| October
1998
Symposium: homosexuality and the Church
|
|
|
The topic was Homosexuality and the Church. It was a symposium organised by Trinity Theological College, a seminary for the Protestant churches in Singapore.
A year earlier, in October 1997, the College had formed a Study Group to examine the issue of homosexuality from various standpoints, including the theological, medical and academic. This symposium, held on October 17, 1998, presented some of the findings of the Study Group. Beyond this, as announced at the meeting, they intended to publish a 5,000 word document, which would provide guidance to the local Protestant churches in relation to the subject and to dealing with homosexual parishioners. I am not a Christian, but when I heard about this event from my friend Kenneth, I could not resist going along. It was interesting that the Singapore churches -- generally considered by gay Christians here to be rather out-of-date in these matters -- were beginning to delve into the subject, but I must say, I left the place shaking my head. They were beginning to stir, but they were still so shackled with misinformation and attitudinal problems, I can't see them going very far. Six perspectives were presented that afternoon: the biblical, theological and pastoral; the medical, sociological and the psychological (from the angle of counselling).
Things started to go wrong -- wrong, from my point of view -- from almost the very beginning when the first two speakers began with the Bible. Dr Tan Kim Huat analysed the relevant passages from the Old Testament and discussed the various possible interpretations of them. He was quite even-handed, pointing out that the few cryptic passages generally considered to touch on the homosexual act, could be interpreted in other ways. I'm not qualified to go into the details; most gay Christians know the subject far better than I do. Yet, however objective Dr Tan tried to be, I couldn't help feeling that he was missing the point: that choosing to be so literal with the Bible on the question of homosexuality was itself homophobia. The same Churches blithely ignore (perhaps in the name of being consonant with modern society) even more prolific and specific passages in the Old Testament condemning adultery, disobedient wives, menstruating women and other transgressions, together with its prescriptions for atavistic punishments. In other words, the fact that the symposium began by taking a magnifying glass to the Bible, was already putting the wrong foot forward. Dr Choong Chee Pang spoke on the New Testament, but instead of giving a dispassionate analysis of it, as Dr Tan did with the Old Testament, he launched into his personal views. Homosexuality was a sin, clearly condemned by the Bible. His speech sounded more like an admonishing sermon than an intellectual exposition. At one point, he compared homosexuals with murderers. In his view, most murderers realised that what they had done was wrong, but nowadays, he said, homosexuals did not think their lifestyle was in any way immoral! From this point on, the symposium would not be talking about homosexuality, but about a Sin, a Sin possibly worse than murder, and what to do with such Sinners! Two steps forward, one step back.
Dr Anthony Ang, a psychiatrist, presented the medical perspective. His was the worst paper. It was selective with the facts, and made up mainly of empty half-statements. One moment he was speaking about homosexually-inclined people in general, the next he was referring to psychiatric patients. One moment he was referring to adults, the next he was referring to adolescents. Instead of leaving the audience clearer about the subject matter, I think he left them more confused and biased. His paper had the undercurrent of trying to paint homosexuality as disease, and to justify conversion therapy. Among the things he said was that in the 1960's, most psychiatrists did not believe that homosexual orientation could be changed. But today, as many as 30% of highly-motivated persons could be helped to change. Such statements really get my ire, but not because I am a gay person. They get my ire because they insult my intelligence. Part A and Part B of the statement did not refer to the same population. Part B referred to a subset of the population, the "highly-motivated patients", which common sense tells us would be a tiny minority of the homosexual population implied in Part A. But Dr Ang did not caution the audience about this difference, leaving people with the impression that psychiatry has improved since the sixties from a near zero success rate to a 30% conversion rate. The American Psychological Association does not consider homosexuality to be an illness. It does not support "conversion therapy" so beloved of the Christian Rightwing in the States. Until recently, "conversion therapy" included electric-shock "treatments". The considered view today is that whatever success that is claimed has been more akin to soviet brainwashing, often with the connivance of the already troubled patient, who would rather deny than face his true self, than any real change in a person's nature. Dr Ang did not mention this. Dr Ang resurrected theories such as absent fathers, domineering mothers and sexual abuse in childhood, to account for homosexuality. He failed to mention that the evidence for these factors is either very poor or very controversial. It struck me as all too convenient that these three theories had in common the concept of homosexuality as psychological abnormality, caused by childhood abuse or dysfunctional families. It's the thin end of the wedge to saying that homosexuals are sick. And, surprise, surprise, they imply that homosexuals -- read perverts -- should be locked up otherwise they would abuse children. He did mention