Terminology Matters

Warning: adult themes, potentially not safe for homeschoolers.

Thabiti Anyabwile has been catching all kinds of flak for this recent article (warning again - it's a very frank discussion of homosexuality, use discretion). To sum, he recounts a thinktank meeting years ago when he saw the tide turning towards pro-homosexuality, and what he thinks he should have done differently. He suggests that one way to counter the pro-homosexual agenda is to discuss it openly, describing in gory detail what actually occurs, and letting our collective gag reflex work.

Obviously the usual suspects have lined up to denounce him. But there's even been flak from solid quarters, such as Carl Trueman. So I'll try to explain why I think Thabiti has it right, starting by clarifying what he's not saying (if I'm reading him correctly).

Thabiti is not saying that morality is defined by what we find disgusting. He's not saying that our gag reflex always works as it should (sinful creatures that we are). He's not saying that our argument should be primarily or even largely aesthetic. While it is true that we all know sodomy and other homosexual acts are the perverse acting out of idolatry and we generally find them disgusting (see Romans 1), I don't think he's primarily arguing that the disgust makes or proves them to be wrong. He may be suggesting that the sense of disgust at homosex perversion is a residual effect of the imago dei, a warning from the conscience, but that does not seem his main point.

I think his main point is just this: the way we speak of something affects how people view it. That's it. If your opponent controls the terms, he wins the debate.

How many who are now scolding Thabiti use the same reasoning regarding another great evil, the child sacrifice known as abortion? They know full well that evil hides behind euphemisms. So "killing an unborn baby" becomes "aborting a fetus", "removing a blastocyte", or "women's rights". Only the most depraved would vote for a politician who is pro-sucking out a baby's brains before dismembering it and throwing it in the dumpster. But change the term to pro-choice, and suddenly we have a champion of freedom!

Similarly, who could be against 'love' or 'equal rights' or 'marital freedom'? But when you understand that what is really meant by those terms in this context is serial sodomy? It's a little more difficult to support a measure to treat two males violating each other anally as if they're the same as a man and woman in marital covenant. But if you let them hide their disgusting perverse acts behind the banner of 'freedom to love who I want', their evil can gain societal approval much more easily.

Describe evil for what it really is. The deeds of darkness hate the light, and thrive in the shadows. Why let them define the terms?

One more point - a common objection I've seen is that we should be more 'winsome'. The pro-sodomite won people over by being winsome, they say, and we need to outdo him; if we do as Thabiti suggests, we'll lose. Listen - it is impossible to be regarded as the more winsome when you are the one saying "No". Men passionately hate it when God says "No"; do you really think they'll take it well when the message is passed along from a fellow creature? If your idea is to be more kind and loving, absolutely. If you think we will ever be viewed as such, try it a few times and see what happens. Then feel free to join us in speaking the truth plainly.

Depravity On Full Display

This is one of the most disgusting crimes I've ever heard about: Pa. abortion doc killed 7 babies with scissors. I have a few thoughts about this.

1) This act is unconscionably evil and despicable. I cannot understand how someone can start out as a doctor and end up stabbing babies to death.

2) That said, the only thing illegal about this is the way he killed them. Had he left them in the womb when he stabbed these babies to death, it would have been perfectly legal. God have mercy on us for allowing such a thing.

3) It will be interesting to see how the pro-abort crowd reacts to this story, if they even acknowledge it. On what grounds could they possibly condemn this ghoul? How could they possibly object to this obvious evil while remaining consistent to their position? The only way is if there is a magic barrier at the entrance to the birth canal, which the baby becomes a person when it crosses. Kill the child one inch before, and it's a wonderful thing, a 'choice', the most holy sacrament of feminism. Kill the child one inch beyond, and you're a murderer. Such nonsense is what you're reduced to when you sanction murder.

4) Don't believe me? Consider the quote from the ADA: "He does not know how to do an abortion. Once he got them there, he saw dollar signs and did abortions that other people wouldn't do." That's the problem - he just didn't do the abortions right. If he had, well, who cares about seven dead babies, so long as they were killed in the womb?

5) Well has it been said that the evil of abortion has surpassed the Holocaust, both in number and in number of people who are aware and approve. This same crime is repeated 800,000 times in America every year. This fiend will go to prison for killing seven (and other assorted crimes), but there are legions of other 'doctors' who are on killing sprees far exceeding that total - and what they do is perfectly legal. There are plenty of places in this country (and one entire political party) where any politician bold enough to oppose the murder of unborn children has virtually zero chance of being elected. Accusations of hatred are reserved for people who don't want babies to be slaughtered. The situation is as backwards as the most insane Monty Python sketch or Twilight Zone episode - but there is nothing the least bit amusing about it. We, as a nation, sanction the murder of babies. This should not be.

Pray for repentance, and work to bring about an end to this abomination. Come, Lord Jesus.