Andrew K T Yip. Journal of Homosexuality. Volume 37, Issue 2. 1999.
There has been a growing corpus of empirical research literature on stigma management and identity negotiation since the onset of the labeling perspective. The majority of the literature focuses on the negative effects of stigma on the individual. However, some researchers also argued about the ‘‘positive consequences’’ of stigma, namely that the stigmatized individual develops effective strategies to exploit and utilize the stigma for secondary gains (for more details see Herman & Miall, 1990).
This paper focuses its analysis on the experiences of gay male Christians who, because of their sexuality, are denied full acceptance in the Christian community. The social situation and experiences of lesbian Christians are sufficiently different from those of gay Christians to warrant a separate analysis.
Individuals who carry a socially labelled discrediting attribute expose themselves to the possibility of stigmatization in everyday interactional contexts. While some discrediting attributes are more socially visible than others, all, when brought to the knowledge of the social audience, face the possibility of stigmatization.
Some individuals carrying the discrediting attribute crumble under the weight of the burden of potential and actual stigmatization. Many fall prey to shame and guilt or attempt to correct the discrediting attribute (Goffman, 1963). This characterizes the experiences of many gay Christians who encounter extreme guilt when they first discover their sexual orientation. Assessing their own situation from the conventional religious perspective which argues the incompatibility between being gay and Christian, many succumb to guilt and shame.
It is possible that gay Christians in such a situation do not move on in their journey of sexuality, resulting in a life of intense alienation or even self-hatred. This self-hatred, or more accurately ‘‘internalised homophobia,’’ affects not only the individual’s self-image, but also his/her social relationships with others. It is therefore not surprising that research evidence has repeatedly suggested that, compared to their nonreligious counterparts, gay Christians tend to experience a greater sense of anxiety about the exposure of their sexuality, a greater degree of alienation, and a lower degree of self-esteem (e.g., Greenberg, 1973; Weinberg & Williams, 1974; Gonsiorek, 1988; Wagner et al., 1994).
Fletcher (1990), in his study on priests in the Church of England, reported that gay priests suffered a higher level of stress compared to their heterosexual counterparts. They encountered great difficulty in their profession owing to, among others, the lack of institutional support and the fear of their sexuality being exposed.
On the other hand, some gay Christians accept the conventional religious teachings on homosexuality and attempt to manage the situation by correcting their discrediting attribute. Gay Christians in this situation might seek assistance from the ‘‘ex-gay’’ ministries such as Living Water and Exodus International. These groups are committed to the ideology that the practice of homosexuality is religiously unacceptable. This ideology forms the basis for their programmes, attempting to encourage the participants to either opt for abstinence or consider the possibility of heterosexual marriage. Practicing gays are encouraged to ‘‘leave the lifestyle’’ (for more details on the ‘‘ex-gay’’ ministries, see Ponticelli, 1993, 1996).
Nevertheless, many gay Christians manage to move on in their journey of sexuality and eventually develop a positive personal identity that incorporates both their sexuality and religious beliefs. The construction of a positive gay Christian identity involves a long process of negotiation and resocialization. In this process, gay Christians shape and reshape their social biographies to reinforce their personal identity and social roles (for more details on gay [Christian] identity construction see Plummer, 1975; Cass, 1979; Troiden, 1979, 1984; Cain, 1991; Thumma, 1991). They are now at the stage of being, rather than becoming, gay Christians. This paper focuses on the experiences of gay Christians in this category.
Throughout this paper, I specifically analyze and present the ‘‘accounts’’ (Lyman & Scott, 1970) or ‘‘vocabularies of motives’’ (Mills, 1940) used by 60 gay male Christians to defend their personal identity and the continuation of their social actions. These accounts, a manifestation of their positive self-image, also underline the rhetoric they construct to challenge and discredit the argument of the stigmatizer that forms the basis of stigmatization.
Having felt rejected by the Church because of their sexuality, they engage in what I call the politics of counter-rejection through which they develop arguments against the stigmatizer, namely the Church. This form of politics of counter-rejection might lead to the actual participation in political activism. However, I have argued elsewhere that nonparticipation in political activism is not necessarily indicative of the lack of a positive self-image which enables them to construct accounts used not only to defend, but also to attack (see Yip, 1996a).
