Social Sector

Redefining Hate

Gay Activists Should Reconsider Rhetoric

by Jonathan Merritt and Tim Willard

The wordsmithing Brits behind the Oxford Dictionary define "hate" as "hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice." But words take on new meanings as people speak them, often deriving more from the context of their usage than from their actual definitions.

The word "hate" has become one of many such grammatical casualties as some now use it to describe the positions of any who vary from emerging cultural norms. ??Among offenders are gay activists who increasingly define anyone who believes that marriage should be applied only in the context of monogamous, heterosexual union as anti-gay and hateful. But is a belief in traditional marriage an inherently hateful posture?

Blogs erupted last month with news that Blake Mycoksie, founder of TOMS Shoes, apologized for speaking at an event hosted by Focus on the Family. The Christian non-profit is "dedicated to helping families thrive," but has long opposed same sex marriage. Bloggers at Change.org lamented Mycoskie's association with what they termed an "anti-gay hate-group." He responded with a public apology:

"Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family's beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company's part and one we regret."

The move against Focus incited other activists to apply pressure to companies like Apple, Microsoft and Delta Airlines to cease their involvement with the Charity Give Back Group (CGBG). CGBG encourages consumers to give to more than 200,000 charities, including socially conservative groups like Family Research Council, when they purchase items from over 600 brand retailers.

Ben Crowther, a student at Western Washington University, collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition to Apple groups, prompting the removal of iTunes from CGBG.

"I knew that once this issue was brought to Apple's attention, they would not want to be a part of CVN because it funds anti-gay hate groups," Crowther said. Microsoft and Delta caved to the pressure as well.

The third hammer fell last Wednesday, this time on Chicago pastor Bill Hybels and his Willow Creek Church. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced he would withdraw from Hybels' Leadership Summit, an annual conference at Willow Creek that simulcasts to more than 168,000 people worldwide. Schultz's decision immediately followed a petition from Asher Huey on Change.org.

The ultimate coup, however, may lie just around the corner. Change.org has issued yet another petition soliciting PBS to have Bert and Ernie marry. Big Bird and Snuffleupagus, you're next.

This recent shelling of Christian groups by those who support same sex marriage is not unique. The rhythm of crossfire over marital law has become a staple in America's culture wars. But it does raise questions about the prudence of applying emotional labels to those who disagree with one's position.

Are organizations that oppose same sex marriage, and people who associate with them, hate-mongers? Should we assume those who support the traditional definition of marriage are "motivated by intense dislike or prejudice"?

American Christians must surely wrestle with a sordid history on same sex issues. In years past, some believers opposed funding for HIV research and aid because they viewed the illness as God's judgment on sexual immorality. Worse still, the faithful have often employed angry, reactive and, yes, even hateful rhetoric when speaking about the LGBT community.

But today's Christian leaders seek common ground solutions to same sex problems, even as many still hold to a traditional definition of marriage. Willow Creek Church, for example, disassociated with the controversial ex-gay Christian group Exodus International in 2009. And none can deny the softer, less partisan posture taken by Focus on the Family since it's former President James Dobson retired and Jim Daly took the reins.

When gay activists wield the label of hate against such organizations, their efforts turn counter-productive. They simply reinforce the conservative talking point that gay activists cannot be satisfied shy of full capitulation to their positions. Turning up the rhetorical heat serves no purpose other than retrenching your opposition and inflaming an already contentious issue.

We live in a world that glorifies tolerance. It's ironic that those who often champion this characteristic are quick to abandon it when they encounter people who disagree with their perspectives. Tolerance is a two-way street. Advocates on both sides of contentious issues should avoid extreme rhetoric and name-calling in attempts to marginalize political opponents.

As Jim Daly rightly responded, "'Hate' is too big a word to be thrown around with so little discretion. It is a damaging and dangerous thing to hang such an emotional epithet on a person or group because they think differently about some issues than you do."

These labeling efforts are also inappropriate. The word "hate" is too potent and carries too much baggage to be thoughtlessly tossed around. Those engaged in public discourse must display better judgment in the words they choose.The importance of the marriage debate demands our commitment to intelligent, winsome and precise language.