a few studies on the biological basis for homosexuality, though he gave undue prominence to LeVay's work. He stressed that LeVay's conclusions have been completely demolished by subsequent scientists. I didn't think he gave a balanced account of current scientific knowledge. But worse, just in case some serious scientific results were to come through on the biological basis for homosexuality, he preemptively dismissed them. He highlighted a statement from somewhere -- unfortunately, I didn't make a note of the source -- that many or most researchers working in this field were themselves avowed homosexuals; then left it dangling. Implication? That their results could be biased. Did he mean to say that homosexual persons could not be good rigorous scientists? Did he mean to say all biological enquiry would be suspect because homosexual persons took an inordinate interest in homosexuality as a subject? Would it be equally suspect if Japanese persons took a greater interest in the Japanese language as a field of research, than non-Japanese? What on earth did Dr Ang mean when he pointed out that many researchers into homosexuality are gay? There were other statements Dr Ang made which I found all too telling about his agenda.: "If an adolescent stumbles upon homosexuality and finds it pleasurable, it is not difficult to understand that he would seek to continue such activity." At first sight, you'd think, oh, homosexuality is learned behaviour due to tempting exposure. Therefore, don't let your kids mix with perverts. But analyse the statement, which Dr Ang did not, and it comes through as empty. Firstly, this is true of all activities, from eating ice-cream to playing computer games. You do something once, and you like it, you'd want to do it again. All learning is like that. The crux of the matter is why some kids find homosexuality pleasurable. After all, many kids stumble upon beer, but the liquid tastes so awful, they don't want it. Not all of them turn into alcoholics overnight. I have argued elsewhere that sexual orientation is latent in children, maybe even in the foetus, therefore this "stumbling" upon homosexuality would not be falling into perversion, but merely discovering something pre-existing in themselves, much as a teenage girl discovers she has a flair for languages only upon enrolling in a French class. I fault Dr Ang for making such an empty statement, and inviting the audience to take a kneejerk and prejudiced view. You can actually go further with this. I made the assumption above that some kids might find homosexuality pleasurable, implying that some wouldn't. But what if all kids, in general, maybe to slightly differing degrees, found it pleasurable? What would that tell you about the naturalness of homosexuality? I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I am saying that if we are supposed to speak as intellectuals, then at least apply some intellect. Empty statements masquerading as learned academic opinion do more harm than good. Dr Ang said that homosexuals are unable to enjoy emotional intimacy with the opposite sex. It wasn't clear whether he was referring to psychiatric patients who were homosexual, or to homosexual people in general. This is another problem: by failing to distinguish the two, he conflated homosexuality with mental illness. But coming back to the emotional intimacy aspect, in itself the statement was impenetrable. Firstly, as a matter of establishing a baseline, do people in general find it easy to be emotionally intimate with the opposite sex? By the way, did he mean opposite sex lover/partner/spouse, or opposite-sex friends, colleagues and neighbours? Secondly, even if homosexuals fell short by this measure, compared to heterosexuals, would it be a valid comparison? Shouldn't one compare the relationship between heterosexuals and opposite sex, with homosexuals and same-sex? So here we had another meaningless statement. But few people stop to think. They just take such statements at face value, and get the vague idea that homosexuals are somehow inadequate or emotionally immature. Not full persons. Then there was some mention about testosterone and how it "increases sexual drive". My first thought was, how insulting to the women! We know that women have a fraction of the testosterone levels of men. Does that mean they have a fraction of the sex drive of men? That can't be what Dr Ang meant. Therefore what he probably meant was that testosterone was important for the male sex drive. And.... ? And he went on to talk about his son, and how he was running about, and how that indicated that the child had testosterone. So once again, a half-statement was made and left hanging, tantalisingly pointing to a rather homophobic conclusion. In this case, Dr Ang, by saying that testosterone was responsible for the (male) sex drive, left the impression that testosterone created the sex drive that lusted after females. The audience was felt to fill in the blanks: since homosexuals did not lust after females, therefore they did not have testosterone, therefore they were not really masculine. They're sort of half-women. Eunuchs. Ah Kuas. Bapoks. I don't think anyone has shown that homosexual men have lower testosterone levels in their bodies than heterosexual men. Until someone does, you can ignore what Dr Ang said. It seemed to me that Dr Anthony Ang wanted to push the idea that homosexuality was a psychological abnormality (the American Psychological Association does not consider it so), traceable in the main to bad experiences when young, and that in a substantial minority of cases (30% of the "highly-motivated"), it is curable. (Subtext: if you're not cured, you can be blamed for lack of motivation). He gave the impression that he represented mainstream medical opinion. I was appalled.