Also, this politics of counter-rejection does not necessarily lead to their physical distancing from the Church. Only ten of the 60 gay male Christians studied have stopped participating in any form of church activities as a result of their disappointment with the Church. The remainder participate in the local church with varying degrees of activeness. Their continued presence in a social institution that does not affirm their sexuality denotes their ability to manage a renegotiated personal identity that incorporates their sexuality and religious faith.
The Study and Respondents
The data presented in this paper were collected through semistructured interviews with 60 gay male Christians in Britain. The respondents were recruited primarily through three lesbian and gay Christian organizations and personal contacts. These organizations are the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM), the Lesbian and Gay Catholics Organization (QUEST), and the Anglican Clergy Consultation (ACC). The ACC is a support group for gay priests in the Church of England and their partners. Almost all the interviews, following a semistructured guide, took place in the respondents’ homes for about 70 minutes each. Fieldwork was carried out between June and September 1993.
The respondents aged from early 20s to above 70s. The mean age is 42.9. Fifty-one respondents (85.0%) were affiliated to the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church. The remainder were affiliated to other smaller denominations such as the Baptist, Methodist, and the Quaker. Except one Japanese, one Anglo-Chinese, and one AfroAmerican, all respondents were white. The majority of the respondents lived in Greater London and the Southeast of England.
In the main, the respondents were highly educated. Half of the sample held a first degree, with another 14 (23.3.%) possessing a postgraduate qualification. In addition, 38 respondents (63.3%) have some form of professional qualifications. In terms of occupation, 15 of the 52 in employment (28.8%) were priests, followed by teachers/lecturers (8, 15.4%) and managers (5, 9.6%).
It must be emphasized that the representativeness of this sample is limited, since nearly all the respondents were recruited through one source: gay and lesbian Christian organizations. Given the stigmatizing climate within the institutionalized Church which I will discuss later, the gay Christian community is still a highly hidden population. A representative sample is therefore not obtainable (Morin, 1977; Peplau, 1981). Thus, the findings of this study should not be grossly generalized. Nevertheless, they increase our knowledge about this acutely understudied religious and sexual minority.
The Churches’ Official Positions on Homosexuality
Most Christians consider being gay and Christian incompatible owing to the perceived straightforward prohibition against it in the Bible. Various institutionalized churches have produced official statements spelling out their official positions explicitly. In view of the respondents’ denominational affiliations, I shall focus the discussion on the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church (for a more extensive discussion on this issue, see Brash, 1995; Hertman, 1996).
The Church of England attracted wide publicity in 1987 when the issue of homosexuality was vigorously debated in the General Synod. While tolerating the homosexual orientation, the General Synod passed the motion that ‘‘sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs entirely within a permanent married relationship. Homosexual genital acts fall short of this ideal and are to be met by a call of repentance and the exercise of compassion’’ (Church of England, 1987, pp. 555-556; for more details on the debate see Yip, 1991).
In 1991, the Church of England moved one step further with the publication of Issues in Human Sexuality by the House of Bishops. The Report asked the Church to recognize and respect the choice of lesbian and gay Christians who, having searched their Christian conscience, decide to be in relationships which involve genital sexual activity.
This measure, however, applies only to the laity. Gay clergy were excluded from it on the ground that they are called to perform an ‘‘exemplary’’ function as ‘‘messengers, watchmen and stewards of the Lord’’ (Church of England, 1991, para. 5.14). This situation complicates same-sex relationships where one or both partners are priests. Many criticized the Church of England for practicing double standards in this case (e.g., Yip, 1994; Sumners, 1995).
The Roman Catholic Church issued its first official statement on homosexuality in 1975 with the publication of Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1975). Homosexuality and the prohibition against it were briefly mentioned alongside other issues such as masturbation, contraception, and sex before marriage.
