Does the Christian Sexual Ethic leave LGBTQ+ persons vulnerable to suicidality? (4/5)
It is no secret that LGBTQ+ persons experience a higher levels of suicidality than others outside this community. Often societal and parental rejection is cited as being the primary cause for this reality. One study published in the 2009 January edition of Pediatrics reported:
“On the basis of odds ratios, lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults who reported higher levels of family rejection during adolescence were 8.4 times more likely to report having attempted suicide… compared with peers from families that reported no or low levels of family rejection.”[1]
Even if you consider how diverse findings from such studies can be, all agree that suicidality—whether we are talking about suicidal ideation, self-harm, suicide attempts or suicide completions—is higher in the LGBTQ+ community than it is in the general population. This is especially true for those who identify as Trans*.[2]
IS THE POTENTIAL FOR HARM TOO GREAT?
When reading arguments and counterarguments regarding the soundness or correct interpretations of these types of studies, it is easy to forget that these numbers represent people—people of inestimable dignity and worth. However you slice it, these studies are both staggering and heart-wrenching, especially for those who have lost loved ones in this way.
One such story is told by Linda Robertson. She did everything in her power to love her same-sexed attracted son, Ryan, without compromising her conviction that God did not want her son to act on those attractions. Now having lost her son to a drug overdose, she regrets having asked her son to “make a choice between his faith and being a sexual person.”[3]
Given the grim reality of these reports, parents of children with gender dysphoria seeking gender affirming treatment are sometimes told that they are choosing between the treatment offered and a dead child.[4] With such high stakes, is holding onto a Christian sexual ethic worth it? Or is the potential for harm too great? It is to this very serious question we now turn.
THE CHRISTIAN SEXUAL ETHIC AND SUICIDALITY
In previous posts I have stated that the Christian sexual ethic can be summarized in three statements:
1. Human beings were created by God with physical bodies that are sexually differentiated as male and female (Gen. 1:27)
2. Our sexed bodies play a significant role in the institution known as marriage where one man and one woman come together as “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24)
3. Any type of sexual behavior outside of the covenant of marriage between one man and one woman falls short of God’s design for sex and is therefore wrong
Remember, the question for this series of posts is whether the Christian sexual ethic is harmful to LGBTQ+ persons. Given the higher rates of suicidality among LGBTQ+ persons, it is easy to see how many people would argue that it is. However, the claim I have been arguing for in this series is:
The Christian sexual ethic is not harmful to LGBTQ+ persons, rather it is an invitation to all people to submit themselves to a loving God who created them to reflect his triune nature and the glory of the gospel.
In this post, I want to try to defend the first part of this claim against the alarming and gut-wrenching reality of higher suicidality among the LGBTQ+ community. I believe that If we are really concerned about higher suicidality rates among persons in the LGBTQ+ community, then we must take into consideration several factors that make this discussion complex:
1. The inconclusiveness of studies measuring suicidality
2. The reality of social contagion around the topic of suicidality
3. The lack of resilience fostered in our society [5]
THE INCONCLUSIVENESS OF STUDIES MEASURING SUICIDALITY
Most studies done on suicidality in the LGBTQ+ community seem to focus on Trans* persons—or persons who experience incongruence between their biological sex and their gender—whether they experience life or present as male, female or neither.[6] For this reason, I suggest we narrow our focus to the “T” of the LGBTQ+ community and see if we can’t find some clarity. One of the issues complicating the findings of these studies is that they do not adequately account for co-occurring mental health issues. On this topic, Preston Sprinkle—President of The Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender—has written:
“Almost every study that reports high suicidality among trans* people does not ‘control’ for mental health issues. That is, they compare trans* people with the general population and not with non-trans* people who have mental health conditions. One recent study, however, did control for mental health conditions and found that the percentages of suicidality (among trans* and non-trans* people with mental health conditions) were roughly the same.”[7]
The study Sprinkle cites has been published in Archives of Sexual Behavior 48, no. 5 (2019). Another study recently performed in Finland offered similar results.[8] These findings coupled with contradictory reports regarding the effectiveness of gender-affirming care in reducing suicidality among Trans* persons should at least cause us to call a time out before prohibiting the promotion of a Christian sexual ethic.[9]
THE REALITY OF SOCIAL CONTAGION
Another factor to take into consideration is the tragic reality of social contagion regarding suicidality. Studies seem to indicate that exposure to suicide,—especially among younger people—has a significant negative effect on the suicidal thoughts and actions of those exposed. Given this finding, the perpetuation of the “transition or suicide” narrative could even exacerbate suicidality among Trans* people.[10] Again, the situation appears to be more complicated than it does at first glance.
RESILIENCE VS CENSORSHIP AS PROTECTION AGAINST SUICIDALITY
Increasingly, an accepted strategy for protecting groups from suicidality is the censoring of voices that differ from the ideology of that vulnerable group. In many ways, this is understandable, but Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff—authors of The Coddling of the American Mind—argue that this strategy is making American society less resilient than it should be.[11] Even CNN’s Senior Political Commentator—Van Jones—shares this concern. In an address Jones made at the University of Chicago, Jones made the following comment regarding this current tendency:
“I don’t want you to be safe, ideologically. I don’t want you to be safe, emotionally. I want you to be strong. That’s different…I’m not going to take all the weights out of the gym; that’s the whole point of the gym. This is the gym. You can’t live on a campus where people say stuff you don’t like?! And these people can’t fire you, they can’t arrest you, they can’t beat you up, they can just say stuff you don’t like- and you get to say stuff back- and this you cannot bear?!”[12]
Sprinkle takes this concern even further when he writes: “Weaponizing suicidality to push a particular ideological point might actually increase suicide attempts among trans* rather than reducing them.”[13]
CONCLUSION
As people made in God’s image, LGBTQ+ persons deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and protected from those who seek to harm them. But if we truly care about suicidality among members of the LGBTQ+ community, we must seek to encourage and provide resources for this community to be able to become more resilient and to co-exist with those who do not conform to or even criticize their worldview.
Our society should never tolerate physical violence or harassment (more on this in our next post), but every community with a belief system that runs counter to the majority of persons in society should prepare their members to be resilient against those who criticize them. Christians living in areas hostile to their worldview know this all too well (see Matthew 5:43-45; John 15:18-27).
————
[2] See Preston Sprinkle, Embodied: Transgender Identities, the Church & What the Bible Has to Say (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2021), 227-230.
[3] https://justbecausehebreathes.com
[4] https://johnkassnews.com/do-you-want-a-dead-son-or-a-live-daughter/
[5] See Sprinkle, Embodied, 227-241.
[6] Sprinkle, Embodied, 49.
[7] Sprinkle, Embodied, 230-231.
[8] https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/ebmental/27/1/e300940.full.pdf
[9] Sprinkle, Embodied, 188-192.
[10] Sprinkle, Embodied, 232.
[11] Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (USA: Penguin, 2018). I will reference this book and issue more in the following post.
[12] https://fee.org/articles/the-best-anti-fragility-speech-ever-came-from-a-surprising-source/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zms3EqGbFOk&t=271s
[13] Sprinkle, Embodied, 237.