Sticks and stones: why words matter

This is the complete first chapter from Steve Morrison's book Born This Way.

A dramatic reversal

When I was five years old, my kindergarten class was taught a song about a native Australian bird called the kookaburra. The kookaburra is best known for its distinctive ‘laugh’, which can often be heard echoing through the trees in the early morning. The song spoke of the merry, laughing kookaburra sitting in the gum tree as king of the bush. His joyous existence was summed up in the last line of the song: “Gay your life must be”.^[1]

As a small child, I sang the song with great enthusiasm as I imagined this happy, proud bird without a care in the world. But when I reached high school, the song became the subject of scorn and laughter as the schoolyard boys imagined a male kookaburra being sexually attracted to other male kookaburras.

How our world has changed! Today, the idea of scorning or laughing at a gay kookaburra would bring swift public condemnation.

This change was made clear to me recently as I talked with a group of men on a Saturday afternoon. I play cricket in a local team with a great bunch of guys. Most of them aren’t Christians. As I sat down after a game to join the team for a drink, the conversation went dead when one of the guys turned to me and asked what I thought about ‘the gay issue’ (they know I’m a Christian pastor). Once I openly and honestly articulated what I think the Bible says (as spelled out in this book), there was a wave of relief as the men were able to speak frankly about their own opinions on the matter.

What struck me was that even though they aren’t Christians, these guys showed a caution and hesitation in speaking on the topic—a caution unlike anything I would have heard in the schoolyard years earlier.

Over the past 40 years, there has been an almost complete reversal in the popular view of homosexuality in the Western world. Even as recently as 1973, the influential American Psychiatric Association (APA) described homosexuality as a psychological ‘disorder’.^[2] In society as a whole, people who had homosexual tendencies were often marginalized as ‘queer’and different, being unfairly subject to prejudice and persecution.

The shift away from this type of widespread marginalization began in earnest with the sexual revolution of the 1960s. At first there were relatively small movements from within the homosexual community, such as the Stonewall Riots in New York in June 1969, where the gay community asserted itself against a police raid on the Stonewall Inn.^[3] But these early developments were fuelled by a mainstream sexual revolution that began much earlier in the 1960s and had already gained widespread acceptance, as demonstrated by the Woodstock Festival held in nearby Bethel only a month and a half after Stonewall.

Today, only a few decades on, the revolution has come full circle. The reversal in opinion among the general population has been so extreme that individuals face a similar danger to that of 45 years ago—only this time in reverse. The mainstream attitude has moved from mistreating homosexuals to endorsing all aspects of homosexuality, and marginalizing those that take any other view. If you don’t agree with the popular understanding of homosexuality, it’s likely that you will be persecuted for taking an unacceptable minority stance.

The mainstream view used to be that homosexuality was a disorder, but now it’s considered normal and natural. It used to be that homosexuality was opposed and suppressed; now it’s nurtured and celebrated. If you don’t agree with this view, then you are likely to be verbally opposed and ostracized. You may be called intolerant, a bigot, a homophobe or a redneck. Almost every Christian I know who has expressed any disagreement with the mainstream view on homosexuality—however carefully expressed, however nuanced their views—has experienced persecution at some level.

But while Christians today may experience persecution, we also need to admit that believers have made mistakes and, at times, even contributed to the mistreatment of homosexuals. For example, Christians today need to consider why their predecessors didn’t speak out more clearly when homosexual attraction was classified as a psychological disorder. The Bible talks openly about homosexuality (as we’ll see), but never to place it in the category of ‘mental disorder’. If Christians had spoken out more clearly in decades gone by—if they had led the charge in insisting that it’s wrong to call same-sex attraction a form of insanity—much pain and confusion may have been spared.

The intolerance of ‘tolerance’

The discussion about homosexuality is blemished by the intolerant past—but also by what we could call the ‘over-tolerant’ present. In the past, intolerance towards homosexual people classified them as having a mental disorder, and led to anti-homosexual laws and genuine homophobia. This intolerance was misguided and prejudiced, and has rightly been rejected. But the 21^st-century replacement, while quite different, is equally dangerous.