It is, however, the publication of Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986) that proved to be the most widely debated and controversial. Its controversy primarily surrounds the moralistic terminology used in the statement in the labelling of the homosexual orientation and samesex genital acts. The homosexual orientation or inclination is labelled as an ‘‘objective disorder,’’ indicating personal pathology.
Genital acts between members of the same sex, on the other hand, are labelled ‘‘intrinsically disordered,’’ primarily because they are against the perceived prohibition in the Bible (see Coleman, 1989; Yip, 1991). In addition, they are also not within the framework of heterosexual marriage and have no possibility for the transmission of new life (Hume, 1993, 1995).
Inevitably, the use of such quasi-pathological terminology has aroused indignation and anger within the gay and lesbian community. O’Brien (1991, p. 38) reported that 93.5% of the 263 gay and lesbian Catholics he surveyed considered this official statement negative, seriously in contradiction to their understanding of their own sexuality. In addition, 76.4% of the respondents argued that this official pronouncement would significantly decrease the general understanding about gay and lesbian Catholics.
Under the current stigmatizing climate, it is indisputable that lesbian and gay Christians encounter great difficulty in attempting to reconcile their sexuality and the religious beliefs. Many fall prey to this scenario and lead an unhappy life of alienation and marginalization. However, many lesbian and gay Christians have also succeeded in managing and even removing the stigma through various strategies (O’Brien, 1991; Thumma, 1991; Mahaffy, 1996; Yip, 1996b). It is to the experiences of these gay Christians we now turn.
The Politics of Counter-Rejection
In this section, I analyze the narratives or accounts constructed by the respondents which demonstrate their counter-rejection of the institutionalized Church as their moral arbiter, and the Church’s official positions. This counter-rejection emanates from the respondents’ sense of rejection by the Church at the outset.
This politics of counter-rejection has two targets: the institutionalized Church itself and its official positions on homosexuality. The counter-rejection of the former justifies the counter-rejection of the latter as a matter of course.
Counter-Rejection of the Church
The analysis of the respondents’ accounts reveals that the counterrejection of the Church is predicated on four bases: (1) the Church’s ignorance of sex and sexuality in general, (2) the Church’s ignorance of all sexualities as God’s creation, (3) the Church’s misinterpretation of biblical passages on homosexuality, and (4) the Church’s fallibility.
Ignorance of sex and sexuality. Expectedly, there is among the respondents a strong sense of rejection of the Church’s conventional teachings on issues broadly related to sex and sexuality. The Church, with its conventional sexual ethics, is criticized for being ignorant of the complexities of human sexualities. Its unfavorable view of homosexuality is therefore not unexpected. Respondent no. 5 expressed this typical view:
I think basically on sexuality as a whole they [the Church] are screwed up and they have got it wrong. The spirit is somehow for some reasons not revealed through the Church as a whole. They have got the issue wrong.
In the same vein, respondent no. 3 asserted:
Christianity itself is muddled about the body. Its teachings on the body tend to be absurd, and worse than absurd. Probably Christian teachings about the body is that it’s evil. [The teachings are] extremely misguided. So it would never actually occur to me to take my Christianity into bed.
In rejecting the Church’s teachings on sexual matters on the whole, the respondents argued that the practice of same-sex sexuality, like that of cross-sex sexuality, can be characterized by Christian and humanistic values with an emphasis on mutuality, consent and love. The Church’s view that all manifestations of homosexuality are equivalent has been much criticized for being naive and narrow (Maguire, 1983; Yip, 1994). This sentiment is clearly expressed in the following accounts:
What one should do is, always be loving and caring. I mean I’ll take that side of it, and non-exploitative. There can certainly be affection and gentleness. There can be an exchange of pleasure. All of which are very good things. I won’t exploit, but a mutual sharing, typically want to go to bed and want to have fun and enjoy each other. Oh yes! That’s almost gospel! Doesn’t quite say it but I mean I think that is a very Christian thing to do actually. It depends on if for that person it’s a very rejoicing thing to do. (Resp. no. 14)
We must have a theology of relationships rather than physical act. When people are making love, they should be so spontaneous. They don’t think oh we can do that we can’t do that. If it is going to be dangerous then it shouldn’t be done. Or if one person wants something and the other person doesn’t want it, then it shouldn’t be done because this is against his will. (Resp. no. 35)
These accounts demonstrate the respondents’ ability in counterlabeling the Church as ignorant and ill informed. All sexualities, to them, should be judged by the manner they are practiced and not their different sexual forms. This is predicated on the argument that all sexualities are created by God, which I will elaborate in the next section.
