Title
Acceptance of LGBTQ identities in Malaysian and Singaporean Protestant Churches
Introduction
While Christianity has traditionally been homomisic in the nature of its doctrine, churches have been utilising the discourse of ‘God-given unconditional love’ to be more welcoming towards LGBTQ identities. Regardless, even with this softened approach, the LGBTQ community still faces pervasive discrimination. Elements of discriminatory behaviour, bias, and stigmatisation can be systemic in nature, constituting of how people reinforce and propagate varying textual formats of power through language discourse (Potter 1996). In this case, the Christian perspective assumes power through the discourse of heteronormativity, which recognizes heterosexuality as the norm while refuting other forms other than heterosexuality by labelling them as deviant and pathological (Yep 2002). Nonetheless, despite ‘hate the sin and love the sinner’ being used as a statement of reconciliation against supposedly unfair representations of the Church's profession of love, there are scholars such as Van der Bom et al. (2018), Ehrlich, Meyerhoff, & Holmes (2014) illustrating the use of resistant and empowering strategies to defend against the discriminatory note of this message. It is with the help of their studies that insights to unveiling the impact of heteronormative language have been accelerating in recent decades.
My study builds on the budding range of contemporary linguistics research into sexuality, specifically demonstrating the value of the church and religious language as linguistic data for a discourse of power in an effort to counter its ideologies that Sauntson (2019) deems to shape and represent views and values of dominance. While Wodak (1997) rightfully posits that there is no objectively defined beginning or ending to any discourse, there seems to be a fixed range of sense-making interpretations within a discourse’s frames of context such as its relevance in time and place. Hence, it is within these constraints of relevance that any linguistics analysis of discourse levels are credible and adequate. With that in mind, my study’s aim and research questions are as listed:
To what extent does the narrative of Christian love in Malaysian/Singaporean Protestant churches today accept LGBTQ identities into the community?
What linguistic strategies are recognized in the aforementioned narratives, and what role do they play in perpetuating ideologies of sexuality?
Literature review:
Religion has almost always been a focal point of study for researchers and analysts as it is recognized for its long and strong arm of influence into the lives of humans, whether directly or not. Progressive and comprehensive stances on religious language in particular are seen in works by scholars such as Richardson, Mueller, and Pihlaja (2021) (cite others), who contributed to empirical studies especially in broader terms of cognitive linguistics analyses. In fact, there is a growing field of religious discourse covering LGBTQ experiences within the psychological and the religious/spiritual context. Established studies include the observation of race and intersectionality regarding the experiences amongst black men (Valera and Taylor 2011), the internalisation of homonegativity and its relations to shame, guilt, self-rejection, and mental health (Allen 1999, Rodriguez 2009, Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010), as well as analyses on the existence of microaggressions and microinvalidations towards non-heteronormative identities as instances of othering that could go unnoticed (Wood and Conley 2014, Sue et al. 2007, Sue 2010, Platt and Lenzen 2013). Though there is progress, there can be more research in the domain of language focused analyses, particularly within the Malaysian/Singaporean context, where a closer look at how the use of English language categorises and reinforces certain identities while repressing discourses that are under-represented. In this case, more studies should apply linguistic frameworks to gauge the spectrum of how certain kinds of language use brings about results of dissonance, incongruity, and contradiction in regards to attitudes towards LGTBQ communities.
Methodology
The procedure to this qualitative study begins with collecting an overarching breadth of attitudes online from protestant denominations towards LGBTQ communities dated from August 2007 to June 2021. Measures were taken to prevent cherry-picking and to maintain a clear representation of the data while making sure the chosen excerpts are of relevance for the benefit of wordcount constraints. An elimination process follows after sampling texts of various mediums in Malaysia and Singapore. In the final data collected, 1 discussion, 2 declarations, and 3 Sermons in total were chosen from protestant churches because they (1) reflect opinions that are vetted, (2) do merit a weight of consideration for being representative of their respective denominations, (3) and contain relevant information regarding an extent of acceptance regarding LGBTQ communitites.