Today, we live in a vacuum of ethical thought. We live in a society where ‘tolerance’ trumps truth. ‘Tolerance’ is seen as the highest of all ethical virtues, in some cases greater even than love.

What does our society today mean by the word ‘tolerance’? Of course, there are still a few things that must not be tolerated, but this is mostly restricted to activities that obviously damage others, like murder. On all other matters, a person is free to think and do as they choose, so long as they’re not perceived to be hurting anyone else. ‘Tolerance’ today means never saying that a particular behaviour or attitude is wrong.

In fact, the one activity that today’s definition of tolerance says we must not tolerate is intolerance. Theologian Don Carson has recently written an excellent booked called The Intolerance of Tolerance, in which he explains that ‘tolerance’ used to mean accepting the existence of different views.^[4] A person used to be described as tolerant “if, while holding strong views, he or she insisted that others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own cases”.^[5] A person could hold a different view to someone else, and both could passionately believe that they were right and the other was wrong, but there was still respect for the fact that each had the right to hold a different view. As you can see, this view of tolerance is based on the assumption that there is absolute or objective truth, and that the parties involved are seeking that truth.

Let me give two examples. There is a current worldwide debate over climate change, its causes, and its effect. The older definition of tolerance would say that all parties involved in the debate need to respect the fact that other people are entitled to their views, even if you passionately disagree. All people in the debate, if they care about objective truth, will try to convince others of their views. They will be willing to say to one another, “I think you are wrong about that”. But they will continue to maintain that each party still has a right to their view.

The second example, jumping back about 300 years to the early Enlightenment, is a debate that continues today between atheists and Christians. Let me give you my side as a Christian. I am absolutely convinced that an atheist’s belief that there is no God is wrong. I think logic, science, life experience and human history tell us that there is a God. But I will fight for the atheist’s right to hold his view. I will respect him, esteem him and listen to him. I will not patronize, slander or ridicule him. But I won’t pretend we actually agree, or that we don’t have significant differences. Indeed, I will try to respectfully convince him that he’s wrong and he should change his mind—if he gives me the chance.

That was the old view of tolerance. However, the ‘tolerance’ our world has embraced today is a dramatically different idea. Today, it’s not about the acceptance of the existence of different views; it’s about the acceptance of different views. The new ‘tolerance’ holds that all beliefs and claims are equally valid. That shift is subtle, but something drastic has happened: we have lost the belief in objective truth. This attitude stifles (and sometimes even rejects) real discussion, and leads to a new type of intolerance: we become intolerant of anyone who claims there is absolute truth.

Unfortunately this new ‘tolerance’ fails at its own objective. As Carson’s title suggests, it actually breeds a new and more aggressive form of intolerance. Combined with the assumption that there is no objective truth, the new tolerance attacks anyone who won’t accept another view as being as equally valid as their own. It avoids deep engagement over serious issues, like the one in this book. Sadly, this then leads to aggressive attacks on those who offer an argument for objective truth—particularly on moral issues—before even listening to their argument. Because I am writing this book in a world dominated by this new ‘tolerance’, I won’t be surprised if there are nasty and intolerant things said about me for simply addressing this topic, even by people who take no time to engage with the substance of the argument.

Genuine tolerance is a beautiful thing. We should be free to argue a point of view, to disagree with one another, and to seek the truth—but to do so with genuine respect for one another, patiently listening to those with whom we disagree. In contrast, today’s twisted and impoverished view of ‘tolerance’ is highly dangerous. If we stifle debate, if we stop seeking the truth and the best way to live in God’s world, there is the potential to cause untold damage to ourselves and to others—even if we don’t see it.

