding the growing need for electricity and the role of harnessing the Falls, Schoellkopf purchased the land for the hydraulic canal on May 1, 1877 for $71,000.  After Schoellkopf Sr.'s death in 1903, his sons took over the operation of the power business. In 1918, Schoellkopf's Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company merged with the Niagara Falls Power Company, which was owned by Edward Dean Adams. Much of the site is, as of 2014, occupied by the Maid of the Mist tour boat company as a maintenance area and off-season boat storage yard. The power station remains form a part of a fully accessible tourist attraction associated with Niagara Falls State Park and is connected with its Niagara Gorge hiking trail system.

Station No. 1
In 1853 construction of a "Hydraulic Canal" was begun, intended to bring water from the Niagara River above the falls to the river bluff below the falls. The original 1874 plant did not produce electricity but used water turbines to power belts and drive shafts for nearby mills. In 1882 Schoellkopf partnered with Charles Brush who had come to Niagara Falls with a dynamo and 16 carbon arc lights which were used on the streets of Niagara Falls, New York. The  first dynamo had a capacity of 1,800 horsepower and ran up to 1904 when it was abandoned in favor of Station No. 2. it was also known as the Quigley Pulp - Lower Mill and the Cliff Paper - Lower Mill.

Station No. 2
In 1898 a second much larger hydroelectric plant was built at the base of the bluff, immediately in front of Schoellkopf's original 1874 plant, and reached a capacity of 34,000 hp before being shut down in 1921.

Station No. 3
Station No. 3a was completed by 1914 and housed 13 10,000-hp turbines. Station No. 3b
began construction in 1918 and contained three generators totaling 112,500 hp. Station No. 3c
was completed by 1924 with a capacity of 210,000 hp. As the old hydraulic canal was already operating at capacity a new tunnel was constructed to supply the new station.

Collapse
On June 7, 1956, water began seeping into the back of the plant from the wall built against the bluff, causing the wall to crack. At 5 p.m. that day, Station No. 3c and then Station No. 3b flooded and collapsed into the Niagara River, destroying two thirds of the plant and the six generators that produced more than 300,000 horsepower. The grid lost 400,000 kilowatts of power and damage was estimated at $100m. The remains of the Plant either toppled into the gorge or were razed soon after. Station 3A was damaged, but remained in operation at reduced volume until 1961. The collapse led to the passage of the 1957 Niagara Redevelopment Act.

Station No. 3a was demolished in 1962 as part of Robert Moses's work to beautify the American side of the Falls. The energy lost by the 1956 collapse was replaced by the Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant, which was commissioned in 1961. The only permanently extant part of the Schoellkopf site is the stone wall (known as Power Station No. 3), which was built during beautification efforts in 1908-10. That wall was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in February 2013. However, depending on the seasonal flow of the River, it's sometimes possible to see the twisted steel girders and even a generator turbine that fell into the River.

See also
 List of hydroelectric power station failures

References

External links

Archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in New York (state)
Buildings and structures in Niagara Falls, New York
Schoellkopf family
National Register of Historic Places in Niagara County, New York

