Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Jonathan Edwards of the Great Awakening was not just a slaveowner but lobbied successfully to have slavery expanded into the state of Georgia.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evangelicals, by definition, are relatively conservative about matters of sexual behaviour. That's why they're 'associated with homophobia'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:


TBF, there are affirming evangelicals who believe the Bible doesn't condemn loving gay relationships, but they're currently in the minority.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Byron,

That is a while to lurk. Thanks for that post.

---

(Do like to warm up. )

quote:

---

You are, of course, right that homosexuality is a presenting issue over a deeper question. I'm not sure it's as simple as "is the Bible authoritative?". The big questions are, what do we mean by saying the Bible is the "supreme authority on matters of faith and conduct"?, what does "authority" mean anyway?. Also there is a whole bunch of questions about interpretive methods.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I suggest that they'll always be in the minority, because churches that go down this path may eventually cease to label themselves or to be labelled as evangelicals. The term may lose its appeal for them (although 'evangelicalism' seems to be a 'brand' that many people are reluctant to give up these days).

In terms of women in leadership, it's not clear why it should be considered as exactly the same sort of issue as homosexuality. If it's a matter of evangelicals choosing to 'go against the letter of Bible' on one but not the other, you have to admit that all Christian groups, evangelical or otherwise, aim to be biblically literal on some matters but not on others. I don't see why evangelicals alone should be called out on this!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evangelicals, by definition, are relatively conservative about matters of sexual behaviour. That's why they're 'associated with homophobia'.

---

What definition is that you're referring to?

---

I'm assuming that evangelicalism promotes relatively high standards of personal sexual restraint because this quality seems to be promoted as virtue in the NT; there may also be an anxiety about maintaining borders around the family as the protected site of religious transmission and acculturation, which would also be backed up by appeals to the NT.

It might be possible to found an evangelical church that positively claimed biblical justification for sexual liberation, rather than simply inching towards it as a result of cultural pressure or of personal sexual preferences, but perhaps such strict positivity might have been more in evidence in some Christian groups in earlier centuries rather than today. Polygamy is now depicted as existing only as a means of oppressing women, but googling suggests that some early Anabaptists allowed it as an outworking of personal conscience (see p. 29). Presumably this attitude would work for other kinds of sexual relationships as well.

Such groups never seen to become normative. They remain small and often to die out. Persecution contributed to this, of course, but even in modern America, where religious diversity runs rampant, how many self-proclaimed evangelical churches have a theology that openly proclaims the value of polyandry or even the biblical acceptability of the ever-new practice of sowing one's (heterosexual) wild oats? I suppose there's the Amish 'rumspringa' period, but even that seems to be more about pragmatism than theology.

I stand to be corrected! It's a very interesting subject.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Byron:


Sexuality and headship are different, true, but there're more similarities than selective traditionalists want to admit. Those who've rejected headship but not straight-as-norm, like Fulcrum, are in a very difficult position, unable to control the precedent they've set.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The association is not helped by reporting bias in the media. Not all evangelicals believe homosexual activity to be a sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's not that easy to ditch evangelicalism. As I said, I agree with the basic theological position of evangelicalism. If I was to transfer my allegiance to a different part of the Christian tradition I would have to change my theological position on a lot of things, just to find a better fit for a secondary issue.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Jonathan Edwards of the Great Awakening was not just a slaveowner but lobbied successfully to have slavery expanded into the state of Georgia.

---

[pedantry] I think you're confusing Jonathan Edwards with George Whitefield. And he lobbied for the legalization of slavery in the colony of Georgia, which wouldn't be a state until about a quarter of a century later. [/pedantry]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The association is not helped by reporting bias in the media. Not all evangelicals believe homosexual activity to be a sin.

---

quote:

---

But, one person standing up and shouting about the evils of homosexuality attracts the press.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't know anything about Fulcrum, but it would be interesting to know if gay relationships tend to be more tolerated or acceptable in congregations led by women ministers than otherwise. I've read research which claims that women clergy tend to be more liberal than men. Tolerance may be allowed in certain congregations, but whether denominational teachings will change is another matter, especially since there are fewer women leaders the further up the ladder you go.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In terms of women in leadership, it's not clear why it should be considered as exactly the same sort of issue as homosexuality. If it's a matter of evangelicals choosing to 'go against the letter of Bible' on one but not the other, you have to admit that all Christian groups, evangelical or otherwise, aim to be biblically literal on some matters but not on others. I don't see why evangelicals alone should be called out on this!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

You yourself mention the Evangelical Alliance (which has just kicked out Steve Chalke for not being homophobic) and the UCCF. Both unapologetic promoters of homophobia. And you could sign your name to the UCCF and EA mission statements?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:


Homophobia is the word for this form of bigotry.

