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.

5 responses to “The Primus’s Radio Interview about the Columba Declaration”

Benj

17/02/2016

I’m not sure Chillingworth gave a clear answer to Beattie’s question of what is wrong with the declaration beyond its discourtesy and rudeness. What does he mean when he says it is putting at risk the leadership of Christian faith communities at a critical moment in the ‘story of Scotland’?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  17/02/2016
  
  I can’t speak for Bishop David but my view is that this debacle (the discourtesy and rudeness and the rest) has had a serious knock on effect on the ecumenical life of Scotland. To put it bluntly, trusts and friendships that have been built up over years have been very sorely tested. I think that this risks poisoning ecumenical life in Scotland for a generation and I’d say that does seriously compromise the way in which church communities and leaders will be able to speak to Scotland.
  
  Reply
Richard

18/02/2016

It also speaks volumes for the contempt with which the Church of Englandshire holds for the Scottish Episcopal Church.

You struggle to see the shining truth through his words because his words lack honesty and integrity. Not that anyone in Englandshire really cares- most probably haven’t even heard of the Scottish Episcopal Church and if they have, it will be as an unknown backwater entity. To sweep aside the Scottish Episcopal Church must have taken breathtaking arrogance.

Reply
Iain McLarty

18/02/2016

I can totally understand the SEC concern about the CofE barging into territory that isn’t theirs. However, there are perhaps a few things to bear in mind about why a relationship between the CofS and CofE is important where that isn’t really relevant.

The first is that the CofS has a presence in England. Having spent a few years in a CofE congregation in Denmark I witnessed first hand how important the Porvoo agreement was in that context for enabling local worship and mission and similarly it could be hugely beneficial for the CofS congregations in England to be able to develop more formal relationships with their local Anglican partners.

Secondly, there are a number of areas where the CofS and CofE are already working together and developing closer relationship such as on training and fresh expressions. These are areas where the relationships have developed naturally due to the two churches dealing with similar areas of concern and where there should again be no encroaching on SEC ground.

Thirdly, the CofS and CofE work closely together in ecumenical circles through both CTBI and the WCC where both are significant players. It does seem strange that these two churches don’t recognise each other when their place in the wider ecumenical scene is so closely linked. That is not to deny the SEC’s ecumenical importance.

Obviously no one is denying that the way this became public has been badly handled but I struggle to see what more can be down than the very sincere apologies and frank criticisms of what happened which have been offered. In terms of what real issues there are, I have yet to see anyone pin down specific parts of the Columba agreement which are concerning to the SEC, with all the comments either much more vague or else being fears about issues (such as interchangeability of ministry) which are not actually part of the agreement. In my experience (through ACTS, WCC etc.) the relationship between the CofS and SEC is one of the strongest ecumenical relationships and it would be very sad if this was jeopardised because of miscommunication rather than substance.

Reply
Jeremy Bates

18/02/2016

It’s not just Scotland. A lot of people are struggling to see truth in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury these days.

Reply