Ignorance about God’s creation. The respondents invariably adhered to the essentialist argument that their sexuality is created, blessed, and sustained by God. In recognition of the religious element in this essentialism, I prefer the term ontogeneric argument (for more details see Yip, 1997a; 1997b). They argued that the Church fails to recognize the fact that all sexualities are God’s creation and should therefore be treated with equality and fairness. The following accounts argue this point eloquently:
I think the fundamental question is whether God made us this way. Everything has to come down to it. There is no way that anyone else can claim that they were made by God heterosexual and then say that I was not made by God homosexual. There is simply no way that that can be said, because my experience of being homosexual is exactly the same as a straight person’s experience as being heterosexual. It’s just the way we were made, there is nothing that has caused this. It’s just the way God has made us. It’s not a sickness. It’s not unhealthy. It isn’t inherently evil. There is no evil flowing from it. It is just like being lefthanded or red-haired. It’s unusual. It’s different. It might be inconvenient like the left-handed in the minority. (Resp. no. 42)
I think, as I’ve said, God has made me who I am. I haven’t been made the way I am, I believe, by my upbringing or anything like that. It’s the way I am. I honestly believe that my [homosexual] orientation is in me. It’s not something that’s controlled from somewhere else. (Resp. no. 19)
The ontogeneric argument provides a very powerful validation to the social biographies of the respondents. By assigning the responsibility of their stigmatized sexuality to God, they in turn put the Church in the wrong. Their sexuality is therefore not a personal choice. It is God-given. It follows that it would be morally unjustifiable for the Church to expect gay people to refrain from practicing their sexuality, let alone attempting to correct it.
All sexualities are therefore equally acceptable. What is important is that their commitment to Christianity should inform the practice of their sexuality. The practice should be guided by broad Christian principles such as love, justice, and faithfulness. Therefore, Christians, gay or heterosexual, share the same responsibility to practice their sexualities in ways that reflect their Christian values. This sentiment is expressed below:
I see being gay as my God-given persona. Therefore just as any other persons, I have to live responsibly. So as a gay person you have to work out a way of expressing your sexuality in a responsible way. That’s part of your Christian vocation. (Resp. no. 36)
We are not talking about a morally reprehensible condition. I think homosexuality is amoral. What we do with our sexuality, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual, is up to us. We can be immoral or we can be very moral people. So I don’t really see that as a problem. (Resp. no. 57)
Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that despite the respondents’ commitment to practice their sexuality within a Christian normative framework, they do not speak with one voice as to what should constitute that framework. On a very fundamental issue such as blessing ceremony, respondents hold diverse views about its propriety for gay Christian couples. Some argued that having a blessing ceremony to solemnize a gay Christian partnership is ‘‘a Christian thing to do.’’ On the other hand, some jettisoned the idea on the ground that a blessing ceremony mimics a heterosexual marriage, a model of which they disapproved (see Yip, 1996b). Similarly, the respondents also held diverse sexual attitudes in the area of sexual exclusivity within a partnership (for more details see Yip, 1997c, 1997d).
Misinterpretation of Scriptures. Some biblical passages or verses form the primary basis for the Church’s unfavorable attitude towards homosexuality (e.g., Genesis 19: 1-11; Romans 1: 18-32; see Coleman, 1989; Yip, 1991). The respondents, however, rejected the Church’s conventional biblical exegesis by labeling the misinterpretation ill founded and ignorant. To them, the conclusions the Church arrived at in this respect are predicated on the misinterpretation of the original meanings of the biblical passages concerned. This sentiment is clearly expressed in the account below:
I am amazed with the degree of ignorance there is in the Church about what the Bible says about homosexuality. That people who have been to university and who have studied theology can come out with blatantly untrue things like Jesus condemned homosexuality. This is utter nonsense. I read the Old Testament. I read Leviticus and Genesis. I find it quite incredible really that people can extract those texts and use them as excuses for saying that therefore God hates homosexuals. I think it is intellectually very unsound. (Resp. no. 11)
In support of the above argument, respondent no. 48 asserted:
There is no contradiction in being homosexual and Christian. The contradiction comes because of the Church’s rules and regulations and Church’s doctrines. It is the Church who says that love between two men is wrong. This is a misinterpretation of the Scriptures. It is just so stupid.
