In Uganda
I have recently become interested in Africa through reading two books in the Oxford University Press Very Short Introductions series on African History African History: A Very Short Introduction and on African Religions African Religions: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions) . Among other things, I then read a current novel, "Foreign Gods, Inc" Foreign Gods, Inc. which explores well the relationship between Christianity and an indigenous religion in a small Nigerian village. I have also read and enjoyed a much-praised novel about the Nigerian-Biafra Civil War. Half of a Yellow Sun On Uganda, I read an April 24, 2014 New York Review of Books article by Helen Epstein "The General Challenges the Dictator" on current political unrest in the country. I also, of course, am aware of current issues in the United States about same sex marriage.
I accepted the kind offer of First Run Features, the distributor of Roger Ross Williams' praised documentary, "God Loves Uganda" to send me a review copy to pursue my interest, discussed above, and to learn more about Africa. The film is provocative and well-made, but it left me uneasy and dissatisfied. The movie has an important message, but it is filled with its own polemic.
The film centers upon Uganda's Anti-Gay legislation signed into law in February, 2014 which carries harsh penalties for the commission of homosexual offenses. The focus on the film in on the role of American fundamentalist evangelical organizations, particularly the International House of Prayer (IHOP) for their missionary activities in Uganda. The missionaries are shown as well-funded by their American supporters. While the film states that the missionaries do some good work in education and taking care of orphans, for example, and are frequently, at least at the individual level, well-meaning, it concentrates on their position on sexual morality. They are shown as stridently anti-gay. The film works to connect the activities of the Uganda government in enacting harsh anti-gay legislation with the work of the American fundamentalists. The film suggests, undoubtedly correctly, that gay people are subject to the threat of severe violence in Uganda. The film might be directed to Uganda, to secure change in the legislation, or to viewers in the United States and elsewhere to urge them to stop supporting the missionary activities in Uganda, if they are doing so, or to oppose actively such activities. The film also might be directed to the missionaries themselves so that they may change what the film sees as their activities in Uganda. The film sees missionary activities in Uganda as resulting from a culture war about homosexuality in the United States which the fundamentalists have lost. They have moved on to spread their teachings of hate, as portrayed in the film, to Africa.
Neither the missionaries nor Uganda society, which was over 85 percent Christian before the arrival of the IHOP missionaries are portrayed well, on the whole. The film does portray positively a number of articulate clerics from Uganda who speak out forcefully about the anti-gay legislation and anti-gay teachings among the evangelicals. The film mentions but does not emphasize that over thirty countries in sub-Saharan Africa have statutes on the books which in some fashion or other prohibit homosexuality. These statutes pre-date the recent legislation in Uganda. It would be difficult to blame these pre-existing statutes on current anti-gay preaching by American fundamentalist missionaries. It is valuable to remember that many countries outside Africa still have laws prohibiting at least some homosexual activity and that the United States had such statutes until relatively recently. One needs to be skeptical of absolutes of almost any kind.
There is a backhanded colonialism to this movie. In other words, the film seems to assume that the people of Uganda are overly inclined to believe Christian preachers from the United States when the views of these preachers are largely rejected and perhaps now unwelcome in this country. The film to me showed skepticism about the ability of Uganda to govern itself and to exercise an informed judgment on sexuality and legislation. It seems to show them as backward as compared to the standard held up by the film in areas of sexuality. It seems to take the position that the current way this issue is progressing in the United States has a form of universal cross-cultural, cross-religious validity.
Similarly, as some critics have pointed out, the film preaches tolerance while showing a substantial lack of this difficult virtue. If IHOP and its allies represent the losing side in an American culture war, the makers of the film represent the victors. It is one thing to point out and to deplore violence against homosexual people and others. It may be something else to claim that the position of the filmmakers is the only way to God, a position that has as little to commend it as understanding the Deity as the way of the fundamentalists. With the apparent strong change of American opinion and jurisprudence in favor of same sex marriage, it is important to remember that other nations are entitled to find their own path. Their may be other courses possible between that of the contemporary United States, on the one hand, and violence, beatings, and criminalization, on the other hand.
In the United States, same sex marriage is a civil not necessarily a religious right. Religious beliefs enjoy First Amendment protection although in the case of same sex marriage the distinction is becoming blurred. In the United States and presumably in Uganda, religions may adopt their own position on homosexuality if they wish. I would not be overly harsh or overly supportive of clergy of one denomination or the other in this country or in any other. God speaks maybe in different ways without supporting beatings or violence.
These are some of my thoughts on "God Loves Uganda". I still need to learn more about Africa. The film helps me understand how little I know.
Robin Friedman