It's time to stop applying hurtful and emotional labels to people who disagree with us. This tactic is more than poor form; it's bad grammar. And that's something that these two writers absolutely hate.

As a follow of Jesus, what does it look like for you to engage in the public square without perpetuating the stereotype of Christians as haters?
How do you maintain the balance between tolerance for its own sake and genuine love and care for others?

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The Huffington Post. It was reprinted here by the authors' permission. The image was taken by WileyMCB.

Comments

stephen kilker

When possible I try to let my actions communicate my heart for the LGBT community. I have gay neighbors and when they need assistance with moving furniture or other practical needs I get involved just as I do with all my neighbors. My family has attended Thanksgiving dinner where gay folks from our community were present. They are quite aware that we Christians. Recently my gay neighbors lost their home to foreclosure. I greived with them and prayed for them. They have asked me why I am so helpful and I explain it's because Jesus expects that of me. One of them privately asked me if there was room in Christianity for him. My response was sure, but you have to come to the King on His terms. His question opened the door to discuss his need for repentence and belief. Had I not invested in him the way I do with all my neighbors I don't believe I would have had the chance to talk about redemption in Christ. I try to treat others as people made in the image of God regardless of lifestyle. Sometimes this leads folks to be curious resulting in questions about my faith. I prefer to be invited into spritual conversations rather than wag my finger at a particular lifestyle. I've heard it said that our good works creates the goodwill that paves the way for the Good News. This is the path I and my family has chosen.

Tim S.

Its sad when just because you take a view on something you are labled a hater. Fact is these groups dont believe most Christians "hate" gays. They use that word to scare people away from anyone who they disagree with. I dont know why the so called non-profit caved in. I posted weeks ago about your article on non-profit. The fact is this one, like all, worry about the bottom line when it comes down to it. This move was done to save them money. What I feel they should have done was say as Christians we believe that gay marriage is wrong. That is what the word of God says. But, we do not hate a sister or brother because he or she is gay or lesbian. We should not be afraid to speak the truth while we also practice not judging people. Showing the love of Christ does not mean weighing what one should do based on what will be poplular. Sometimes you just have to "man" up. Why cant we say what right and wrong is and then hug our sister or brother and say we will always be here for you and love you regardless of what you think of me. There is no room for hate, but plenty of need for the truth.

Garet R

Both evangelicals and pro-homosexual groups have fallen prey to the crescendo of rhetoric surrounding this issue.

The above piece is a wonderful reminder about the need for civilized dialogue. The labeling from both groups isn't helpful for continued, civil conversation. Whether it is being tied in as "haters" from some on the homosexual side, or being maligned as "pedophiles" by members of the evangelical side the labels are hurtful.

Though many of us in the evangelical camp cannot, because of our convictions, capitulate to wholesale acceptance we can be loving. We can show compassion over rhetoric. Too often the people we encounter on the other side of this issue are fellow believers who are still struggling with the impact of their lifestyle. They have sat next to us in our pews and chairs, read the same Bible, and prayed similar prayers. They are fellow image bearers and we deserve to show them love and compassion regardless of their stated preferences.

Humble, grace-filled dialogue always makes us better and leaves room for respectful disagreement. No one is better when we dig into our entrenched positions and lob libelous labels between our lines. Maybe more evangelicals like the authors above can lead in the gracious dialogue.

stephen kilker

Tim, I think demonstrations of love are more powerful that words when it comes to influencing those who don't agree with us. What I mean is that to simply deposit truth into someone's life without a believable context of genuine concern has proven to be rather unfruitful. In the past I have been quick to speak but my words were not authenticated by loving action. I think it is much easier to proclaim our views that it is to invest in tangible ways in those with whom we disagree, don't you? I'm learning to do the deeds of love and in the process perhaps earning the right to speak the words of love.