Then things looked up. Mr Anthony Yeo, a leading counsellor, was next to speak. Nearly right at the top he said he had seen many gay Christians needing help, but "the last place they want to go to is the Church." Hear, hear. He gave an informative talk based on his years of experience, on why some homosexual persons sought therapy:
He stressed that in counselling, one took a non-judgmental approach. One does not condemn. One helps the person come to terms with his experiences. Mr Anthony Yeo listed 5 "dilemmas" that he suggested should be honestly explored. I'm not sure why he used the term "dilemma".
My Anthony Yeo's main point was doubt. The more one explores the issue, the more one gets to know homosexual persons, even in the context of counselling, the more there is doubt. I had the feeling he was trying to say the Churches would do well to allow themselves a lot more humility and doubt.
After the break, Dr Ho Kong Chong, sketched the sociological perspective. He was the most secular of the speakers. He began by putting some numbers to homosexuality in the population. As always, it all depended on how one defined homosexuality, whether by the strict definition of gay identity, or by the looser definition of homosexual experience. He gave different numbers varying from 3.5 to around 10%. Overall, he felt that about 6% of adult males were generally homosexual, and about 4% of females. He went on to make four main points: Firstly, he said that the Christian community should be aware that other sections of society were becoming accepting of the "homosexual lifestyle" (personally, I find this term derogatory). Christians risked alienating themselves from society if they could not accommodate. Secondly, he felt that if the Churches were to have a statement for the homosexuals, it should distinguish between condemning homosexual sex and condemning the homosexuals, or else the Churches would push the gay community away. Thirdly, in condemning homosexual sex, Christians should not foreclose same sex relationships. His point was that perhaps a distinction could be made between casual sex and sex in public on the one hand, and sex within a relationship, on the other. Furthermore, if one were to condemn casual sex, then one should be evenhanded between casual heterosex and casual homosex. Fourthly, in condemning homosexual acts, the Churches should also condemn homophobia. For me, the highlight of his talk was his strong opinion that the laws criminalising homosex should be changed, to deal only with sex in public -- both heterosex and homosex equally. He mentioned that he had spoken to the police of his views, though they didn't agree with him.