The façade of ‘tolerance’ is that it loves. But in the end, this false view of tolerance may be the most unloving way to deal with other people. Think of the parent who gives their child unbridled freedom. Without the teaching, care, guidance and warning from a loving parent, that child would be lucky to survive to adulthood, let alone be emotionally and mentally equipped for it. Measured intolerance—where we show a willingness to say ‘no’, or to tell someone that what they’re doing is wrong—can, in fact, be an indicator of genuine love towards the one being corrected.

Brendan Eich gives us an example of both the old and the new tolerance. Eich was CEO of major software company Mozilla for only two weeks before he stepped down. The company received criticism, both from employees and from other companies, once it became public that Eich had made a $1,000 donation to support the banning of same-sex marriage in California. Those calling for Eich to be fired reminded Mozilla that it “boasts about its policy of inclusiveness and diversity”.^[6]There is a sad irony in those ostracizing Eich expecting exclusiveness and uniformity, but doing so in the name of inclusiveness and diversity.

Eich’s persecution for his personal, private view is an example of the new ‘tolerance’—or, more accurately, the new intolerance. But the story took a strange twist when some old tolerance came from an unexpected corner. In a New York Times article, Nick Bilton and Noam Cohen noted that:

Andrew Sullivan, a prominent gay writer and an early, influential proponent of making same-sex marriage legal, expressed outrage over Mr. Eich’s departure on his popular blog, saying the Mozilla chief had been “scalped by some gay activists”.

“If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out”, Mr. Sullivan wrote.^[7]

Here we see someone who no doubt disagrees with Eich’s personal beliefs, but who runs to his defence when he is “scalped”.

The complexity of these issues and the intense, rapid change in our society’s attitudes towards homosexuality makes this topic difficult, serious, and often painful. We can only wade in if we resolve to do so with the greatest care, with humility, and with a commitment to genuine tolerance. Mistakes have been made, and we can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. But we can resolve to learn from the errors of the past and find a better approach for the future.

So what are we to make of these changes? How should we think about where our society has come from, and where we find ourselves today? Let’s continue by thinking about the concept of homophobia.

The word ‘homophobia’

As mentioned above, there is a long and dark history to the way in which people who have homosexual lusts or have engaged in homosexual acts have been treated. The word often associated with that mistreatment is ‘homophobia’.

Although the word ‘homophobia’ was coined in the 1960s, it is widely used today in Western language to explain a whole range of attitudes and actions.^[8] The word itself sounds like a technical medical definition, but it has never been classified as such by either the APA or the UN’s World Health Organization. This raises a very important question: what does the word ‘homophobia’ actually mean?

Answering this question is difficult, because the word is used so broadly. Merriam-Webster’s medical dictionary defines homophobia as “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals”.^[9] Depending on what is meant by ‘aversion’, this could be a sufficiently narrow definition. But here’s the problem: today, people use the word ‘homophobia’ to describe everything from an attitude that might question the morality of homosexual practice, right through to an irrational, hostile rage that leads to physical violence or even murder. Even scholars vary in their use of the term, and many use ‘homophobia’ to refer to any negative attitudes towards homosexuals and/or homosexuality.^[10]

We all know that words can mean different things in different contexts. But it’s important to note the diverse ways in which a word like ‘homophobia’ is used, for two reasons. First, the word itself can lose all meaning, because so many other words need to be added to clarify the meaning in each situation.

For example, let’s take the phrase ‘road rage’. It’s similar to the word ‘homophobia’ because it’s in popular usage with a generally understood meaning. The problem with the term ‘road rage’ is that it, too, lacks a clear definition because of its broad usage.

Imagine a person who is confronted with the illegal, selfish and dangerous actions of another driver. He has to brake suddenly to avoid an accident, so he leans out his window and shouts, “You nearly killed me!” as deep inside he feel a sense of justified anger. An onlooker could easily call this ‘road rage’, even if no physical violence or expletives are used.

Now imagine a second person—someone driving somewhere in a great hurry. In front of him, an old lady is driving slightly under the speed limit. This man begins to feel a deep anger that the old lady would dare make his important trip take longer. So, at the red light, he gets out of his car, and violently attacks the old lady. This, too, would be called ‘road rage’. But should the actions of the people in our two examples be labelled the same way?