Jonathan

It seems that the issue revolves around the way the "gay marriage debate" has been framed -- it has basically been equivocated to historical human rights movements. Many people today feel that speaking against gay marriage is akin to telling Rosa Parks to sit at the back of the bus. So in that framework, it would seem that Christians are "the haters."

I think to tackle the issue, one must work outside this frame, and clarify what a solid Christian position is on marriage and civil unions -- which is certainly not the simplistic "Christians deny human rights!" as we are often portrayed in the media.

Graham Reside

Tim and Jonathan,

This is an interesting and provocative piece. It also is misleading, and I don't think this is what you intend. You suggest that gay activists are using the term hate-group to describe anyone who disagrees with their agenda. However, the examples you cite do not support your argument. In fact, no one called FOTF a hate group (other than unspecified "bloggers.") Neither did Tom's CEO call them hateful. Mykoskie simply reported that "Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family's beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company's part and one we regret." Apparently, once he learned more about FOTF, he changed his mind. He disagrees with FOTF. He did not call it a hate-group.

And the Crowther petition does not refer to FOTF as a hate-group either, only as an anti-gay organization. Neither does the Huey petition refer to FOTF as a hate-group. These petitioners are following the lead of the Southern Poverty Law Center's practice, which limits the designation "hate-group" to those groups that willfully pass on falsehoods. Rejecting homosexuality as a legitimate form of sexual life does not make a group a hate-group, though it may garner them the name anti-gay. One could quibble about that designation, but it seems reasonable enough.

For the sake of clarity, CVN was identified in one of the petitions as supporting hate-groups because it supports (or did) Abiding Truth Ministries, whose founder wrote a book accusing gays of running the Nazi Party. That is the kind of willful deception that qualifies (for the SPLC) the designation "hate-group." The belief that homosexuality is unbiblical does not qualify for listing an organization as a hate group.

All of this is to suggest that more responsible sourcing is required. This article seems to be accusing (unnamed) gay activists of utilizing the term "hate" against their opponents in ways that shut down honest differences. However, the instances you cite, when looked at closely, do not carelessly throw around the "H" word. It is used only to describe very particular groups. They do use the term anti-gay, but that seems an apt description for groups like FOTF and WillowCreek. These groups certainly wouldn't be "pro-gay," nor would they seek a middle ground -- they are not 'gay neutral' nor do they need to be.

I think it is unfair to suggest that anti-gay groups are being unfairly labeled as hateful unless you can demonstrate actual cases of the term being used to describe them.

If your larger argument is that it is unfair to paint all evangelical or conservative Christians as anti-gay, I would fully concur. However, if you are suggesting that FOTF and other groups are unfairly being described as hateful or as hate-groups by gay activists, the evidence you present in your piece does not make your case. Just as you (I presume) would reject being lumped in with the Phelps's of the world (God Hates Fags), so it is important that you be honest about what people like Crowther and Huey and Mycoskie actually are saying. They are, in fact, being more careful than you give them credit for.

Michael

Very disturbing piece, it really makes me wonder. Are these two guys intentionally misleading their readers? The article is skewed and betrays an increasingly common conservative Christian victimization complex. The Family Research Council has been deemed a hate group by the Southern Povery Law Center. One of the founding board members of the FRC was James Dobson founder and longtime leader of Focus on the Family. What is disturbing to me is the silence among conservative Christians regarding the hate in their midst. Clean up your own house first. You want to be accepted in the mainstream then stop the victimization crap. Read Gareth Moore's Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality. Once the biblical underpinning against homosexual is removed what is left? Maybe fear? maybe hate?

