Is all Opposition Homophobic?

John Saxbee, Bishop of Lincoln

Summary of a Talk Given by at a General Synod Fringe Meeting Organised by the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.

For my purposes, homophobia is defined as aversion, dislike and distrust in relation to homosexuality.

Are all who articulate challenges to homosexuality in principle or practice, necessarily homophobic? 'Those who are not with us are against us', is a familiar sentiment, but is it too simplistic in relation to homosexuality?

Six categories of opposition-and appropriate responses:

1) Those who are homophobic and make no effort to disguise the fact-they openly assert their fear, aversion, dislike and distrust.

This is unacceptable prejudice which has no place in civilised society, and must be confronte gd and roundly condemned.

2) Those who are homophobic but try to disguise it by appeals to revelation, reason, tradition, experience, etc.

The implausibility of these arguments must be exposed, in order to reveal the truth beneath the defensive veneer.

3) Those who are not homophobic-in fact they are homophile with unaddressed issues of that kind in their lives. But these attempt to disguise their inclinations by making homophobic utterances and alliances.

This is classic projection and needs to be named as such for the sake of such people, and for the sake of openness and honesty in our dealings with one another.

4) Those who are not necessarily homophobic but provide intellectual capital for popular homophobia-albeit unintentionally.

Umberto Eco has shown how it is possible to be anti-Israel without being anti-Semitic-but 'intellectual' anti-Semitism can give comfort and act as an incitement to 'popular' anti-Semitism. (Guardian, 17th August 2002). Is there a parallel here with racism, gender discrimination, disability discrimination, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation etc., etc.?

Perhaps all intellectual challenges to, e.g., positive discrimination; women-only lists in elections; disability discrimination acts and gay rights legislation are actually racist, patriarchal, ablist and homophobic insofar as they encourage popular manifestations of such tendencies.

This possibility has to be at least acknowledged by those minded to challenge groups, individuals and lifestyles which have suffered victimisation and who are the subject of liberalising measures.

5) Those who are not necessarily homophobic but for whom other issues more important such as Biblical authority, Church teaching, ecumenical relations and a quiet life become more complicated, so that homosexuality is resented rather than condemned. They wish the matter would simply go away, and stop queering the pitch!

In response, it becomes necessary to: a) raise awareness and consciousness with regard to discrimination, exclusion and anti-gay activities. They are not second order nuisances, but first order offences in Christian terms. b) help such people to become more positively intelligent with regard to Biblical interpretation and doctrinal development.

6) Those who are not homophobic but who offer constructive challenges to gay culture/lifestyles as part of creative dialogue.

We should acknowledge their integrity and engage creatively with their critiques and challenges.

This classification suggests that some opposition is homophobic (categories 1 and 2), some may not be homophobic but is disingenuous and potentially dangerous (categories 3, 4 and 5), whilst some is creative as a contribution to robust debate and dialogue (category 6). To describe all opposition as homophobic is to employ a blunt instrument when something rather more subtle may be required of us.