The Church of England faces a dilemma about homosexuality in Africa

THE relationship between Africa and Christianity is complex. Whilst there has been a religious presence since the first century, Christianity in Africa has established itself as a symbol of the imposition of Western imperialism during the Colonial missionary era. Today, Africans have forcefully claimed Christianity as their own, and the church in Africa is a vibrant, spiritual institution that gives hope to many who face poverty and political instability. Amid a broad range of competing denominations, the Anglican community has a central presence, with 44 million followers in Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and beyond. Given that there are 79 million Anglicans worldwide, these African dioceses represent a major voice within the Anglican Communion.

Beneath the call for Anglican brotherhood lies ever increasing divisions between African and Western dioceses. Since the appointment of openly gay Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, homosexuality has become the centre of the controversy. Robinson is a member of the Episcopal Church, an American branch of Anglicanism with two million members. His appointment was met with furious opposition from African bishops. In 2008, at the Lambeth Conference, a quarter of bishops, many from Niergian, Kenyan and Ugandan dioceses, boycotted the meeting because they felt their views on homosexuality were ignored.

In these countries, there is a continuing interdependence between church doctrine and cultural norms, which places a large amount of responsibility and power in the Church’s hands. Bishop Christopher Senjoyo, a leading Ugandan Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights activist, has urged the church not to incite hatred against gays. However, the Ugandan Church’s conservatism was revealed in their response to the 2009 Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which criminalised homosexuality, and in certain cases imposed the death penalty as punishment. Ugandan Archbishop Orombi recommended Christians love and care for those affected by “homosexual disorientation”. However, his report stipulated that homosexuality was incompatible with scripture and a serious threat to young people and to the traditional family. He urged the government to “ensure that homosexual practice or the promotion of homosexual relations is not adopted as a human right.”

These comments are at odds with Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who has stated that “Any words that could make it easier for someone to attack or abuse a homosexual person are words of which we must repent.”

In the Name of God

In some cases, the Church engenders a culture of aggressive homophobia. In January, Ugandan LGBT rights activist David Kato was beaten to death outside his home. This tragedy came three months after a list of names and addresses of 100 homosexuals was published in a Ugandan tabloid, acommpanied with the headline “Hang them”. In the Anglican Primates’ meeting a week after Kato’s murder, many Church leaders, including Rowan Williams, spoke passionately against the publication. One bishop urged Anglicans to “find a way out of the absurd stalemate we are in over human sexuality.” In reality, however, many African Anglicans espouse conservative views on homosexuality. Kato was condemned even in death when the Anglican preacher at his funeral gave a sermon against homosexuality and villagers refused to bury Kato’s coffin.

African homophobia can be traced to Western colonialism. Many antihomosexuality laws in Africa have their roots in British colonial laws against sodomy. Conservative African churches have found an ally in the American religious right. Kapya Kaoma, an Anglican priest from Zambia believes that the homosexuality debate in Africa has given rise to a new insidious form of cultural imperalism. In the 2009 article entitled “Globalising the Culture Wars – U.S. Conservatives, African Churches & Homophobia”, Kaoma describes how Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda have become pawns in a proxy war between the American religious right and liberal Christians. Kaoma has criticised Western religious conservatives, who “have enticed African religious leaders to reject funding from mainline denominations…and instead to accept funds from conservatives, further empowering the U.S. evangelical viewpoint while giving local bishops the opportunity to line their pockets.”

In the month preceding the proposal of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill, Ugandan politicians met with religious leaders and representatives from the American Christian right. At the conference, leading American anti-gay activist Scott Lively, stated that homosexuality was on a par with paedophilia and bestiality. Lively accused LGBT activists of “manipulating the facts in order to push their political agenda” and compelled Uganda to fight the gay movement.

The Straight and Narrow

In this context, Rowan Williams must carefully balance differing cultural norms: if Williams appears too conservative, the Church of England will lose the support of the next generation; however if his views appear too liberal, especially regarding homosexuality, he will likely lose support of the Anglican church in Africa who may align themselves with the American conservative movement.

One important factor will shape the future of Christian politics in Africa. The Anglican Church will likely continue to wield substantial influence over development in Africa, particularly over discussion of poverty, political stability, and AIDS. The shift towards secular values must not overlook the complexities of the situation, nor risk alienating liberal Anglicans who are able to stem the rise of Christian conservatism. The voices of Williams, Kaoma and Senjoyo who oppose homophobic leanings within the Anglican Communion must not be drowned out by American religious leaders.