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.

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

Tim

25/11/2006

Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

Reply
kelvin

25/11/2006

As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

Reply
Anonymous

26/11/2006

Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

All the very best,

Clyde Lad

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

Reply
Ali

26/11/2006

I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

“A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

Reply
Mysterious stranger

27/11/2006

I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Reply