---

quote:

---

if you oppose the right of people who love each other to get married and are working to separate families (as opponents of gay marriage are) then homophobia is being polite. If you have a pharisee-like dedication to the rules and are callous and unempathetic about those they hurt, that's worse. If you deny your approach leads to suffering, that's just callous blindness.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...a theologically based opposition to homosexual practice is not bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Jesus taught love of God and neighbour AND what we would call "traditional" sexual ethics; they are not mutually exclusive.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Evangelicals, by definition, are relatively conservative about matters of sexual behaviour. That's why they're 'associated with homophobia'.

---

What definition is that you're referring to?

---

I'm assuming that evangelicalism promotes relatively high standards of personal sexual restraint because this quality seems to be promoted as virtue in the NT; there may also be an anxiety about maintaining borders around the family as the protected site of religious transmission and acculturation, which would also be backed up by appeals to the NT.

It might be possible to found an evangelical church that positively claimed biblical justification for sexual liberation, rather than simply inching towards it as a result of cultural pressure or of personal sexual preferences, but perhaps such strict positivity might have been more in evidence in some Christian groups in earlier centuries rather than today. Polygamy is now depicted as existing only as a means of oppressing women, but googling suggests that some early Anabaptists allowed it as an outworking of personal conscience (see p. 29). Presumably this attitude would work for other kinds of sexual relationships as well.

Such groups never seen to become normative. They remain small and often to die out. Persecution contributed to this, of course, but even in modern America, where religious diversity runs rampant, how many self-proclaimed evangelical churches have a theology that openly proclaims the value of polyandry or even the biblical acceptability of the ever-new practice of sowing one's (heterosexual) wild oats? I suppose there's the Amish 'rumspringa' period, but even that seems to be more about pragmatism than theology.

I stand to be corrected! It's a very interesting subject.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The affirmations of the Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality report make interesting reading, and certainly don't represent a virulent homophobia

---

Nope, the 'affirmations' you link to are pretty strongly anti-gay, so I would regard them as a thousand percent unacceptable on grounds of homophobia.

I was particularly amused and angered by "We do not accept that holding these theological and ethical views on biblical grounds is in itself homophobic." LOL. What meaningless drivel! They might as well just write something like "We do not regard racism as in itself racist." Why not just be done with it and add an affirmation: "We do not regard the definitions of English words as applying to us, so we can write whatever self-contradictory stuff we like. And so, no matter how homophobic we are, if we say it isn't homophobia then it isn't, because we get to define words."

There is, I think, a pervasive delusion within evangelical Christianity that being against gay people living their lives is different to "homophobia". The delusion is that if someone is anti-gay in a nasty way that stems from simply an innate fear of gay people, then that is "homophobia" and bad; whereas if a person is anti-gay in a "kind" and "loving" way that stems from sincerely held biblical belief, then that is totally okay and not "homophobia" at all. This absurdity stems, I think, from the conviction that it must be not a bad thing to be anti-gay because "the bible says to be", but that "homophobia" must be bad because society says it is and because even the staunchest evangelical can see that there are ways of being nasty to gay people that are just too nasty and are overdoing it. So then they set up "homophobia" as bad and representing the bad ways of treating gay people, versus the "good" ways of being anti-gay which they convince themselves are "not homophobia".

This, I think, is behind the patently absurd pronouncements that Evangelicals then make about how they hold anti-gay views because they're biblically based but they themselves definitely aren't homophobic. Such statements read, to the outside observer, exactly like saying "well I don't think black people should be able to marry, because from a biblical standpoint I've come to that view, but I'm not "racist", I really don't think it's fair to call me "racist", I just don't like black people is all." The outside observer can then only conclude that the person is an idiot who does not understand English, and also that they are very definitely racist. The really strange thing is that nearly all evangelicals would agree immediately that someone who was opposed to black people being able to marry would be "racist", but they go into massive denial mode at the suggestion that being opposed to gay people being able to marry is "homophobic" or "anti-gay" and start pulling word-redefinitions left, right and centre. Because of course when they do exactly the same thing to gay people as the racist does to black people, they aren't doing anything wrong, but the racist of course is. The hypocrisy is sickening.