The respondents also criticized the Church for taking the Scriptures out of context in formulating its conclusions. To many respondents, the de-contexualization of the Scriptures does not take into consideration the vast difference between the social and cultural realities then and now. Respondent no. 20 shared this typical view:
I think most people who sort of use those passages against one being gay are really ripping the passages totally out of context. I think you got to have first of all the contextualization of these. I think also the mere fact that there is a statement in the bible doesn’t offer the necessity to make that statement an act of faith. One has got to understand biblical writings in context as the expression of a particular people at a certain time with their limitations and strengths, which are different to those now.
These accounts clearly demonstrate the respondents’ effort to discredit the validity of the Church’s interpretation of biblical passages that form the basis of their stigmatization. Space does not allow me to discuss the alternative interpretations of these passages. The respondents, however, appeared to be highly informed by the ‘‘reverse discourse’’ against the ‘‘dominant discourse’’ the Church puts forward (for more details on the alternative biblical exegesis, see, e.g., Boswell, 1980; Countryman, 1988; Coleman, 1989; Stuart, 1992, 1995; John, 1993; Seow, 1996). That the respondents use the Bible as the basis of their ‘‘reverse discourse’’ is not unexpected, since the Church’s ‘‘dominant discourse’’ is heavily predicated on its interpretation of the Biblical passages.
Church’s fallibility. Finally, the respondents rejected the Church on the basis of its fallibility as their moral and behavioral arbiter. Thus, the ultimate guide for one’s moral behaviour is one’s own Christian conscience. Respondent no. 28 asserted:
One has to go by one’s own conscience. I don’t pay much attention to what church leaders say because they can be wrong. They have been wrong in the past about other things. It’s rather like contraception. A lot of good Christian people practise birth control. They just think the Vatican is wrong on that particular thing. I think that is the case with being gay. I think they have no experience with gay people. I think any institution that is run by professional bachelors is a bit odd. They have just this thing about sex. I think things have got to change there.
Respondent no. 57 cited specific historic examples to illustrate the Church’s fallibility:
I say quite simply but categorically that the Church has got it shamefully wrong. There can be no room for homophobia or any form of discrimination or prejudice, which the Church is being guilty of in the past for centuries in all sorts of spheres from indirectly at one point supporting the slave trade to perhaps supporting apartheid at certain times. They are wrong. They have got it wrong.
In relating the Church’s past failings in slavery and apartheid to its current view on sexuality, the respondents highlighted the Church’s fallibility. Past mistakes could be repeated due to ignorance and the lack of understanding.
Counter-Rejection of the Church’s Official Positions
Many respondents expressed their optimism that the Church would become more accepting in the future. Some respondents considered the publication of Issues of Human Sexuality an indication that the Church of England is gradually shifting its boundary of tolerance. However, the Report is still highly criticized for its double standards. Its actual message is therefore rejected by the respondents. This is clearly argued below:
It [the Report] falls short because of the fact that it says that it’s okay [to be in a same-sex partnership] if you are sitting in the pew. It’s wrong if you are standing behind the altar. And you can’t have it both ways. You are either right or wrong. If it is right, it is right for everyone. If it is wrong, it is wrong for everyone. You can’t have it both ways. So therefore there is a gap at the moment on the issue of homosexuality. (Resp. no. 43)
Respondent no. 57 took the argument further, challenging the Report on theological ethical grounds:
I think they [the Church hierarchy] have fudged the issues as usual and bring their own usual hypocrisy in these matters. So now they say it’s all right if you are a lay person to have a homosexual relationship although it falls short of the ideal [referring to the motion passed by General Synod in 1987]. But which relationship doesn’t fall short of the ideal? Every relationship falls short of the ideal, because we are human beings. We are not God. It also goes to say that it is not all right if you are a priest to have a sexual relationship. Does that mean to say that laity are somehow secondrate Christians to clergy? I mean it’s quite absurd theologically speaking. And what’s more most of the bishops know it’s absurd, but they play this game I think partly to keep newspapers like the Sun and Today off their backs. Because at the end of the day you are talking about a management structure which is very threatened by the tabloid press, I believe, in these areas.
