In order to better the communication between traditionalist Christians and members of the LGBT+ community, I have attempted to compile a list of ten phrases which hamper or prevent this communication. The first five were addressed LGBT+ persons, allies, and their attempts to advocate for greater changes in mainstream Christianity. If you have not read this first installment in my two part series, feel free to read it here. Continuing from these thoughts, I have outlined five more unhelpful and barrier generating phrases. This time, I hope to address Christians and their work in relating to their LGBT+ neighbors. These ideas and expressions are common in my experience within evangelicalism, and their removal from the common vernacular could greatly improve relations between two communities in desprate need of healthier intercommunication.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin."
“Love the sinner, hate the sin” expressions appears to easily affirm love for LGBT persons while retaining traditional sexual or gender ethics. Those who use this phrase generally intend to separate disapproval of actions from disapproval of person. However, such phases fail for this exact reason. Loving an LGBT+ person but “hating their sin” is unlike loving a liar but hating their habitual lying. Among the majority of LGBT+ persons, sexuality or gender expression is not a separate action from their being; it is an important part of their personhood. While not central to one’s being, who a person loves or how they express themselves is considered essential to individual identity. Regardless of whether non-affirming Christians agree that a person’s gender expression or sexual orientation is an important part of who they are, attempts to proclaim “love” while simultaneously admitting “hate” for something considered integral to LGBT+ selfhood damages conversations.
Simultaneously, a number of LGBT+ persons dislike these phrases due to context. They often fail to witness love from the Christian community. While “loving the sinner and hating the sin,” non-affirming Christians may liken these same people to pedophiles and perverts. They may renounce affiliation, suspend communication, or withdraw support from known LGBT+ persons. Countless closeted members of the LGBT+ community refuse to be open about their identity because of what they stand to lose. This reality is exponentially more probable within Christian communities. This causes “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric to ring irritably hollow, even when used by those who have not practiced such callousness.
"I don’t see you as ___."
Many well intending Christians try to ease tension surrounding sexuality by focusing on shared faith or humanity. “I don’t see you as ___, what matters is that you are a person and a brother/sister in Christ.” Damage from phases like these are similar to “love the sinner, hate the sin” ideology. They convey the message that sexuality or gender expression are separate enough from one’s selfhood to be ignored. In this case, these expressions lack recognition of the treatment received by the LGBT+ community for their existence as LGBT+ persons. Attempts to dismiss a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity as irrelevant convey callousness and ignorance considering the impact of these factors.
"Don’t flaunt it."
With the rise of LGBT+ representation and social acceptance, complaints against this openness have simultaneously grown. Many people are “fine with someone being ___, I just wish they didn’t shove it in my face.” Variants on this argument are numerous, and perhaps understandably. Modern public LGBT+ openness is unprecedented. Groups formerly void of any contact with the LGBT+ community are facing first-time interaction, and reaction. Changes to the normative in sexuality, gender, or morality can appear intrusive and excessive.
However, this reasoning is blind of its hypocrisy. Many of the social and public expressions condemned in LGBT+ persons as “excessive” are commonplace among any other people group. Kissing, holding hands, references of partnership, or receiving representation in media are only a few examples. Actions which are unnoticed, accepted, or even celebrated among one group are simultaneously labeled “intrusive” in another. This demand for double standards makes “don’t flaunt it” terminology a barrier for edifying communication.
Scriptural clarity/"Have you read...?"
Belief in scriptural clarity greatly influences Christian impressions of LGBT+ affairs. Evangelical translations of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans, or 1 Timothy directly condemn same sex intimacy or non-traditional gender expression. This paints an exclusively non-affirming picture of biblical theology that requires little explanation. As a result, LGBT+ affirmation among Christians is met with comments of “the bible’s clear message of condemnation” or questions of scriptural unfamiliarity. Both of these responses can negatively influence dialogue.
Assumptions and assertions of simple, indisputable meaning of scripture erases the reality of biblical complexity. It limits opportunities to fellowship in understanding one another’s theology and faith. This dismissal can be incredibly frustrating, and even offensive, to those who spend countless hours, days, even years of their lives harmonizing their LGBT+ identities with their Christian faith. Regardless of whether you believe these identities can be reconciled, attempting to settle discussion over Christianity and the LGBT+ community on the basis of scripture being “clear” can appear belittling and ignorant.
Juxtaposed to this, questions of whether LGBT+ Christians have read certain scriptural passages can likewise erode discussion. These queries not only emote the negativity discussed above, they also suggest a level of laze and ignorance in the questioned person. The majority of affirming Christians, whether LGBT+ or not, have read these passages more than any others. Though likely unintentional, asking whether someone has “read what ____ has to say” possess that affirmation only comes through dismissal and ignorance. This understandably clashes against the experiences of deep and prolonged meditation, study, and anxiety which most LGBT+ Christians endure. Failure to recognize these efforts, or unintentional belittling them, can fracture dialogs and generate conversational barriers.
"Lifestyle."
The “gay lifestyle” has been a staple of non-affirming rhetoric for decades. It refers the idea that those who embrace their homosexuality begin to live a separate form of living compared to their straight or celibate LGBT+ peers. Though initially directed exclusively at the gay community, the “lifestyle” ideology is applicable to multiple communities under the LGBT+ umbrella. The use of grouping terminology among the LGBT+ community is not entirely nonsensible, explaining its prevalent use. Persons who identity under the LGBT+ umbrella are expressly unified in their difference from the non-LGBT+ normative. However, what users of the “lifestyle” phraseology fail to recognize its inaccuracies and harmful past.
The “lifestyle” ideology has historically coupled with inaccurate, harmful, and cruel beliefs. Violence, moral inferiority, psychological damage, physical and mental illness have historically defined concepts of LGBT+ persons. This damage carries into today as many still uphold these ideas. One’s use of “lifestyle” phraseology may not intend to carry this weight, however, recognition of this history, and acting accordingly, is the beneficial for positive conversations.