Then it was down into the swamp again. Or rather, to the nether plumbing. Drs William Wan and Simon Chan spoke about the theological perspective on homosexuality. Their starting point seemed to be a search for God's creational intent. Not surprisingly, they found that God's intent was for man to be with woman. Dr Wan said, stressing the significance of male and female polarity, that the union of male and female "truly represent[ed] the intent of God in His Creation. Everything else is a result of the Fall." He used the metaphor of a washing machine and a drying machine. One is for washing, the other is for drying. Everything has a purpose. Really? This is a far from universal notion. See the article, The fall-out from being made. Dr Simon Chan elaborated on the theme of Creational intent. He talked about "body-persons" and how they ought to manifest congruence between the physical and emotional or spiritual sides. Any lack of congruence was "abnormal, as far as theological anthropology was concerned." One had to consider, he said, the question of physical congruence, and from this point on, it was all about male plumbing and female plumbing. How the parts had to fit. If they didn't fit, then it was not God's intent. It was unnatural, in other words, not nature as intended by God. (Note: natural or unnatural does not refer to what exists in nature; natural or unnatural is a verdict pronounced by theologians, like a judge pronouncing guilty or innocent). Later on, a participant from the floor asked whether he would condemn oral sex between husband and wife; I don't recall a specific reply to his question. There was also the question of procreation. Any couple that couldn't procreate could not be part of God's plan, it was said. Somebody should have jumped up and ask, so what about a marriage between an impotent man and a post-menopausal woman -- would the Churches condemn that as sin and refuse to solemnise it?
Drs Robert Solomon and Donald Chia gave the pastoral perspective. Dr Solomon began by pointing out that Christians were a minority in Singapore. The Church could not dictate morals to a larger society. There had to be separation between the morality of the Church and the morality of the State. I thought that was a timely reminder. Moving from the general to the particular, Dr Solomon explained that the homosexual act could be traced back to an underlying homosexual disposition. This itself came out of the 'being' that the person was. However, a Christian had to be concerned with the question "Who am I?" and the answer was not to be found only in the 'being' that one was. It was equally to be found in revelation. His point was that as much as a pastor had to help a parishioner find healing and reconciliation with himself, he also had to provide guidance and sustenance. Other key points Dr Solomon made included these:
However, the last raised key issues of whether practising homosexuals could receive the Eucharist, whether they could be ordained, or entrusted with decision-making positions. Rounding off, Dr Solomon posed a question to the audience. If a parishioner confessed to his pastor his homosexuality and repented, and then stayed celibate for over a year, but then in a moment of weakness, engaged in the homosexual act again, should the pastor, knowing this, still allow him to participate in the Eucharist, now that he had sinned once more? But before coming to your decision, he said to the audience, consider also what you would do in the case of other sins, such as the sin of greed, pride, or of lying.
Anyway, as I said at the top, I left shaking my head. I saw two major weaknesses in their approach to the issue: Firstly, the Study Group was not engaging with real-life gay Christians. There were no gay Christians on the panel. Their perspective was not heard. Instead, we had cardboard target-figures brought onto the stage by psychiatrists and social workers. The picture that the symposium had of homosexual persons was distorted by profiles of psychiatric patients and troubled souls seeking counselling. What about all the emotionally healthy gay people out there? From what was said at this symposium, you wouldn't know that such people existed. Look at it this way: imagine the gay community set up a study group to examine the question of Christianity. There were no Christians represented on the panel; they had no voice at the symposium. The picture of Christians submitted was one from the case-notes of psychiatrists and counsellors who had from time to time dealt with suicidal or depressed Christians. Wouldn't you say that the gay community was grossly misleading itself? Secondly, I had the very strong impression that it was considered impossible to question the tenet that homosexuality was a sin. Whatever the Study Group recommended, it had to flow from that position. At various points in the symposium, and mentioned in passing by different speakers, it was made clear that a good homosexual (or at least a not-so-bad homosexual) was a celibate one. Even an outwardly sympathetic Dr Solomon insisted on abstinence and repentance. I know many gay Christians who hold the view that the homosexual act (not just the orientation) is not a sin; that it flows naturally and logically from their orientation, which they view as God's gift to them as human persons. If the Churches insist on condemning homosexuality as sin, and continue to nitpick through the Bible to prove it -- an approach which will never convince gay Christians -- then you would still have an unbridged gap. The disagreements about ordination, and the degree of integration, merely reflect this fundamental divide. The Churches may be beginning, ever so gingerly, to consider elevating their homosexual members from untouchable to second-class, but the point is, many gay Christians do not accept second class.
From what I heard at the symposium, the Churches didn't see this at all. © Yawning Bread
|
|
|
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