For this reason, I myself tend to avoid using the word "homophobic" because anti-gay Christians deliberately misinterpret it and respond "oh, no, no, I'm not homophobic, I just have a biblically based view about why gay everything is bad", so to avoid myself from having to bang my head repeatedly against walls and call them morons when they give that response, I prefer to simply talk about them being "anti gay-rights" or "anti gay-marriage". Even they can usually agree that they are "anti gay marriage", and they don't usually start playing stupid word games to try and paint themselves in a less negative light (except when they decide "oh no, I'm not anti anything, I'm just for traditional marriage!" )

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
There is, I think, a pervasive delusion within evangelical Christianity that being against gay people living their lives is different to "homophobia".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The affirmations of the Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality report make interesting reading, and certainly don't represent a virulent homophobia - although personally I still think they are not as affirming as I would like.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:


Homophobia is the word for this form of bigotry.

---

"Homophobia" is not the word, but on the contrary a manipulative, dishonest and unacceptable smear.

---

quote:

---

And a theologically based opposition to homosexual practice is not bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Caliing opponents of homosexual practice "homophobes" is like calling homosexuals "poofters", girls who wear short dresses "sluts", supporters of the welfare state "communists", policemen "fascists", and boat-people "queue jumpers".

---

quote:

---

if you oppose the right of people who love each other to get married and are working to separate families (as opponents of gay marriage are) then homophobia is being polite. If you have a pharisee-like dedication to the rules and are callous and unempathetic about those they hurt, that's worse. If you deny your approach leads to suffering, that's just callous blindness.

---

quote:

---

Jesus taught love of God and neighbour AND what we would call "traditional" sexual ethics; they are not mutually exclusive. [/QB]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Homophobia is the word for this form of bigotry.

---

"Homophobia" is not the word, but on the contrary a manipulative, dishonest and unacceptable smear.

---

quote:

---

And a theologically based opposition to homosexual practice is not bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Jesus taught love of God and neighbour AND what we would call "traditional" sexual ethics; they are not mutually exclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
if you oppose the right of people who love each other to get married and are working to separate families (as opponents of gay marriage are) then homophobia is being polite. If you have a pharisee-like dedication to the rules and are callous and unempathetic about those they hurt, that's worse. If you deny your approach leads to suffering, that's just callous blindness.

---

Excellent summary of the important points!

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
So how is it, then, that 'homophobia' has come to be the go-to word for being against homosexuals in any way whatsoever? Is it just because 'sexualist' or 'heterosexualist' didn't roll off the tongue?

---

That's an interesting historical question. Because obviously if you break the word "homophobia" down into its components, "homo" and "phobia" then it looks as if it would mean "fear of gay people" and thus that only a person who feared gay people would be "homophobic". Obviously it doesn't actually mean this, and thinking that the meaning of a word is the sum of its etymological pieces is a pretty basic fallacy in linguistics, but I think it's a fallacy that a lot of people do fall into with regard to this word ("I'm not afraid of gay people, therefore I'm not 'homophobic' right?" ).

The question of why the word in English for being against gay people and gay rights is "homophobia" rather than "hetroist" or "sexualist" as you suggest is an interesting one, which I can offer absolutely no insight into! I think, however, if one of those alternates had been adopted historically then there wouldn't be nearly as many problems today with people saying the nonsensical: "Well I'm anti-gay but I'm not homophobic!"

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToujoursDan:

quote:

---

Caliing opponents of homosexual practice "homophobes" is like calling homosexuals "poofters", girls who wear short dresses "sluts", supporters of the welfare state "communists", policemen "fascists", and boat-people "queue jumpers".

---

Hardly. Being gay is an innate and unchangeable part of a person. Homophobia is a consciously chosen belief or attitude.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Obviously it doesn't actually mean this, and thinking that the meaning of a word is the sum of its etymological pieces is a pretty basic fallacy in linguistics, but I think it's a fallacy that a lot of people do fall into with regard to this word ("I'm not afraid of gay people, therefore I'm not 'homophobic' right?" ).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I said was I could sign their respective doctrinal statements

---

quote:

---

The affirmations of the Pastoral Responses to Homosexuality report make interesting reading, and certainly don't represent a virulent homophobia

---

quote:

---

From the linked statement:
5. We oppose moves within certain churches to accept and/or endorse sexually active same-sex partnerships as a legitimate form of Christian relationship and to permit the ordination to ministry of those in such sexual relationships. We stand prayerfully with those in such churches who are seeking to resist these moves on biblical grounds.