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


In today's value-based reimbursement world, an effective strategy for using health care supply chain management to produce better financial, clinical and operational results is clinical product and stock keeping unit (SKU) standardization. By lowering product variation and reducing SKUs, health systems can improve care, increase operational efficiency and save money at the same time.
Clinical product variation threatens both caregiver efficiency and patient safety because of differences in quality and utilization processes. SKU reduction and product standardization improve patient care by reducing opportunities for human and clinical error.
Consistency of care can lead to operational efficiency. Standardization streamlines product application and speeds workflow efficiency because caregivers are not required to learn new processes for different clinical products. They can focus on patient care as the use of the same products becomes routine.
SKU standardization across non-acute care settings in an integrated health care system better positions the entire provider organization for success. Under value-based care models, health systems reimbursement increasingly depends upon patients' overall health outcomes, which can be largely determined by the medical care they receive outside the acute-care setting.
Clinical product and SKU standardization is a valuable tool to drive efficiency, reduce costs and improve compliance in supply chain management.
Limiting clinical product and SKU variation can help combat employee decision fatigue by trimming down or eliminating the amount of choices management makes each day, preserving employee willpower for more critical clinical and business decisions.
To reduce product variability and SKUs, a health system first needs to identify variations that unnecessarily drive up costs and put patient care at risk. They need visibility into their health care supply chain purchasing data, and that means implementing a supply chain analytics solution. Applying analytics to the supply chain involves collecting, aggregating and storing product purchasing data. Using data to help identify, categorize and classify clinical items, health system supply chain administrators can get insights on their organizations' spending and utilization behaviors and can use those insights to improve how they make decisions about clinical product acceptability, quality and price. By accumulating spend and use information and looking across different product sets, administrators can maximize supply contract compliance, limit SKUs and generate cost-savings.
Health system leaders know that many doctors may be uncomfortable foregoing past practice for something new. Engaging senior leadership, practice management and clinicians in SKU standardization is crucial to ensuring a successful supply chain transformation. Involving clinical and administrative stakeholders in the value-appraisal process from the beginning ensures that a health system selects the most appropriate SKUs as product standards. Health systems should hold regular clinical product formulary meetings. There, practice managers and clinical sourcing leadership can discuss, develop and refine the product formulary based on insights gleaned from the supply chain analytics making the best possible clinical and business decisions for their organizations.
Health systems are assuming greater clinical and financial risk for patients along their entire continuum of care. That's why many health systems are expanding their footprint in ambulatory and other non-acute settings. That reach gives them more control over the quality of care being delivered outside of their four walls. Ensuring physicians and other clinicians treat patients with the same standard, high-quality clinical products is essential to improving patient safety and generating operating efficiencies. Consequently, health systems should apply their product and SKU standardization process in settings over which they have control. Supply chain management systems in those other settings should be integrated into the health system's supply chain analytics program. That extends health system's visibility into supply chain decisions being made at the non-acute level and ensures compliance with product and SKU standardization decisions being made at the system-wide level.
By taking these three steps, health systems can reduce clinical product variations and SKUs, improve the quality and safety of patient care, eliminate costly waste from the supply chain process and enhance compliance with best supply chain practices.