Richard Hinkelman

A Parable:

There once was a white man who earned his wages by serving the community as a police officer. When his duties required him to monitor speeding traffic, he chose to ticket only African-American drivers. He did not ticket white drivers who were also speeding. “After all,” he thought to himself, “everyone speeds now and then; and this is my chance to show leniency to the white population.” When he issued tickets to the African-American drivers, he was sure to impose the maximum fine – and whenever possible, suspend their drivers licenses. Facts are facts and it was these speeding drivers who were making the streets unsafe for the rest of the community. While patrolling the neighborhood, the police officer would follow African-American drivers – and ticket them for failure to use a turn signal, for having a burned out tail light, or for reckless driving (should they happen to be talking on a cell phone while driving.) Should an African-American be running across the street in an attempt to not miss the bus, the officer would stop them and write them a ticket for J-walking – consequently causing them to miss the bus. In each instance of enforcing the law, the officer would verbally demean the individual. “Look at you. You make me sick. YOU are what’s wrong with our society.” He would then go home to dinner with his family, and tell his wife and children about the dangers of “the blacks.” He would explain to his children how “the blacks” were breaking the law, undermining the justice system, and needed to be stopped.

And so I ask you, would “hate” be an accurate descriptor in explaining the police officer’s attitude toward the African-American community? And likewise, would “hate” be an accurate description of the church’s attitude toward the LGBTQ community?

The issue is not simply one of traditional evangelical Christians taking a position of "homosexuality is not part of God's perfect plan for humanity" and being undeservingly labeled as “haters.” The position turns to "hate" when certain people are given "grace" and others aren’t - when our "biblical position" is used to deny people dignity, rights, church membership, or a healthy environment in which one can encounter Christ's love and experience spiritual fellowship and growth.

The Church is not organizing efforts to "outlaw" divorce and remarriage. The Church is not currently organizing efforts to ensure that those who are divorced and remarried not be allowed to adopt children. In general, it does not prohibit those who are divorced and remarried from membership or lay-leadership. And further, it does not require that those who are divorced and re-married, end their "illicit relationship" and remain celibate in order to be viewed as "acceptable" by the family of God. As we know, Jesus himself speaks quite clearly regarding His position on divorce and remarriage – calling it adultery.

If the Church applied all of its judgment equally across the board, it would not be viewed as hateful...just crazy. Furthermore, if judgment and exclusion were to be applied equally, the Church would cease to exist, as all of us are sinners and all of us would be excluded for one reason or another. The secret in keeping the Church alive, is to judge only certain sinners and exclude only certain minorities of people.

And so I ask you: Would “hate” be an accurate description of the church’s attitude toward the LGBTQ community?

As a fully committed Christ-follower, who has personally experienced (and continues to experience) rejection by the Church, my answer is “Yes, ‘hate’ would be an accurate description of the Church’s attitude toward me.”

Richard Hinkelman

As a follow of Jesus, what does it look like for you to engage in the public square without perpetuating the stereotype of Christians as haters?

When people see that I am a follower of Jesus, and when I share my story of being rejected by the Church, yet continuing to hold fast to my faith in Christ, I am able to break the stereotype of Christians as haters. They begin to see that some Christ-followers do not claim to have all of the answers. They see that some followers of Jesus aren't trying to fulfill duties of religion, but rather a call to build up the Kingdom of God.

How do you maintain the balance between tolerance for its own sake and genuine love and care for others?

By continually reminding myself that I am not "better" than anyone else, and that Christ does not love me more than he loves my neighbor - I lose the need to be "tolerant" and then I can begin to love and care for others because Christ loves and cares for them.

Ryan J

@Michael

Actually, the SPLC has been accused/shown that they themselves use hate rhetoric, at times misinformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Criticism_of_political_rhetoric

So to use the logic that the SPLC has condemned the FRC (and therefore, Christians should too) is a bit unfair unless the SPLC is now the "always correct" example of equity/love.

(I personally didn't feel the article was portraying "victimization" at all, but that's another matter altogether).

A Young Guy

I'd like to get in the authors' minds and sort through some of the arguments they present here.

One of the problems with online articles and speech snippets from both sides is that it's easy to take a couple sentences, quickly assign a worldview to that author or a community, then attack.

- a guy who's tired of the above

Michael

@Ryan J

Look into why the SPLC has identified the FRC as a hate group, that is why Christians should too. They use propaganda and deception. That was my logic. Sorry for the confusion. No Christian should condone the abhorrent means the FRC has employed to slander its opponents, which include producing faked "research" that advertises itself as peer-reviewed scholarship.