This linguistic analysis is built upon the frame of critical discourse analysis (CDA) which primarily studies social powers, their relation to the abuse of dominance, and their enactment of subtle/covert inequality that is reproduced and resisted by texts in predominantly socio political discourses (Fairclough 2001). CDA conceptualises discourse as socially constituted through change, via social identities between people and groups, vehicles of situations, and objects of knowledge (Fairclough and Wodak 1997:258). Sauntson (2019) attunes CDA to an awareness of gender and language, further analysing backgrounded ideologies attached to gender and sexuality, which is a crucial aspect to CDA’s contemporary framework. As Wooffitt (2005) posits, ideologies refer to the organised sustainability of inequalities through socially held belief systems, which mainly benefit groups of power. CDA’s focus is mainly to understand the mechanisms of wider inequalities that inform particular discursive or interpretative acts. Thus, the range of CDA is broad in the sense where it varies in style and focus, as when regarding orientations such as theoretical or philosophical methods.
Elements from Critical stylistics are also incorporated as a lens of analysis. Lesley Jeffries’ (2010) linguistic model of equivalence and opposition will be used for examining syntactic triggers of equating and contrasting within the texts. Meanwhile, features of the texts’ usage of grammatical cohesion, (specifically demonstratives) will also be reflected upon in the analysis. Granted, there will be more to be found with the tools of stylistics as this study aims to engage more on the variety of discourse biassed towards heteronormativity rather than to be analytically complete in volume.
Current conceptual conventions to semantic equivalence and opposition structures from Jeffries (2010) include:
As well as an older model of oppositions built on the field of lexical semantics:
Analysis and Discussion
Equivalence
Sermon 1(2) depicts a syntactic trigger of relational-intensive equivalence: where ‘wrong desires’ (Z) that leads ‘men’ (X) to ‘such a perversion’ (Y). The perversion in question is an anaphoric reference to ‘indulgence in gross immorality’—which equates under appositional equivalence to ‘going after strange flesh’ and the specific subset of ‘homosexuality’ as triggered by the intensifier ‘especially’.
Sermon 2(1-2) utilise straightforward syntactic triggers to bring forward an equivalence where homosexuality is explicitly labeled to be sin. Likewise, the link of ‘is’ from the subject to the subject complement respectively prompts an ideological proposition; deeming ‘the redemptive purpose’ as identical to ‘the procreative purpose of marriage’. This equivalence reinforces an ideology of the traditional gender model where women are meant to bear children within wedlock, and that any marriage that is counterintuitive to that purpose is predetermined by doctrine. Declaration 1(1) also reflects the latter form of equivalence; when ‘God’s plan’ equates to ‘redemption’ for the issue at hand—homosexuality, it shapes the discourse that homosexual behaviours are wrong as dictated by God’s authority, and that God has a plan to change homosexual identities to heterosexual ones, or at least an identity of obedience consistent with heteronormative standards.
In contrast to the directness utilised above, sermon 3(1) exists in a form requiring more digestion from the reader. The excerpt presents conceptual equivalences of sin as bondage, which can be explained by the ‘X of Y’ where the pastor metaphorically equates ‘chains’, a pejorative connotation of restrainment, with the preposition ‘of’ to the noun phrase ‘bondage to sinfulness and illusion’. The same utterance also depicts homosexuality as part of sin. Within the text, ‘believe it is right’ is contextually a reproof, implying that the receiver is wrong about said flawed beliefs because the beliefs are.
That being said, there are parallel structures equating different beliefs which are negatively seen as sin, as when ‘believe it is right’ is identically repeated for the categories of idolatry, homosexuality, and covetousness. Similarly the appositional demonstration of ‘this’ equates ‘sinfulness’ with ‘illusion’, which when flipped around, introduces the removal of sin as God’s concrete truth for the world as in Discussion (1); God’s ‘desire’ parallels the ‘truth’ of heterosexuality. Declaration 2(1) depicts homosexual acts as ‘abnormal’, which denotatively means non-conforming, but when placed in relation to ‘unnatural’ via the conjunction ‘and’, the assertion takes a leap to conflate the two concepts into a connotationally negative view on the topic at hand—homosexual intercourse. Meanwhile in sermon 2(4), hearts are described as ‘foolish’, which is appositionally equivalent to ‘darkened’, while the ‘holy spirit’ is depicted as ‘enlightening’, equated with ‘illuminating’. This further allows for a stark contrast between the fault of human error and divine inerrancy to be thrown into light. On a more structural basis, the parallel nature of appositional equivalence seems to provide a framework and also a kind of rhythm in the form of repetition, which adds to the cohesion of the text.