So what should we do? Rather than simply abandoning the word ‘homophobia’, let’s start by being really clear about attitudes and behaviours that are unacceptable. On this point, the Bible and contemporary thought are in close agreement—so much so that we can simply use biblical language to define what behaviour is unacceptable towards those who engage in homosexual activity.

In Matthew 5, as part of the famous ‘Sermon on the Mount’, Jesus tells his followers:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy’. But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matt 5:43-44)

Jesus is very clear on our response to those with whom we disagree. Sometimes a disagreement can be so strong that we are even inclined to call the other person our ‘enemy’. But no matter what views you hold, other people are to be treated with love and respect.

This means that the past decision to classify homosexual attraction as a psychological disorder was not acceptable. Future research will no doubt help us understand the psychological factors involved, but at present there is no evidence of homosexuality being related to any kind of disorder, and the Bible never places homosexuality in that category. Prejudice against those who have homosexual attractions is out—as are persecution, discrimination, mistreatment and hatred.

It should go without saying, but any form of physical violence is also completely unacceptable.

In August 2010, a prominent gay rights activist named Simon Margan was putting up posters promoting a gay rights rally at Sydney’s Town Hall, when a man named Danny Manias made what were described as “violent homophobic comments” towards him.^[11] A few days later, Manias attacked Margan on Oxford Street in Sydney, leaving him bleeding and with a severely fractured eye socket.^[12]

Sadly, that happened in 21^st-century Sydney, not in the 1950s. Whatever we may think of Margan’s views and his work for gay rights, no human being should ever be subject to this type of torment, violence and fear.

The Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) states that one of its main objectives is to “educate and empower members of the gay and lesbian community in relation to their rights for the purposes of assisting them to overcome homophobia, prejudice and discrimination”.^[13] While this book will work to clarify what the Bible says about gay and lesbian rights, it is tragic that leaders within the gay and lesbian community feel that their primary fight is against mistreatment from other human beings.

We could rightly label Mr Manias’s disgusting actions as ‘homophobic’. But can we then use the same word to describe anyone who peacefully and respectfully raises questions about homosexual practice (as I will be doing in this book)?

This leads us to the second, equally important reason that we should think carefully about modern usage of the word ‘homophobia’: the word itself can be (and often is) used in a way that unfairly stereotypes or slanders somebody.

Today, the word is often applied to people who in no way mistreat another person, but who simply hold a different view on the question of homosexuality. This person may in fact hold the homosexually attracted person in very high esteem—as high as any other human being. Rather than fear, they may have a deep love for the other. But because they hold a different view or opinion to that presented by gay lobby groups, they are labelled as ‘homophobic’.^[14]In many circles, this is the ultimate insult. But that labelling can be almost as unfair as the prejudice to which homosexuals have been subject in the past.

Let’s be really clear: just because a person disagrees with you on an issue doesn’t mean they have a phobia about you or your views. You don’t have to know another person for very long to discover ways in which their opinions and preferences differ. Even your best friend will enjoy different foods, different TV shows, different colours, and different sports. Maybe they don’t like sport at all! Their opinions will differ from yours on politics, philosophy, and all kinds of other important issues. That’s why you have so much to talk about! But it doesn’t make them ‘choco-phobic’, ‘cricket-phobic’ or ‘Lord-of-the-Rings-phobic’.

Homophobia is OUT

The mistreatment of homosexuals has no place in our society or in our lives. But we need to be very cautious about homophobia in another sense—the word itself needs to be used very carefully. ‘Homophobia’ may well be appropriately used to describe an irrational or violent reaction to homosexuality. But it is not the right word to describe anyone whose view differs from the mainstream one.

What should we do? The solution is simple. Let’s show normal human respect to each other. Let’s love and accept each other as fellow human beings. We are all different, and we all have much to learn from one another. If we can do that, we can move beyond the idea that simply holding a different opinion means someone is irrational, crazy, and driven by fear. Instead, we can relate to each other with love and respect despite our differences. We can talk, and we can listen. And we may just be able to move forward in the search for truth.