The article screams "We are being victimized". "We are being called haters because we disagree, that's not fair!" They portray LGBT groups as using the word "hate" to describe them. However, the word hate was not used in any of their examples. C'mon Ryan!

And the Bert and Ernie remarks were embarassing. Someone issued a petition. So what? Does that really represent the views os an entire group of people? That is just silliness. Who cares what bloggers say. That's like taking conservatives to task for the rhetoric of Bill O'Reilly or Glen Beck (and those liars are on TV watched by millions). There is no doubt a pervasive persecution complex among conservative Christians who want to be taken seriously and want to be intellectually respected. Whining never got anyone respect.

And to the "tired young guy": drink some coffee and reread the original article. Where in the examples provided were people with avowedly anti-gay positions called "haters"?

Ryan J

@Michael

Yeah, the Ernie/Bert thing was silly and Glenn Beck-ish, heh...

--

I kind of agree with the "young guy" who says rhetoric runs high on these sort of online articles and it can be tiresome (the rhetoric, not the issue). Perhaps this gay marriage dialogue (as extensive and debated as it is nowadays) is better suited for conversation rather than a set piece like above.

Jonathan Merritt

Jonathan: You are correct in your analysis of the framing of this debate. If the debate is framed as a human rights / justice debate, then Christian groups are de-facto hate groups. Personally, I can't imagine what definition of "human rights" one must employ that would include governmental recognition of marriage. On the other hand, I do think the LGBT communities must be protected from other forms of injustice, such as prohibition of hospital visitation rights, workplace discrimination, and unfair inheritance laws. In my opinion, these are justice issues (more or less) and Christians should seriously consider supporting such reform.

Graham: I don't believe this piece was misleading in the slightest. The idea that FoF is a hate group has been well-propogated. A simple googling of "'Focus on the Family' + 'Hate Group'" will yield ~119,000 results. Outlets such as Daily Kos and, you may remember, was in full swing when they produced a benign Super Bowl ad. You could also read the emails we've received in response to this piece or the comments on HuffPo to the article to see that it is a widely held belief. If you don't believe that the label "hate" is being broadly ascribed to Christian groups who simply support a traditional view on marriage--to put it bluntly--you aren't paying attention.

We'll have to disagree on your characterization of Willow Creek as well. It does not seem fair, in my opinion, to ascribe that label to what may be one of the more visibly progressive and a-political evangelical churches in America.

Michael: We're not glossing over the warts that have grown on the face of the Christian movement. We acknowledge the mess in our own house openly in this article, and if you read everything I've published on this subject, you'll find much more frank conversation on that. Yet, if both communities seek to move forward in a way that produces more light than heat, we will have to do so with a spirit of respect and civility.

Marty Duren

The comments here are...uhm, a little different than those at HuffPo on this same piece.

Brett

what if we create the term bi-tolerant? others who claim tolerance must express tolerance by the same token.

torqueflite

You wonder how churches earned the title of “hater” from the gay community? The problem that this article fails to address is that the United States, unlike Europe, makes no distinction between civil (legal) and religious marriage. Most gay people will be more than satisfied to achieve civil marriage, the secular version that is recognized by states and the Federal government. Religions would still be free to discriminate and to ban gay couples from marrying into them, much as Catholics ban divorced people from marrying in their religion. Gays could marry in civil ceremonies or in open and affirming churches that recognize their marriages such as the United Church of Christ.

If the religious have experienced the term "hater," it is more than well-deserved. Their history of persecuting and marginalizing this minority but identifiable group is much too long and fraught to detail here; I'll state just a couple of examples. Churches were behind the efforts to maintain criminal status for gay people and some seek still to recriminalize homosexual sex. Churches have actively interfered with gay civil rights; note the effort to overturn all anti-discrimination ordinances (Colorado Amendment 2 overturned by the SCOTUS in 1996) and in using their not-inconsiderable resources to block gay couples from civil marriage. By so doing, they identify themselves not merely as religious bigots but also as enemies of secular equality in the polity, very much indeed like the bus driver in Montgomery who had Rosa Parks arrested for sitting in the front of the bus. No gay person I know of cares to marry in your churches’ we’re more than happy to leave you to your religious bigotry in peace. But in seeking to interfere with our rights as American citizens in the public sphere, you’ve indeed earned the title of “hater.”