In the examples mentioned, there seems to be a trend of homosexual desires being sympathised and accepted as long as they are not acted upon. Homosexual ‘struggles’ are said to be on par with single heterosexual people who are expected to control their sexual desires. Nonetheless there is a common suit that follows where the aid and support for the LGTBQ community hits a glass roof—marriage. While identities that do conform with the heteronormative standard can realise and affirm sexual desire as part of their identities in marriage, those who aren’t heteronormative are forbidden to do so, in part because of their ‘unnatural sexual relationship’—sans biological procreation.
Opposition
A common factor shared by the chosen texts are complementary oppositions, where two extremes are made clear and can be a case of false dichotomy in many cases. Even when there should be gradable antonyms in place of complementary ones, the latter is usually opted for exaggeration, which increases emotive impact for the intended message. Sermon 1(4) portrays a concrete stand of ‘god’s righteousness’ against ‘all ungodliness and unrighteousness’. Here, the prefix ‘un' introduces a void of the attribute ‘righteousness’ in ’unnatural relations’, consisting of homosexual behaviours. When the pastor In sermon 1 proclaims that homosexuals give in to ‘wrong desires’ that are ‘perverse’, he doesn’t just negate homosexual behaviours that are attached to identities, but also allows an implication where homosexuals possess agency to choose the ‘right’ kind of desire. This can also be seen in sermon 2(3), where believing and expressing homosexuality is dismissed as ‘wrong’ because there is a ‘certain way’ to God’s creation. Discussion (2) also explicitly indicates homosexual behaviour as a ‘sexual sin’ that is ‘wrong’, and even uses ‘rightly’ as the direct contrast to ‘wrongness’. The moving away from homosexuality as an identity is consolidated with the imperative ideal in prescribing ‘the need for repentance’, focusing instead on homosexual acts that are reduced from a descriptor of identity to deviant behaviours that can and should be repented from. Gradable antonyms, however, can be seen in sermon 2(4,7), where ‘darkened hearts’, ‘sin’, and ‘darkness’ are contrasted with ‘marvellous light,’ ‘enlightened’ and 'illuminated’ on the continuous spectrum of light. There is an equation of ‘darkness and sin’ to homosexuality in this case, and lightness to ‘God ordained purity and truth’ in heterosexuality. Sermon 3(3) has a replacive opposition that echoes this as well.
Under a christian lens, sin is generally taught to be detached from the holiness of Christ, therefore making it plausible to excise sin from the identity of believers aspiring to wear the mantle of Christ (Nee 1997). Declaration 2(2) provides an example of negated opposition, which can be counted as the most typical opposition in use. The church rejects homosexuality but accepts homosexuals, with a clause; that homosexuals should reject their sexual identities. This religious discourse of seperating sinners from their sin surfaces under the consensus that homosexuality is a trait that can be excised—a minor, correctible factor in comparison to the whole identity. This narrative implies that non-conforming identities are more sinful than heteronormative standards, placing them on a lower status. Nonetheless, the separation of an individual and their action can be seen as an attempt to create empathy amongst all where everyone is regarded as a sinner, even if they are false grounds of inclusivity. Catedral (2018) noted the use of the inclusive, multi-vocalic ‘we’ in religious speech, which blurs the lines between interlocutor and narrator and can indicate a collectivistic approach as a multitude of persons fighting against the perceived ‘sin’. The transitional opposition in sermon 2(6) performs similarly by covering the general populace, giving an impression that everyone was in the negated notion of ‘not a people’ before becoming ‘God’s people’. Meanwhile, discussion (3) shows contrastive opposition, placing a binary barrier containing sexuality as either homosexual or heterosexual. Nonetheless, the context also creates the idea of an equality of struggles shared by homosexual and heterosexual identities. To clarify, the first clause is negated in relation to the second clause with ‘don’t’ and a coordinating conjunction ‘but’, which on one hand marks two seemingly opposing ends of sexuality; homo and hetero. On the other hand, the in group language in the pronoun of ‘we struggle’, can be seen as an erasure of intersectional hardships unique to LGBTQ identities, as it still implicitly levels the struggles faced by both sides to an equal playing field of ‘struggling together’, despite one being supported by normative standards while the other is not.
