The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Author: Peter Saunders
Date: 08.10.2010
Category: Religious Liberty, Evangelism Training, Men & Women
Wikipedia defines it as ‘a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people identified or perceived as being homosexual’.
In keeping with this view, author, activist, and civil rights leader Coretta Scott King in a 1998 address, equated homophobia to ‘racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry’ on the grounds that ‘it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood’.
It is therefore understandable that ’homophobic’ is a label that no one wants to have.
However when the term was first used it actually meant something quite different.
The word homophobia first appeared in print in an article written for the 23 May 1969 edition of the American tabloid Screw, in which it was used to refer to heterosexual men’s fear that others might think they are gay. It has also been used to describe a fear of people who ‘come out’ as homosexual.
These definitions are much more in keeping with the literal meaning. After all, a phobia is a fear: claustrophobia, arachnophobia and acrophobia being fears of closed spaces, spiders and heights respectively.
For many people ’homophobia’ is actually about ‘having a fear of being accused of being bigoted, prejudiced or discriminating against homosexual people’.
This fear, which is increasingly common, causes people to take a defensive posture in order to avoid attracting disapproval or adverse publicity. This may take the form of changing ones public position, pretending to adopt views in accordance with the prevailing liberal consensus, actively denying ones real beliefs or simply abstaining from expressing an opinion when the matter is discussed.
This kind of ‘homophobia’ is becoming increasingly common amongst those who belong to religious faiths which teach that sex outside marriage is wrong (ie. most world faiths) and it is not difficult to come up with examples of (often) prominent people in whom the condition is well advanced.
For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term.
I’d like to propose the term ‘homosceptic’ - a term that is not yet in common use and hence arguably open to (re)definition. My Microsoft Word spell-check rejects it as a known word and a Google search for it throws up only 1,830 examples of its use in any context.
The Urban dictionary defines a ’homosceptic’ as ‘a member of society who does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms’.
I’d like to broaden this definition to include ‘being sceptical about the key presuppositions of the gay rights movement’ such as the beliefs that:
* Homosexuality is genetically determined * Homosexual orientation is always fixed * Sexual orientation is a biological characteristic like race, sex or skin colour * Feelings of same sex attraction should be welcomed and acted upon * Offering help to those who wish to resist or eradicate these feelings is always wrong
Of course if you accept these ‘key presuppositions’ you may well believe people who don’t to be ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced or even immoral. You might even feel that such people should not hold public office, publicly express their views or hold any job which involves having to condone, promote or facilitate same-sex intimacy.
But if you have some doubts about the truth of some or all of these beliefs – and suspect that they might be more ‘ideology-driven’ than ‘evidence-based’ – then perhaps you could argue that you are not ‘homophobic’ but rather ‘homosceptic’.
Keywords: homosexuality, homophobia, sexuality, evangelism, homosceptic
Views: 5817
Comments: 11
Recommendations: 0
Conversation Post Comment
United States
I think the concepts of genetic determinism and homosexuality as a fixed nature could be removed from the list of “key presuppositions” you provide. Those two issues fall into an area of internal self-identity for homosexuals and provide a means to justify the existence of their feelings. Whether we agree with them or not, there is no objective way to prove either way. Thus, I suggest we recognize the possibility of the existence of these feelings as evidence for the sinfulness of our inherent nature. We all possess sinful sexual desires in our hearts. For some of us, we lust after the opposite sex and commit sin. For others, they lust after their same sex and commit sin. It’s the same sin, but different in the mode of expression.
23.04.2011
Australia
"For people who don’t hate, dislike or fear gay people, but simply believe that sex between people who are not married (including all sex between those of the same sex) is morally wrong, we need a new term".
I agree but as many nations or states are moving towards legalising same sex marriage, we need to have a term which defines marriage according to biblical standards.
12.10.2010
United States
@ Sue_Mc:
The movement towards legalizing same-sex marriage in the Western world is a tremendous threat to freedom of speech and the ability of ministers to address the issue of homosexuality in biblical terms. The situation in countries like Denmark (same-sex civil unions since 1989) show a prevalence for society to punish anyone to appears to denigrate the rights of an individual because of sexual orientation. In many of these countries, preachers are fearful of bringing legal repercussions on their churches. When Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004, challenges were immediately made against a Roman Catholic organization providing adoption services for their refusal to include homosexual couples on the grounds of church teaching. In the end, the agency chose to cease all adoption services rather than be forced to disobey their beliefs.