6. We oppose church services of blessing for civil partnerships and other forms of gay and lesbian relationships as unbiblical and reject any redefinition of marriage to encompass same-sex relationships.
...
9. We believe both habitual homoerotic sexual activity without repentance and public promotion of such activity are inconsistent with faithful church membership. While processes of membership and discipline differ from one church context to another, we believe that either of these behaviours warrants consideration for church discipline.

10. We encourage evangelical congregations to welcome and accept sexually active lesbians and gay men. However, they should do so in the expectation that they, like all of us who are living outside God's purposes, will come in due course to see the need to be transformed and live in accordance with biblical revelation and orthodox church teaching.

---

quote:

---

And back to Alan Cresswell:
But, we have to remember that the EA represents a broad constituency (even if recent events has probably resulted in a narrowing of their constituency to the more conservative end of the evangelical spectrum), and a large part of that membership would hold very conservative attitudes to marriage, who probably thought that same document went too far in affirming homosexuality.

---

quote:

---

Justinian sumarising Alan Cresswell:
But we have to remember that EA has a lot of members, and a lot of those members are raging homophobes. It is more important for us to make nice with raging homophobes than it is for us to provide any support or affirmation to gay people in any way, shape, or form. And even the line we have drawn might be too much for the raging homophobes - and they are more important to us than the gay people they would oppress.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't think all evangelicals claim 'full biblical literalism'. That's fundamentalists.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And a theologically based opposition to homosexual practice is not bigotry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
"Homophobia" is not the word, but on the contrary a manipulative, dishonest and unacceptable smear.

---

quote:

---

And a theologically based opposition to homosexual practice is not bigotry.

---

quote:

---

Caliing opponents of homosexual practice "homophobes" is like calling homosexuals

---

quote:

---

Jesus taught love of God and neighbour AND what we would call "traditional" sexual ethics; they are not mutually exclusive.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
According to the OED homophobia has had two distinct meanings

1. Fear of men (either 'male' or 'human') with quotes from 1920 and 1960

2. "Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality" dating to 1969 (Time magazine), "such homophobia is based on understandable instincts among straight people, but it also involves innumerable misconceptions and oversimplifications". The 1975 example from the Globe and Mail (Toronto) is "There is no such thing as the homosexual problem any more than there is a black problem—the problems are racism and homophobia" and so directly equates racism and homophobia.

So 40 to 45 years and probably a bit longer since the 1969 reference doesn't treat the word as completely new.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
You're already starting with the anti-gay slurs by calling them "homosexuals" rather than people.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
ADDENDUM: Saying that "homosexuals" is an anti-gay slur makes about as much sense as saying that "gay" is an anti-homosexual slur.

And in fact 'homosexuals' is actually the more inclusive term, seeing as how 'gays' would often be taken to mean only male homosexuals, not female ones.

Really, folks, there is quite enough in the world for us homosexuals to be outraged about without manufacturing new outrages out of thin air.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Justinian, Croeos and others - would you say it is homophobic to believe that same-sex activity is wrong? Not wishing to ban it, or to treat people any differently based on who they choose to have sex with, but just believing it is not approved of by God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Justinian, Croeos and others - would you say it is homophobic to believe that same-sex activity is wrong? Not wishing to ban it, or to treat people any differently based on who they choose to have sex with, but just believing it is not approved of by God.

I certainly think that treating people any differently because of the gender of who they sleep with constitutes homophobia, but what if you simply believe on a personal level that it's wrong? So you won't be doing it yourself, but you have no wish for those who do so to be in any way restricted or discriminated against.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
But the 1969 example does not equate with the modern meaning. It does appear as if the 1975 example could.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
That's certainly not one I've manufactured - but it comes up under two circumstances.

The first is when the word homosexual (or any other group term) is preceeded by the definite article. "The homosexuals" "The gays" "The blacks". Using such a term with the definite artice is inherently othering and is a problem.

---

quote:

---

English, however, makes a lot of things implicit and the normal procedure is to give the benefit of the doubt in any communication or it breaks down. Benefit of the doubt, however, changes in discussions where standard words in standards usage that have been standard words for longer than I have been alive are claimed to be slurs.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Justinian, Croeos and others - would you say it is homophobic to believe that same-sex activity is wrong? Not wishing to ban it, or to treat people any differently based on who they choose to have sex with, but just believing it is not approved of by God.

---

quote:

---

Hybreeding, hybreeding, oh, how terrible, hybreeding. What white woman would want her baby to be mulatto, made by a colored man? Let’s stay the way God made us. I believe it’s right.

---