The above account illustrates the anger and the resulting rejection of the Report. Its credibility is challenged on both theological and ethical grounds. In the process, the Church’s credibility is further eroded for producing such an official statement for public consumption. Respondent no. 53 argued in this connection:
The Church of England always comes up with some desperately inadequate statement on sexuality which is trying to be liberal and accepting, but at the same time they still have got a lot to satisfy the conservatives who will howl, you know, put the Church down the drain for standing against Biblical truth and the tradition of the Church. So it never quite works. [Referring to Issues in Human Sexuality] the Church came out with the idea that gay relationships were okay for the laity but the clergy shouldn’t indulge in it. Well, that’s fine. So, I am allowed to have one [relationship] but [his partner, a priest] isn’t. You know, please, where do we go from here?
The Roman Catholic Church’s official statement was also heavily criticized. In rejecting the statement, respondent no. 9 shared this typical view:
The Church and its latest official statement about homosexuality is that as being, if you are a Roman Catholic, as an intrinsic disorder. I cannot accept that from the experience of being me what has been achieved in my life as a result of me being me. I am just being me. God is part of my life and I don’t consider that to be an intrinsic disorder. I believe it is possible to be homosexual and Christian.
Besides using the ontogeneric argument, the respondent above also used his own positive experience of being a gay Christian to reinforce his personal identity, thus discrediting the credibility of the Church and its official statement.
Conclusion
The accounts presented in this paper signify the counter-rejection of gay Christians of the institutionalized Church and its official positions on homosexuality. This politics of counter-rejection is a manifestation of the positive self-image of the respondents. When their personal identity is challenged by the virtual social identity imposed on them by the Church, they demonstrated the ability to invalidate the credibility of the Church. Having discredited the stigmatizer, the rejection of its official statements is just a matter of course.
These accounts provide the respondents with a new frame of meanings about their identity which incorporates both their sexuality and their religious beliefs (Comstock, 1996). Religious rhetoric is constructed to challenge the credibility of the Church and the validity of its position. This rhetoric also strengthens their social biographies as gay Christians. Humphreys (1972) termed this attempt of stigma removal on religious and moral ground ‘‘stigma redemption.’’
The respondents’ experiences demonstrate that socially labelled ‘‘deviants’’ are capable of rising above their ‘‘deviant’’ circumstances (Matza, 1969). In their journey of sexuality, gay Christians as social actors are capable of imputing meanings to their identity and social actions, against the frame of meanings imposed by the Church. Their experiences highlight the fact that social actors are not passive agents at the mercy of social labelling. Rather they can constantly invent and reinvent narratives and accounts that help shape their self-identity and relationships with the social world.
The experiences of these gay male Christians contribute to the discourse of identity management in postmodern society. Their dissident identities are indeed ‘‘a product of struggles, battles against definition by others, and for self-definition’’ (Weeks, 1995, p. 32). In the face of an uncertain moral landscape with competing value and meaning systems, they, as social actors, are involved in what Giddens (1991) termed ‘‘life politics’’ to justify their choices of social existence. As the process of individuation heightens in postmodern society (Simon, 1996), this process of identity organization and management increasingly becomes a private phenomenon.
The accounts I have presented in this paper can therefore be seen as narratives that these social actors have invented and reinvented not only to defend their moral choices, but also to challenge the credibility and validity of sources that stigmatize their choices. Thus, the politics of counter-rejection of the stigmatizer is indicative of a process of personal identity management against a backdrop of moral uncertainty and diversity in postmodern living.