08 August 1998
The Last Of The Homophobes
On the last day of the Anglican bishops conference, Sandy Starr explains what the
refusal to accept gay priests and same-sex marriages reveals about the modern
church
The media was all to quick to read a 'gay backlash' into the overwhelming vote
against ordaining lesbians and gay men and against blessing their union at the
Lambeth conference of the Anglican Church. After a highly-charged debate at the
conference - which is held only every 10 years and has no legal binding - the 750
bishops from around the world voted (526 in favour, 70 against with 45
abstentions) to declare homosexual relationships "incompatible" with the Bible.
The bishop of Lahore, Alexander Malik, compared gay marriage to bestiality and
accused reformers of being "mischief mongers who disrupt and disturb the church".
And the bishop of Maryland, Donald Hart, was booed when he admitted he knew
practising gay priests and administered to gay couples in his diocese.
Commentators were particularly shocked by the blustering Rt. Rev. Emmanuel
Chukwuma, bishop of Enugu, Nigeria, as he yelled fire and brimstone at all who
tentatively challenged his old-fashioned interpretation of Biblical scripture. At
a time when bigoted opinion is forced to shroud itself increasingly in political
correctness, this blatant Bible and gay-bashing bishop was an irresistible sight.
He seemed to incarnate the very essence of the seemingly omnipresent homophobia
so feared by today's queer. That it was possible for Reverend Chukwuma to give
this impression was not because he was a product of British culture, but
precisely because his opinions were cultivated in the specific context of a
culture completely alien to Britain and thrown into sharp relief when
transplanted here.
Those who were shocked by his bile may have been surprised to read the actual
wording of the motion that was passed at the conference. "All baptised, believing
and faithful persons," it reassured, "regardless of sexual orientation, are full
members of the body of Christ." Moreover, "while rejecting homosexual practice as
incompatible with the Scripture", the conference called "on all our people to
administer pastorally and sensitively to all, irrespective of sexual orientation
and to condemn an irrational fear of homosexuals". Or as the latter condition is
more commonly known, homophobia.
The motion was just as critical of homophobia as it was of homosexuality, if not
more so. But even if it had been a full-blown condemnation of homosexuality by
the Anglican church, one would initially expect it to be of negligible concern to
queer activists. It has no bearing on legislation and practically no bearing on
popular opinion. All that it does is serve to emphasise the antiquated status of
the Church, and to distance the opinions of its dwindling supporters still
further from those of mainstream society. The gaggle of queer Christians that
were seen protesting on the evening news (the only people who would be genuinely
afflicted by a crisis of conscience were the Bible to constitute a condemnation
of their lifestyle) represent only a small minority of Britain's lesbian and gay
population.
The attempt to apply ancient sections of proscriptive Jewish scripture to any
aspect of life at the end of the twentieth century is a tricky business at the
best of times. As has often been pointed out, a strict adherence to literal
Biblical interpretation would prohibit the clergy from eating pork or from
wearing clothes made of more than one cloth, so some leniency of interpretation
must always be justified. More liberal denominations such as the Metropolitan
Community Church engage in remarkable interpretative contortions in order to
justify the sexual practices of their members. These contortions amount to what
is practically a complete rewriting of Scripture, meddling with one of the
monuments of literature in a spurious attempt to invest it with contemporary
relevance. It is less disconcerting that the Anglican church succeeded in
maintaining some semblance of continuity with its traditional hostility towards
homosexuality, and more disconcerting that it succeeded in incorporating so many
concessions into its motion.
The outcome of the Lambeth conference that has been mistaken as the sign of a
homophobic backlash is actually a defensive mechanism by a conservative mindset
in retreat. The church offers one of the few remaining havens for this
conservative mindset, as does the House of Lords in the UK, which is why the
effective discrediting of conservative values by the recent lowering of the age
of consent for gay men has been felt particularly acutely in both camps.
The prejudice of the Anglican bishops, which seems so out of touch with recent
developments, is that of a few traditionalists, led by Britain's Archbishop
Carey, supplemented by a selection of irate clergymen imported from the
developing world. As most of the latter preach in countries where Islam or
Hinduism are predominant, they feel particularly defensive about the foundations
of their Christianity, and understandably so. The threat of a split by African
and Asian dioceses were the conference to concede wholeheartedly to queer
activists reflects the fact that what is primarily a matter of public relations
for the Church in Britain and the United States is a vital matter of sustaining
credibility in Africa and Asia.
It is eminently possible that the Anglican church will eventually succumb to
public pressure and incorporate further concessions to the gay rights lobby in
the future. The fact that queer activists feel free to concentrate on such
peripheral matters as official recognition by the Church indicates that lesbians
and gay men enjoy a greater acceptance in mainstream society than ever before,
and are themselves, largely, preaching to the converted.
Join a discussion on this commentary