Moving on, the standard negation opposition structure is used in the framing of X not Y; sermon 2(8) purports LGBTQ identities were ‘rejected by parents’ (X), and ‘not rejected by their church’ (Y). In the context of discussing the acceptance of LGBTQ individuals, the church is seen to be mutually exclusive from the parents, specifically concerning negative treatments like rejection. Declaration 2(2) also states an intolerance for ‘homosexuality and same sex marriage’, but not ‘homosexuals’. The following example offers a solution for LGBTQ ‘struggles’ attempting to pull away from the claim of heterosexual bias. Sermon 2(9) refers towards ‘holy sexuality’ with good, pure connotations to the divine. The holiness factor, which is grounded on virtues beyond humans, plays as an explicit opposition against humanity’s ‘heterosexuality’ which was the point of conflict acknowledged in context as overbearing. Sermon 2(5) even uses ‘contrary to’ as an explicit marker of homosexuality’s innate perversion of ‘God’s nature in design’. Here, the in-group that created the conceptual elements of ‘sexuality negating sin’ largely decides punishment on the grounds that there is a transcendental authority commanding a reinforcement of that particular in-group’s normativity.
In summary, the use of equivalence and opposition contributes to how LGBTQ individuals in Malaysia/Singapore are still constrained by the socio-religious context of biases towards same sex relationships, and are seen as unnatural—boiling down to being a threat against the stability of heteronormativity, which in this case is categorised as a sin, ‘rebelling’ against divinely ordained commands of nature centred upon a narrative that values the heterosexual nuclear family.
In the examples above, the demonstrative used in the stead of subject nominalisation mitigates the action enacted upon it. To maximally reduce the interpretation of strategic demonstratives being utilised as pure grammatical cohesion, references that are at least 5 sentences after their LGBTQ related host nouns are chosen as excerpts. The apparent motive of using anaphoric references seems to be distancing the negative connotations—especially stronger ones such as ‘wrong’, ‘sin’—from the actual subject at hand; non-heteronormative presentations of sexuality. Sticking to anaphoric referencing is useful in this case to lessen the impact of disparaging views in an attempt to achieve a more neutral one. Instead of explicitly name-dropping LGBTQ identities as sinning or explicitly naming the sin in question, the consistent application of demonstratives and pronouns such as “this, that, them etc.” places less of the adjectival stress on the nouns that are described; reducing the accusatory stance that would have been heavier as a face-threatening act towards homosexual people. This can be perceived as a defensive layer of indirectness to avoid being interpreted as overtly animose towards marginalised communities. This can perform as a mitigating strategy that helps the church to a certain extent in maintaining an open and welcoming front.
In stating leaving no room for a discussion, does not allow argument of the idea presented.
Ellipsis
“ellipsis occurs when something that is structurally
necessary is left unsaid”
(church statement)
Pray
for the power of God to end generational cycles of abuse and shame (that causes
homosexuality).
Pray
for (lesbian) women to find the intimacy they long for in Jesus Christ.
Pray
for the restoration of (heterosexual) marriages as God intended.
Us vs them
(Discussion)
talk to them about repentance.
a lot of love and courage to tell them
something they doN'T want to hear, but gotta hear.
People were embracing of them, but NOT the sin, but they were still loved, and
grace (is) shown (to them).
If where they're struggling with, they
want to get others to go into it. thats where the problem is.
(Sermon)
wrong desires that uh leads them to such a
perversion
they went after strange flesh, especially
homosexuality.
they are
trapped and uh, cost them to their problems with their relationships
addiction eats them up
That’s what you tell them. NOT that youre superior or better than them, but
youre telling them that what they have done is to
exchange the truth
you're praying for them, because you know that they
are under sin
(Open
response)
we should never forget the biblical mandate that all persons are
created in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect – notwithstanding their
sexual orientation and preference
As the Church accepts their struggles and respects individual choice of
lifestyle, she firmly believes that homosexual behaviour does NOT please God.
