What is in Kelvin's Head?

What institutional homophobia looks like

19/04/2017

Here’s a quick example to illustrate what institutional homophobia looks like.

Yesterday the report of the Theological Forum of the Church of Scotland to the General Assembly was published and it deals with a number of issues of interest to LGBT people. (It is well worth a read).

Amongst the “deliverances” ie proposals to go to the General Assembly from that Forum is this very clear call for an apology to LGBT people.

The General Assembly:

Invite the Church to take stock of its history of discrimination at different levels and in different ways against gay people and to apologise individually and corporately and seek to do better.

What could be clearer? Should the General Assembly apologise for discrimination against gay people it would be a huge and significant moment and very much to be welcomed.

However, listen to what the Principal Clerk to the General Assembly, the Very Rev John Chalmers of the Church of Scotland said on TV last night about the proposal:

“What the General Assembly is being asked to do this year is acknowledge and apologise for some of the harsh things that have been said on both sides of this debate over the last 20 to 30 years and I think the General Assembly will readily want to do that.”

This is very clearly not what the General Assembly is being asked to do.

This is a good example of institutional homophobia. In describing a call to apologise to gay people, gay people and their supporters are represented as being people making statements for 20 or 30 years which need to be apologised for.

I don’t believe that John Chalmers is a homophobe. Just the opposite. I’m quite sure that he is charming to gay people and I suspect he wants the church to accept gay people. However, put in a public position to explain a proposal to apologise for discrimination he gets it very wrong.

I have no doubt that there are huge institutional pressures on him over this issue and that is why he speaks as he does.

However, this looks to me like a very clear example of what institutional homophobia looks like. Institutional homophobia seems to come most often from people who are personally supportive of those of us who are gay.

Ironically, this is the kind of thing that needs to be apologised for.

We have it in our church too.

I find that people don’t like me pointing it out.

8 responses to “What is a wiki?”

Chris

31/07/2007

I wanted to comment on your wiki post, but there is a gremlin preventing me – no box to write in, so no writing!
[Comment now moved]

This is what I’d have said:
Great clip! A really clear description – can we get it incorporated into an educational package for the church? See http://scotedublogs.wikispaces.com/ for a good example of a wiki in use for over a year.

Reply
Tim

31/07/2007

Yeah. Wikis have huge potential. When I was setting up my church website I sat down and thought:
a) lots of pages
b) easy editing
c) uniform appearance across pages
d) ability to allow some people to (not) edit certain pages

End result was dokuwiki.

The real trouble is still persuading people that they’re capable of contributing…

Reply
kelvin

31/07/2007

Yes, it is odd getting people to post on a wiki is very much harder than getting them to post a comment on a blog. Something about a fear of being the authorial voice.

I think that it is fear of being contradicted and corrected, which is a shame, as whenever I post to a wiki, I’m hoping that someone can improve on what I’ve written.

Reply
Kimberly

31/07/2007

Fabulous video. Thanks for linking it.

I wonder if this is one of the ways we should be trying to respond to the Draft Anglican Covenant.

Reply
Stewart

31/07/2007

Wikis are great – look forward to seeing the St Mary’s Wiki developing (and adding to it!)

Reply
jimmux

05/08/2007

Thanks for a very clear explanation! Now that I understand how they work, I’ll be raising a discussion on how we might be able to use them on the National Postgraduate Committee of the United Kingdom. They seem a very useful tool for sub-committees which do a lot of work by e-mail.

Reply
Kennedy

08/08/2007

I had a look at Tim’s church website and looked at the bit with the contributions from the congregation and saw this statement:

‘Please note: the content in this section is contributed by members of the congregation and should not be considered official statements by the Church.’

I am a great fan of wikis for collaborative work, but I think this indicates one of the issues with ‘public’ wikis. These problems tend not occur when wikis are being used for internal usage or for a closed group. Open editing is very attractive but you need some form of management to ensure that defacement doesn’t occur or statements which might be damaging are published.

Also, how do I tell the difference between ‘the Church’ and ‘ members of the congregation’? Are they not the same thing?

Kennedy

Reply
Repeat post – wiki video | What’s in Kelvin’s Head

20/02/2009

[…] First posted quite a while ago here. […]

Reply