What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Questions about Uganda

26/01/2013

Just before Christmas, the Primus of our church visited Uganda. Since there have been a number of comments made on his blog justifying the trip in terms of it being important to deal with those who have different views.

I’ve not heard anyone question the idea of a Primus dealing with those of different views. After all, clergy deal with people with different views all the time.

There are plenty of unanswered questions about bishops from here going to Uganda for formal events though and there are certainly some of us in the Scottish Episcopal Church who are surprised that Bishop David was encouraged by the College of Bishops to accept this invitation.

There are those in the Ugandan churches who are complicit in incitement to violence, hate speech and using their influence to try to pass laws which would persecute and imprison fellow members of the body of Christ.

The question any bishop faces when thinking about going on a formal visit to Uganda is whether they might be seen by it to be standing alongside those who are subject to violence, persecution and torture or whether they might be seen to be standing alongside those might be said to be encouraging it.

Dealing with difference doesn’t come into it.

This video caught my eye this week. It says in just a few minutes more than I can say on here and is well worth a watch.

David Chillingworth, LGBT, Primus, Uganda

7 responses to “Well-meaning but homophobic”

June Butler

26/08/2014

Seems to me “well-meaning but homophobic” in these days and times implies vincible ignorance and is no longer useful as an excuse for homophobic language. The leaders of the C of E seem paralyzed, unable to articulate policies to move forward on equality for LGTB persons that are other than laughable. Think “deer in the headlights”.

Reply
Lawrence Rosenfeld

26/08/2014

I suppose @RevArun might say that women are welcome for the same reason, eh?

Reply
1. margaret of the sea of galilee
  
  27/08/2014
  
  Exactly what I thought.
  
  Reply
Kelvin

26/08/2014

I’ve removed a previous comment. I’d prefer to retain the focus on the institutional elements of this rather than speculating about an individual.

Reply
Dharma Nicodemus Cuthbert

26/08/2014

As society changes many people are not sure of the new, and therefore condemn it, without thought. I am safe, with the Devil l know. It’s a way of life, not dealing with changes. If we think about how much has changed; homosexuality was illegal until 1969 in England; Scotland caught up in 1983; women have a right to equal pay; the only job that is still excluded from them is working down a mine:
There are men who are prepared to wait to see a male doctor, especially if it is the genitals.
Racism is not tolerated by most, but it is still used by people who want a reaction. There was, when the world and I were young, a shoe polish, called nigger brown. This wasn’t considered at the time as being wrong.

Reply
John O’Leary

27/08/2014

I take your point, and I don’t disagree. If we look at another person and only see the gay part as ‘broken’, then that’s homophobic, no matter how well intentioned. Plus I always find something disturbingly patronising when people say ‘We’re all broken’, as if the speaker doesn’t quite believe it of him/herself, while seeing it very clearly in the other.

However, there’s another way of looking at it. The very fact that we are human means that we are broken. If being gay is part of that humanity, then it’s part also of that brokenness. It’s all part of the messy mixture that we struggle with, and build our rickety lives with, but for which we also should praise and thank God.

Reply
Allan Ronald

27/08/2014

‘Thinking Anglicans’ has a post up about Vicky Beeching’s coming out but does not link to the discussion here. I asked why but they did not reply let alone publish my question.

Reply