Jennifer Callaway

@ Richard H.

Your parable is very well spoken, with one exception. I would challenge you to replace "African American" with "drunk driver" and I believe this would be much more analogous. A man's skin color is what he cannot do anything at all about; it is not in any way opposed to the Word of God. On the other hand, we are all born with certain tendencies toward ways and habits that are contrary to the design and plan of our Creator. I use the alcohol example in this because alcoholism is a tendency I was born with, that I have, through the power of God and His love and grace, been able to walk free from for many years. The Word of God teaches that homosexuality falls into this category; to place it in the same camp as race is simply dishonest. And telling the truth is not hate; it is love as Jesus loved. He loved the Pharisees even as He was pronouncing woes on them. If we could all learn to love so boldly...

Andy McCarthy

Perhaps Christians don't hate gay people, but they certainly don't love or respect gay people either. Gay people often view religious communities as invasive and oppressive. Religious groups often claim to tolerate gay relationships, but then they try to legislate their liberties. Why should gay people tolerate the religious community interfering in their personal business? Would you tolerate a gay people if they kept heterosexuals from getting married? You sure wouldn't tolerate that. Maybe we need to reclaim the word "Christian," because many people are Christian in name only. They don't follow the example of Christ. Jesus might not participate in a gay pride parade if he walked the earth today, but he certainly wouldn't try to marginalize gay people. Jesus was never recorded as saying anything about same-sex attraction. Who knows—he might have been gay. If gay people are accused of redefining hate, then modern-day Christians should be accused of redefining Christ-like behavior.

Brawny71

I'm tired of people pretending that this is just about marriage. We all know that those groups that mis-use the word "family", Focus on the Family (and its offshoot Exodus International), Family Research Council, etc. don't just want gay people to not get married. They want to obliterate homosexuality all together. They want you celibate or heterosexual. And that is dangerous. People have committed suicide over this. "Reparative therapy" and ex-gay ministry are like taking steroids: that one person for who claims it worked is going to try to get you to buy in--never mind the awful side effects or the fact that they're so unlikely to get you to your goal. And like steroid pushers, they try to convince you that you need something you don't, that you're NOT fine the way you are. And like steroid dealers, I don't know how they sleep at night.

Dan

I see several problems with this well-intentioned essay. The writers fail to address the extent to which truly hateful "Christian" voices still shape the debate on LGBT equality. Read what FRC puts out every day. Listen to what anti-gay politicians like Michelle Bachmann say. Watch Pat Robertson. These people still have a bigger megaphone than Christians who use a gentler tone and don't oppose every single piece of gay rights legislation. Maybe kinder, gentler anti-gay voices wouldn't be painted with the hate brush if they more loudly and consistently rebuked the hateful voices like Tony Perkins. (On a side note, it's a losing argument to say that legally barring committed gay people from civil marriage isn't an anti-gay position.)

More importantly, this essay (and most others I've read that address this topic) fails to grapple with the privilege and power dynamics of this debate. This isn't a polarized culture war shout-fest. It's LGBT people demanding full equality, and conservatives working to keep them in second-class status. In the final analysis, one side is saying harsh things, and the other is perpetuating discrimination that has a concrete negative impact on people's lives. Why should a gay person take comfort in the fact that a subset of anti-equality Christians is motivated by theology rather than hate? Expecting credit because your motives for discrimination aren't hateful is a failure of empathy.

Marcos

The issue I see is that in the push for "full equality" this will result in an erosion of rights of religious freedom. Many either are ignorant of this or choose to ignore this reality. If I lose my rights to free religious expression of my beliefs because marriage is redefined, then that is not really equality for all is it?

Comments are now closed

ALSO BY JONATHAN MERRITT

ALSO IN SOCIAL SECTOR