Issues
Facing Missions Today: 45. The Misnomer ‘Homophobia’ and its Theological
Implications
In his opening speech at the Lambeth gathering of
Anglican Archbishops this week (11-15 January, 2016), the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Justin Welby, allegedly stated,[1]
We can also paint a
gloomy picture of the moral and spiritual state of Anglicanism. In all
Provinces there are forms of corruption, none of us is without sin. There is
litigation, the use of civil courts for church matters in some places. Sexual
morality divides us over same sex issues, where we are seen as either
compromising or homophobic.
Indeed, the newly invented term, ‘homophobia,’
has become a standard term in Western society in reference to persons opposed,
for whatever reason, to homosexuality.
It is a profoundly inappropriate term, behind which lie numerous errors
with serious consequences. The term is
not only a linguistic game played by those wishing to put their own viewpoints
forward by shaming others, it is also an intellectual error of the first
order. It disrupts the halls of rational
discourse and entertains a number of theological errors. Christian witness, therefore, needs to confront this language and its erroneous, theological implications.
1. A phobia is a fear. A sin is the opposite of what is holy, and to
call a phobia what someone understands to be a sin is to deny that this is a
matter of holiness. Neither the call to
holiness nor an understanding of a holy God whose commands must be followed are
brought into view.
2. A phobia is an irrational fear. It does not submit to reasonable
discourse. It lacks intelligible
argument as it is, after all, a matter of psychology, not philosophy, theology,
or science.
3. A phobia is not held in relation to a
moral issue. It is not a sin, and the
object it fears is equally not a sin. To
call something a phobia is to deny the legitimacy of any discussion of sin to the
matter. Open spaces are not a sin, and
fear of them is not a sin.
4. One cannot repent of the thing that a
phobic fears. One can repent of sinful
desires and acts.
5. When one is diagnosed as having a
phobia, it is the phobic, not the object of a phobic’s fear, who needs to be
transformed.
6. Any notion of transformation, when
speaking of phobias, is relegated to psychology and not to God’s transforming
power.
7. A phobia is personal, a matter for
someone to sort out without allowing his or her fears to settle upon others as
well. It is, therefore, not about a person’s
serious and real concern for a community but about a private matter that needs
to be kept separate from a community.
8. A phobia is about things and places,
such as spiders and mice and open or closed spaces. It is not about behaviour.
9. A phobia is acquired. Some treat religion as an acquired taste, a
matter of aesthetic pleasure, or a sentiment, or a nostalgia, or a cultural
expression. For such persons, the Church’s
ethics easily falls into the same category of something acquired, adopted, or
embraced for reasons of taste. It is a
short step to suggest that someone’s tastes are, in fact, phobias.
10. A phobia is dismissible from the high
and deep matters of religion. It is a
person’s own, closeted quirk. It should
not and cannot touch the rafters of religion, reaching to the heights of God. Someone trying to drop his or her phobia on
all society is like a poor painter turning from the canvas and trying to use the paintbrush to change the world, to paint the sky a different colour.
11. A phobia is something friends and
family tolerate, not a matter for divorce or ostracism. As irritating as the phobia is for a family, the
family shows its love by including the weaker member. If the phobia reaches psychotic proportions,
the family may, regrettably, have to hospitalize the individual. The psychotic level is reached when the
family can no longer conduct its life tolerably or when the psychotic person
becomes dangerous.
Given the significant errors wrapped into
the language of ‘homophobia,’ any serious and intelligent dialogue needs to
avoid the misnomer altogether. More
significantly, any lingering inclination to see the historic, Christian
teaching about homosexuality and the pastoral care given to persons internally
disordered in their sexuality as a matter of phobia in any sense of the term
implies heretical perspectives. It betrays
not only confused thinking but also theological error. Such errors include misunderstandings about holiness,
sin, repentance, transformation, pastoral care—indeed, about the Christian
faith.
[1] As
reported in the Vanguard. ‘Primates 2016: Archbishop of Canterbury’s
Address,’ Vanguard (January 11,
2016). Accessed online 14 January, 2016:
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/01/primates-2016-archbishop-of-canterburys-address/.
No comments:
Post a Comment