Conclusion
The reinforcement of certain discourses depicting LGBTQ identities within the church consists of beliefs that need to be critically accessed. Beginning with a critical stylistic approach, this study reaches out to unravel the extent that this discourse accepts LGBTQ members into the community. Based on the linguistic data analysed, Malaysian/Singaporean churches are portrayed to accept LGBTQ identities, but instead are negating them. The data above may be the church’s reaction to be seen as more inclusive, for a retention of legitimacy and relevance to current cultures as the understanding of LGBTQ discourse grows and translates into societal pressures. Nonetheless, boundaries for LGBTQ behaviours were set, and the churches’ constraints on non-heteronormative identity remain firmly in place, which can feed into the dysporia experienced by LGBTQ identities of being victims of gaslighting, ostracization, and discrimination on terms of sexuality. The Protestant Churches above come off as intolerant of LGBTQ people ultimately because of a homomisic doctrine reinforcing heteronormative bias. Thus, the persuasiveness of sermons with “superseding” reinforcement of Christian heteronormative ideologies could bring more harm to questioning and vulnerable people who identify as LGBTQ.
References
Appendix
Discussion
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=335208617988213
Declarations
https://www.necf.org.my/newsmaster.cfm?&menuid=2&action=view&retrieveid=930
http://www.methodistchurch.org.my/newsmaster.cfm?&menuid=6&action=view&retrieveid=618
Sermon
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=551098939675896
https://www.cerc.com.my/sermons/romans/we-became-fools-romans-1v18-32
Catedral, L. (2018). ‘That's not the kind of church we are’: Heteroglossic ambiguity and religious identity in contexts of LGB+ exclusion, Language & Communication 60: 108-119.
Allen, D.J. & Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and Internalized Homophobia in Gay Men, Journal of Homosexuality 37(3): 33-43,
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 2, pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Ehrlich, S., Meyerhoff, M., & Holmes, J. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of language, gender, and sexuality : Handbook of language, gender and sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Evans, V. (2009). How words mean: Lexical concepts, cognitive models, and meaning construction . Oxford University Press.
Jeffries, L. (2010). Critical stylistics: the power of English (Perspectives on the English Language). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sbisà, M. (2001). Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics 33(12): 1791-1814.
At the Intersection of Church and Gay: A Review of the Psychological Research on Gay and Lesbian Christians
Eric M. Rodriguez PhD (2009) At the Intersection of Church and Gay: A Review of the Psychological Research on Gay and Lesbian Christians, Journal of Homosexuality (57)1: 5-38.
Wood, A. W., Conley, A. (2014). Loss of Religious or Spiritual Identities Among the LGBT Population
Volume59, Issue1 American Counseling Association
Platt, L. F., & Lenzen, A. L. (2013). Sexual orientation microaggressions and the experience of sexual minorities. Journal of Homosexuality 60(7): 1011–1034.
Nee, W. (1997). The Gospel of God, Volume 2: Sin, Sins, And The Sinner. California: Living Stream Ministry.
Newcomb, M. E., Mustanski, Brian. (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing mental health problems: A meta-analytic review, Clinical Psychology Review 30(8): 1019-1029.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction . London: Sage.
Richardson, P., Mueller, CM., and Pihlaja, S. (2021). Cognitive Linguistics and Religious Language : An Introduction. Milton: Taylor & Francis Group.
Sauntson, H. (2019). Researching Language, Gender and Sexuality : A Student Guide. Milton: Taylor & Francis Group.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist 62: 271–286.
Valera, P. and Taylor, T. (2011). ‘“Hating the Sin but not the Sinner”: A Study About Heterosexism and Religious Experiences Among Black Men’, Journal of Black Studies 42(1): 106–122.
Van der Bom, I., Coffey-Glover, L. & Jones, L., Mills, S., Paterson, L. (2015). Implicit homophobic argument structure: Equal-marriage discourse in The Moral Maze. Journal of Language and Sexuality 4: 102-137.
Wodak, Ruth (1997) ‘Introduction’. In Wodak, R. (ed.) Gender and Discourse . London: Sage. pp. 1– 20.
Wooffitt, R. (2005). Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis : A Comparative and Critical Introduction. London: SAGE Publications.
Yep, G.A. (2002). ‘From homophobia and heterosexism to heteronormativity’, Journal of Lesbian Studies 6(3): 163-176
Comments
Post a Comment