text:
Monday Halfback: Amazing Comeback Stats
Words: Andrew Bryan, Deputy Editor, NRL.com
Mon 15 May 2017, 09:00 AM
When the Warriors raced to a 28-6 half-time lead at Pepper Stadium on Saturday, the Panthers were booed off the field by their own fans.
Just 40 minutes later they had created history and saved their season.
It was one of those days.
The Panthers and Warriors set the season record for points in a game (64). The scoring frenzy lasted the whole 80 minutes. On a crazy and wildly entertaining Saturday night the Titans upset the Storm 38-36, combining for 74 points to kick-off a thrilling double-header in Brisbane.
By the time the Roosters had racked up 48 points against a listless Eels outfit on Sunday afternoon, Round 10 had become the highest-scoring round of NRL (400 points) since Round 25, 2015 (408).
It was Penrith's second biggest comeback in the club's history and the eighth biggest comeback the game has ever seen. It was also the biggest lead the Warriors have ever given up.
So what went so wrong for the Warriors and so right for the Panthers?
The Warriors scored five tries to one in the first half, despite having only 44 per cent of the ball. Their average play-the-ball speed was more than half a second slower than their opponents and they had made 15 ineffective tackles to seven. The Panthers were left to rue 16 missed tackles in the first half.
The Warriors took full advantage of a 12-man Penrith outfight - after Waqa Blake had conceded the most blatant of professional fouls in the 11th minute to be sent to the sin bin - racing in two tries and then seemingly putting the game to bed on the stoke of half-time with a length-of-the-field intercept.
While they racked up a big first half lead, the Warriors had only managed an extra five play-the-balls (15-10) inside the Panthers' 20-metre zone at the break.
Still, a 22-point lead should have been more than enough for a Warriors team looking to make it three wins on the trot with a place in the top eight on the line.
But then the siren sounded for half-time and the game completely changed.
In the next 40 minutes the Panthers ran for an incredible 720 more metres (1,145 to 425) than their shell-shocked opposition. They completed 23/24 sets at 96 per cent, forcing the Warriors to make 196 tackles in the second half, including 25 missed tackles (below).
Once the Panthers seized momentum they simply refused to let it go, racing in four tries in a -12-minute window and earning 23 play-the-balls in the Warriors 20 metre zone to zero.
But most alarmingly, the Warriors managed just five play-the-balls in the Panthers half in the entire 40 minutes, including a 19-minute stretch where they never got over the halfway line with the ball.
In fact it took 30 minutes of the second half until the Warriors got consecutive play-the-balls over the halfway line and it only happened once, such was the total domination from the Penrith side.
No wonder the Panthers were able to score 30 unanswered points.
"It takes a tough team to come off the canvas like that. We knew we had that in us and we were talking about winning the game at half-time and not giving up," Panthers coach Anthony Griffin said after the game.
Warriors play-the-balls in Penrith's half in the second 40 minutes:
42nd min: play the ball on tackle five, just inside the Panthers' half.
52nd min: play the ball on tackle five just over halfway.
71st min: two plays over the halfway line - their only consecutive plays in the entire half.
76th min: final play in opposition half.
Newcastle Knights rewarded for effort
The Knights recorded just their second win of the season when they upset the Raiders on Mother's Day, but it had been a long time coming.
The Newcastle outfit have hit the lead in seven of their 10 matches this season but have lacked the belief, experience or the ability to own the big moments when it has mattered most.
They led the Warriors in Round 1 with just seven minutes left, they led the Rabbitohs at half-time in Round 3, and in Round 5 the scores were level at 18-18 with just seven minutes left against the reigning premiers before a James Maloney field goal broke their hearts.
In three of their last four games the Knights led at half-time against the Bulldogs, Cowboys and Titans before going down in each game.
But against the Raiders, the Knights refused to go away and out-enthused their more fancied rivals in the final 30 minutes to run away with the contest sparking emotional scenes in the Hunter.
It was the club's biggest win in 629 days, and for forward Josh King, it was his first victory in 14 attempts in the NRL.
Short drop-out is the odds-on play
The Bulldogs' short drop-out tactic has divided opinion and surprised many commentators, but coach Des Hasler is onto a winner and the statistics prove it.
The Bulldogs have had 18 dropouts this season and got the ball back seven times, at a strike rate of 38.8 per cent. Not bad when every other team gives the ball back 100 per cent of the time.
The added benefit for the Bulldogs is that when they don't get the ball back, their defence is not working any harder than it absolutely has to. There is no running out 50 metres and then retreating as the set goes on. They are able to stand on their line and rush out.
NRL teams are more than happy to give away multiple penalties on their own line and the only difference with this tactic is that it gives them a chance to get the ball back.
The modern game has evolved, and it's only a matter of when, not if, other coaches adopt the tactic. Once it catches on, we'll wonder why the long drop-out ever existed, like kicking duels.
NOTHING beats Sunday arvo footy and it's bound to be a cracker when the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs face the Sydney Roosters at ANZ Stadium.
Napa's great gesture
He was rocked in the first half by a massive Nathan Brown tackle, but the biggest hit of the night came at full-time when Roosters forward Dylan Napa gave away his jersey to a young fan in the crowd.


text:
Q: Evaluate $\int_C{\frac{\sin z}{z^2(z-2)}}dz$ where $C$ is given by $x^2+xy+y^2=1$ Evaluate $\int_C{\frac{\sin z}{z^2(z-2)}}dz$ where $C$ is given by $x^2+xy+y^2=1$.
Okay so I know that you can do this one of two ways, either using General Cauchy integration and or Residue Theorem. I also know that this integral has two discontinuities at $z=0$ and $z=2$ however 2 falls outside the contour. After which, I'm not really familiar on how to apply either theorem.

A: We only care about $z=0$ since $z=2$ falls outside this contour. This is a first-order (simple) pole since $\frac{\sin z}{z}$ has a removable singularity. Hence, the residue is
$$ \operatorname*{Res}_{z=0}\big(f(z)\big) = \lim_{z\to 0} z\ f(z) = \lim_{z\to 0} \frac{\sin z}{z(z-2)} = -\frac12 $$

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange