In my work I frequently work in a pastoral, mentoring role, with young people and students who have been severely wounded, their lives damaged and broken, by spiritual abuse in conservative evangelical churches. Recently I was approached by a student forced to leave one of the cities churches, after hearing teaching, attacking same-sex relationships. They had no idea the churches leadership held such views. They had been affirmed as a gay person in the church, and no-one, even student pastoral staff, had challenged them in their relationship or identity. Hearing the teaching in podcasts, was a total shock, and they felt unsafe and sick. They enjoy a same sex relationship, and their partner has previously experienced very damaging homophobia within a conservative evangelical church.
I began to research a little deeper. I listened to the podcasts. Yes, the teaching would be totally shocking and traumatising if, like this young person, you had been led to believe you were in an inclusive and progressive church.
Six weeks ago, I found a sermon, by the same theologian and preacher. It is Sunday sermon. It is not mildly homophobic, it is violently homophobic. The Oxford Safe Churches Project, created by a team of Oxford students over their summer holidays, rates Oxford churches, according to the last available teaching, statements, letters, and policies they have either heard, or found online. Churches have to be rated not on subjective experience, but hard evidence.
This sermon was so bad, there was no way I could subject the students to it. It made me physically ill, as I spent a week, repeatedly listening to it, to transcribe it, and try and understand the horror of it. I needed some critiques of the sermon, that would take the poison and toxicity from the sermon, before passing it onto the students as evidence.
The first critique of Simon Ponsonby’s homophobic 45 minute Sunday Sermon, applauded by the congregation of St Aldates Church is by someone well qualified to make that critique.
Charlie Bell will need no introduction to many, he is dearly loved, and his book, Queer Holiness, The Gift of LGBTQI People to the Church, has been widely read, and deeply healing, for many of us.
Charlie Bell is a priest and a doctor. He is the John Marks Fellow, College Lecturer, and Director of Studies in Medicine at Girton College Cambridge, a Module Leader for the University of London’s Global MBA programme, and practices as a Specialist Registrar in Psychiatry in South London. He holds a PhD in medical genetics and a Masters in both natural sciences and theology. He is an Associate Tutor and Research Fellow at St Augustine’s College of Theology and serves his title at St John the Divine, Kennington.
Charlie’s Critique of Simon Ponsonby’s homophobic sermon. Written first to help the students of the Oxford Safe Churches Project, but which we all agreed, probably needs to be read, before anyone suffers listening to, or attempting to listen to the sermon.
Unfortunately, this sermon is full of a lot of guff – in many ways, much of the usual guff. However, there are a number of clearly inappropriate uses of science and scientific literature here, and it’s worth addressing those specifically. Some of that is just factually inaccurate, some of it more intentionally (or unintentionally) misleading. To use science correctly in a sermon is laudable – to use it incorrectly is harmful. Of note, this is presented as ‘a lecture looking at anthropology, using studies, research and the Bible’. Unfortunately, it does not deliver.
There are a number of really basic errors presented. He misrepresents Kinsey’s 1937 study which suggested that 37% of his male participants had a homosexual experience. Ponsonby states that Kinsey meant by homosexual experience ‘even just a passing thought’. This is categorically untrue – what was described was ‘a sexual experience leading to orgasm’.[1] Similarly, it is simply not true that his results have been ‘shattered’, shown to be ‘un-factual and baseless’. His use of statistics on homosexuality is scattergun – studies pulled out in an unsystematic way, which do not reflect contemporary thinking or up-to-date epidemiology, and shows little to no critical engagement with the differences between identity and sexual experience (for example, referring to ‘isolated’ ‘passing events’ without any serious engagement with what this means).
His treatment of the biological science in his introduction is near to zero – he talks of ‘nurture and exigencies’ without any clear comment on their relationship with genetics, neurodevelopment, evolutionary biology, psychology, and so on.[2] He also does not make even a limited attempt to tease out the cause of changing social attitudes to homosexuality, referring solely to the influence of a ‘gay lobby’. He argues that scientists and medical professionals speaking from their expert position who think homosexuality is ‘wrong’ have been vilified, without presenting any evidence of who these people are or what their evidence is. He similarly suggests that the APA changed their view in the DSM (diagnostic manual) on homosexuality entirely because of gay lobbyists (‘based on political and lobbying pressure’ – a cursory understanding of history makes clear this is not the case.[3] He is also plain wrong that the referendum of APA members supported ongoing classification of homosexuality within the manual – the APA’s decision was upheld by a 58% majority of returned ballots. His reference to ‘neurotic’ and ‘psychotic’ in the context of the APA is just plain bizarre, and incorrect. More scientifically accurate information is available here.[4]
There are too many factual errors in this presentation to capture them all, but his reference to homosexual ‘orientation and actions’ in APA’s DSM-I as being a ‘psychotic’ or ‘emotional’ problem is egregious. The DSM-I (1952) stated that homosexuality was a ‘sexual deviation’ within the context of ‘sociopathic personality disturbance’ in personality disorders – and DSM-II stated specifically that this was ‘nonpsychotic’. As a psychiatrist, these definitions do not fill me with pride, but for someone to present ‘psychosis’ as the DSM’s understanding of homosexuality is plain wrong.
He goes on to speak about nature and nurture – or rather, tells the listener that he intends to do so. His coverage of nature is extraordinarily thin – footnote two above gives a good source to start proper investigation of this, but he once again selectively and inappropriately chooses particular studies that fit his broad-brush claims. This is a totally unacceptable and unjustifiable misuse of the scientific literature. For example, he states that studies suggesting ‘brain differences’ in homosexuals have been discredited, showing not only an ignorance of the difference between macro- and microscopic differences, or indeed differences at the cellular level, but also an ignorance of the fact that the literature is far from clear on even macroscopic differences.[5] He shows no engagement with genome-wide association studies or any real understanding of how genetic traits, risk, predisposition or gene-environmental interactions occur. This is not unforgiveable for a non-scientist, but to selectively present science like this in such an inappropriate manner in order to back up a preconceived set of ideas is misleading, amateur, and entirely unacceptable.
We hear that ‘physiologically we know that there is male and female, and one in a million hermaphrodites’. This is wrong.[6] We hear that there is male and female, and ‘there is no category we can find to say ‘this is homosexual’’. The sheer lack of intellectual coherence here is staggering – a deliberate (or otherwise) aligning of sex, gender, and sexuality, without even drawing breath. Later we hear of the brain being ‘formatted through sexual experience’ without any evidence being provided. We are told, too, that gay people ‘want this to be a choice’ – again, an assertion without any reference or backing whatsoever. Unfortunately, this is the entire tenor of the sermon – simplistic, uninformed, broad-brush – and wrong.
He then turns to discussion of ‘nurture’, which he introduces by telling us ‘this, I think, is the core to it’. Unfortunately, what follows is a random selection of entirely outdated or discredited psychological literature, or pure anecdote. No reference to scientific understandings of nurture are presented (for example, epigenetics, or brain neurochemistry and anatomical development). Snippets of Jungian and Freudian theory are presented entirely uncritically – theories which, on a wider scale, would be entirely rejected by someone of a similar theology, showing the same old pick and mix process which litters this lecture. Of particular note is the use of Richard Cohen as an exemplar of psychological excellence! Readers may find this rather bemusing.[7]
We then hear Ponsonby’s own prejudices surface, which he presents as theory based entirely on anecdote. He tells us that ‘one often finds inadequacy and inferiority’ in the lives of gay men (once again, the entire lecture seems to focus on men and penises), and suggests that homosexuality may be a form of ‘sexual cannibalism’ (which he states is where male-hero-worship becomes homosexuality). Bizarrely, he also suggests that not only are male role models problematic, but the lack of male role models is also problematic, talking about how there is a ‘failure at key pubic stages’ of role models, and how it is absent, abusive or weak fathers that are likely to be responsible – with no evidence provided, of course. He speaks of ‘unhealthy, effeminate gender identities’ developing – betraying the role of his own prejudice and suggesting that disgust plays a rather large role in his own understanding of homosexuality. The work of Martha Nussbaum is absolutely key here,[8] and it is interesting that he makes reference to gay sex being ‘revolting’. This section on ‘nurture’ dressed up in psychological language is a disgrace.