Any reader will find it hard to move forward before grasping this point. If you think that there is something inherently ‘wrong’ with a person who has homosexual attractions, and if you have some kind of fear of them, then you’re not going to listen objectively to either the Bible or the science. Likewise, if you think anyone with a different view to yours is homophobic, then you will not be objective in listening to the Bible and the science.

In moving forward, we all need to be willing to put aside our preconceived ideas so that they can be tested against what science and the Bible say. We need also to be willing to accept that each person has a right to their own opinion on these issues, even if we don’t agree with that opinion. Most importantly, we need to remain calm and objective as we think about this very emotive issue.

The problem with the word ‘gay'

As the discussion on homosexuality moves so quickly, it can be hard to keep up with what language is current and politically correct. The proponents of the movement now prefer terms like LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender), LGBTI (where ‘I’ stands for ‘Intersex’), or even LGBTQI (where ‘Q’ stands for ‘Queer’ or ‘Questioning’). While such terms can at times be helpful (for example, in helping us to be precise about who we are describing), those terms are not in common use—certainly not in the conversations that I’ve had with a wide range of people. For many decades now, in popular media and common usage alike, the preferred term used to refer to both men and women is simply ‘gay’. But although (or perhaps because) it’s so common, we need to pause and think carefully about what the word ‘gay’ means.

Recently on a lazy afternoon, I was looking through the TV guide for something to watch. I found a movie called The Object of my Affection. This is the blurb from the TV guide:

George and Nina seem like the perfect couple. They share a cozy Brooklyn apartment, a taste for tuna casserole dinners, and a devotion to ballroom dancing. There’s only one hitch: George is gay.

What does the television guide mean when it says George is gay? If the word ‘gay’ had a clearly defined meaning with a long history of usage in the English language, then reading about that movie might give you a realistic expectation about the George you are going to meet. Unfortunately, the word doesn’t have that history. Is George currently in a homosexual relationship? Is it that he finds men sexually attractive, or that he doesn’t find women sexually attractive? Or is it being used to describe some behaviour that he has engaged in previously? Is ‘gay’ a title that George has given himself, or is it something that others have assigned to him?

In another example, basketball player Jason Collins published a groundbreaking article in Sports Illustrated in 2013. He began by saying, “I’m a 34-year-old NBA center. I’m black. And I’m gay.”^[15] In the article, Collins seems to associate his meaning of the word ‘gay’ with sexual attraction. There is no mention of his being in an active homosexual relationship. But as the article progresses, it becomes clear that there is more to his understanding of the word than just an attraction. Realizing that he is ‘gay’ has taken him on a “journey of self-discovery and self-acknowledgement”. This required that he stop being a “closeted gay man” and that he publicly have this “coming out”. It sounds like Collins associates some more meaning with the word ‘gay’ than simply attraction—but what is that something more?

The history of ‘gay’

Prior to the mid 20^th century, the word ‘gay’ had a variety of meanings. The most common usage was to describe a person as happy or carefree, sometimes with a particular sense of freedom (as with the joyful kookaburra of my childhood). Less commonly, the word described the sexual promiscuity associated with a ‘free’ lifestyle. The Online Etymology Dictionary points out that, “The word gay by the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity—a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back at least to the 1630s, if not to Chaucer”^[16] (who wrote around 1370-1380):

But in oure bed he was so fressh and gay

And ther-with-al so wel coude he me glose,

Whan that he wolde han my bele chose,

That thogh he hadde me bet on every boon

He coude winne agayn my love anoon.^[17]

From as early as the 1920s, homosexuals used the word ‘gay’ to describe themselves. Even today, it is generally the preferred word for self-description—in preference to ‘homosexual’, which is perceived as sounding too rigid.^[18] Through the 1960s and 70s, the word’s general usage changed as it became popularly associated with homosexuality. Today, it is especially used to describe homosexual men, as in Sydney’s Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, but can also be used to refer to homosexual females, as in the Gay Games.