23.04.2011
Canada
Since the next commandment after loving God, is to love our neighbour, Christians should actually be "homophiles." It’s not easy to "love the sinner, hate the sin" with a group that, by and large, defines and identifies itself by its behaviour. But that is our challenge - to love the person, a precious human soul in need of God’s mercy and grace (like all of us!) without condoning wrong behaviour or pretending that such behaviour is anything but self-destructive. Jesus walked that line, offering no condemnation, but a clear call to repentance. We need to do the same.
09.10.2010
United States
@ sine_qua_non:
This is true, and how hard it is, yet we are the same, sinners in need for a voice calling to us to repent but we desire that voice to be one of love and not hatred and Jesus voice was one of such.
11.04.2011
United Kingdom
Yes I agree we must be homophiles, loving the sinner but calling to repentance
But I was suggesting this approach as a way of establishing dialogue with people whose identity is wrapped up with their sexual orientation to the extent that they take a rejection of their behaviour as a rejection of them personally
I have found this approach useful in getting to the presuppositions behind the world-view - it doesn’t seem to provoke the same inflammatory reaction and enables you get them to question their core beliefs in a way that is less threatening
12.10.2010
United States
@ PeterSaunders:
I think one of the problems is that in our society so much emphasis is placed on the sexuality of a person that now they truly believe that their sexuality is what determines or defines them as a person. The sexuality is becoming identity rather than as scripture says Christ becoming our idenity.
11.04.2011
United States
Very impressed..thanks for this insightful thought. I am going to introduce this terminology when and if this discussion ever comes up.
25.10.2010
Norway
Thanks for insightful thoughts! I do agree - homosceptic sounds far better than homophobic. I will accept this word into my vocabulary at once.
25.10.2010
United Kingdom
Thanks Andy. This is only a very brief treament and excerpted from my previous paper on the broader issues at http://admin.cmf.org.uk/pdf/cmffiles/20_homosexuality.pdf
Throughout Scripture, sexual intercourse is seen as a gift from God to be enjoyed, but only in the context of a lifelong heterosexual marriage relationship. Man and woman become ’one flesh’.[1] The seriousness with which God views sexual behaviour outside marriage is dramatically illustrated in the Old Testament. Adultery resulted in the death penalty for both partners.[2] Those who took part in premarital sex were obliged to marry, but if loss of virginity was discovered in a woman by her husband at the time of marriage she was also stoned to death.[3]
Old Testament verses give specific directives: ’Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable’[4] and ’If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of have done what is detestable. They must be put to death’.[5] Homosexual practice is one of the reasons given for the destruction of Sodom.[6]
The severity of Old Testament penalties may surprise us, and Jesus’ death paying the price for all sins now makes them redundant. They do, however, serve to remind us of two things. God has the right both to tell us how we ought to live and to call us to account for the way we do.
New Testament teaching is even more demanding, as it shows us the true spirit of Old Testament Law. Jesus explains that not only is sexual intercourse outside marriage wrong, but even impure thoughts are sin.[7] The prohibitions against adultery and premarital sex are upheld and homosexual behaviour is specifically ruled out on three occasions.[8]
1. Genesis 2:24
2. Deuteronomy 22:22
3. Deuteronomy 22:20-21
4. Leviticus 18:22
5. Leviticus 20:13
6. Genesis 19:1-29
7. Matthew 5:27-28
8. Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11;1 Timothy 1:8-11
14.10.2010
Ireland
Peter, I was wondering if you could clarify why it seems christianity has such a strong stand point on homosexuality as being wrong? Jesus never spoke of it. There are only about 7 verses mentioning it and even then some translations dont use the word ’homosexuality’ as it is only a recent term first used in 1869. Is it possible that the church has got too caught up in traditions and doctrine passed down from other times that, if we go back and look at the time that paul was talking about where he was speaking out about men having ’iffemeniates’ (cant spell) who were boys forced to dress and behave like girls?
Is it possible that the church has got the issue of homosexuality wrong or just that it is not as black and white as people say it is. It wouldnt be the first time the church has stood very firmly on a ’biblically based’ issue only to find later that if we look at the context of the scripture we may have been misinterpreting and putting our own words and views in?
I would love to hear back from you on how we as christians are to deal with this question? are we ’right’/’justified’ to have such a strong stance on something that is so vague in the bible? and if we arent to have a strong ’no’ stance, what is the alternative?
14.10.2010
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).