We hear some of the usual nonsensical pseudoscientific claims used by the most scurrilous to undermine same-sex relationships, such as ‘the penis fits into the vagina’ and the idea that homosexuality is anti-Darwinian (unsurprisingly, there is no engagement with critical scientific understandings of Darwinian evolution or its role in human development). It is, perhaps, a relief that we hear that he does not have time to go into the psychological arguments against homosexuality.
A few pernicious and – frankly – shameful thing are said towards the end of the sermon. Firstly, he makes reference to a ‘medical argument’ against homosexuality, stating ‘to be an active homosexual is to bring upon oneself a whole host of illnesses, to reduce one’s lifespan significantly’ and makes reference to homosexuals frequently suffering from rectal and other cancers. This is a downright lie – a disgraceful one. It is not dissimilar to the absolutely abysmal use of science both earlier in this sermon and in the Robert Gagnon book ‘The Bible and Homosexual Practice’, and Ponsonby should be ashamed of himself.
Yet perhaps more scandalous – and frankly, what suggests this speaker should be considered extremely unsafe around LGBTQI young people – is the denial of the role of stigma and discrimination in the increased suicide risk in LGBTQI young people. He implicitly suggests that it is something about the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ itself that is to blame. This is point blank untrue, as attested to by every serious scientific and psychological organisation (for example[9]). Most chillingly is how he chuckles as he says that of course it can’t be because of stigma, as ‘society doesn’t accept the church’. This is a fundamentally unsafe thing to say.
We then hear the pinnacle of the talk – he rises to a crescendo, stating ‘the consequence of a homosexual lifestyle leads to so much physical and psychological turmoil for that individual’, and suggests that this comes from the ‘rejection or perceived rejection’ felt by gay people. He states that homosexuality is a ‘craving, neurotic, compulsive disorder of sexual grabbing’ that ‘feeds that sense of rejection’, and then ends on a high, suggesting what appears to be conversion therapy, a ‘sexual freedom’ which he has seen in people who ‘were themselves homosexual’, from ‘nature and nurture that have gone wrong’. In so doing, this sermon discredits whatever little credibility is left.
The sermon is a mixture of banal, unconvincing, disreputable, disingenuous and insulting. It is presented as the ‘normative’ and ‘orthodox’ position on homosexuality, despite a recognition by the speaker that such a term didn’t exist prior to a few centuries ago (fascinatingly we hear that St Paul speaks ‘out against homosexuality’, which even in the speaker’s own terms is fallacious rubbish). We hear that God has been very clear in God’s ‘opinion’ on homosexuality (again, a fascinating idea from a whole host of different perspectives), and yet the entire diatribe is couched in inaccurate, inappropriate presentation of science, a clear lack of empathy (despite protestations of loving gay people at the start), and a refusal to recognise the sin of institutional Christianity in the ever present persecution of LGBTQI people.
There is no question at all that such a sermon is damaging and dangerous, with false information presented with confidence by an authority figure. Ponsonby should apologise and I struggle to see how such a person should be granted a license to preach unless the issues referred to here are addressed. This is not about theological disagreement – this is about the active promotion of mistruths by someone who should know better.
[1] As clearly described here from a reputable source, the American Psychological Association, who also offer a more nuanced and reasonable critique of the original paper: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/10/research-kinsey.
[2] For example, in the work of Dr Qazi Rahman (https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/qazi-rahman).
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/
[4] https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/PS02_2014.pdf
[5] For example, https://news.ki.se/differences-related-to-sexual-orientation-found-in-the-brain.
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-calls-for-evidence-on-people-who-have-variations-in-sex-characteristics
[7] His story is covered here – he is, unsurprisingly, discredited. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ornnFZ6uffgC&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA164&hl=en&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
[8] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Disgust-Humanity-Orientation-Constitutional-Inalienable/dp/0195305310
Chrissie 