The problem with the word ‘gay’ is that its usage is still too broad to be widely useful. The American organization GLAAD, which lobbies the media on behalf of the LGBT (lesbian gay, bisexual and transgender)community, wants those in the media to “Please use gay or lesbian to describe people attracted to members of the same sex”.^[19] But even that description is insufficient, because it fails to provide sufficient alternative categories and account for the varied manifestations of attractions to the same gender.

People will often talk about two categories of sexual attraction: ‘gay’ and ‘straight’. However, when used as simplistic categories or titles, these words don’t account for what science is telling us. For, as we will see in the next chapter, science is telling us that the vast majority of people who experience attraction to the same sex also experience some level of attraction to the opposite sex. That is, the vast majority of people who identify themselves as ‘gay’ are actually bisexual.

So we find the word ‘gay’ fairly useless, not to mention potentially offensive, if we go with the GLAAD definition above. There are simply too many categories, too many nuances, being covered by the one word. Let’s take an extreme example and an extreme analogy: how do we compare a person in an active, open, long-term cohabitating homosexual relationship to another person who is in a heterosexual marriage but who once felt a slight attraction to someone of the same sex? Do we call them both ‘gay’? Not many people are bank robbers, but most people might occasionally fantasize about the cash that such an activity could give them. Does that fantasy or thought make them bank robbers? (Apologies if you’ve never had that fantasy and I just tempted you to rob a bank. Don’t do it.)

Those examples are extreme to make a point. The word ‘gay’ is used broadly to summarize any aspect of same-sex attraction, lust or action. But in a conversation where objectivity and accuracy are vital, we need to be more accurate about which aspect of the phenomenon we are talking about. People are free to identify themselves as ‘gay’ and then explain what they mean by that term, but the word is too ambiguous to be used technically or as a label.

In short, ‘gay’ is a title that people can give themselves, but it is not something you can use to label someone else.

A way forward with language

When we come to dictionary definitions, the emphasis is nearly always on attraction (rather than practice). For example, Oxford Dictionaries online defines ‘homosexual’, ‘bisexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ this way.^[20] In each case, there is no mention of sexual activity. Interestingly, however, the semantic range for the definition of ‘sexuality’ includes both attraction and activity. The APA (in its Encyclopedia of Psychology) gives a more detailed definition, in which sexuality has three stages: desire, excitement and orgasm.^[21] That definition is helpful, because it enables us to preserve the important distinction between attractions and actions. In chapter 3 we will look closely at what the Bible says about those actions and thoughts.

Our main interest, of course, is not sexuality in general but the sexual attraction that some people feel towards the same gender. For this reason we will adopt the phrase ‘same-sex attraction’ (SSA) to describe this phenomenon. As we examine SSA, it’s important that we distinguish carefully between three words relating to homosexuality: ‘action’, ‘lust’ and ‘attraction’. A homosexual action is when a person engages in sexual activity with someone of the same gender. Homosexual lust is when someone has fantasies and passions that express themselves in imagining homosexual situations. The third category is attraction. This is different from lust, and we must continue to distinguish between attraction and lust because of the question of choice. The difference between lust and attraction is this: lust is actively engaging in fantasy or imagined desires, while attraction is simply the desire that is present before the imaginings or fantasies have begun. Hence, lust can be considered a choice that one makes when they experience desire. While the question of whether SSA is a choice is contested (a question we’ll spend much time examining in the next chapter), both lusts and actions of any sexual nature are most certainly a choice. Later in the book I’m going to swap the word ‘attraction’ for another word—but we’ll stick with it for now.

Using the language of SSA and distinguishing between same-sex sexual action, lust and attraction is a helpful way to replace the word ‘gay’ and its ambiguities. It will allow us to be precise as we examine the findings of science, while accurately describing the very different experiences of various people.

The importance of this question

The issue of SSA is one of the big ethical