"On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, a woman is lying mutilated, and Stephen Veazey is passing by on the other side murmuring about the need for intercultural respect in approaching these complex and difficult issues."The Community of Christ added another section to their Doctrine and Covenants this week. The document accomplishes two major things: It accepts the validity of baptisms performed in other Christian denominations—which now sets them up for a debate about whether LDS baptisms are Christian baptisms. (Wry smile.) The other major thing it does is declare that certain controversial issues, including homosexuality-related issues, should be handled at the national or regional level rather than at the level of the world conference.
John Hamer interprets the revelation—and he's close enough to CofC leaders at the highest levels that I have no reason to doubt his assessment—as clearing the way for gay ordination and gay marriage to be advanced in developing nations without imposing more liberal policies on members in places such as (John's list) "Haiti, Africa, India, SE Asia, and China," where there's evidently concern that liberal policies around homosexuality could endanger members given the conservative policies of their governments. John also speaks of D&C 164 as allowing members in the areas named to "move more slowly as the members become more familiar with the issues involved"—which I take it means that members in those areas are less likely to have liberal views on homosexuality-related issues.
I suppose that as a gay LDS man I should be feeling a combination of excitement and envy about what the Community of Christ has just done. But something about it doesn't feel right to me—and I mean that in the "still small voice" sense of something not feeling right. I'm still trying to make sense of what doesn't feel right, but here's what I'm thinking at this point.
First, despite John's enthusiastic description of D&C 164 as a "gay rights revelation," the revelation does not take a bold, shall we say "prophetic," stance in favor of equality for gay/lesbian people, their ministries and relationships. I think it's pretty clear that the document is pointing the church in that direction (see especially 6a-b), but the language is cautious and open-ended. The message, basically, is: Bear in mind gospel principles, and you'll be able to resolve these issues the way God wants. The document doesn't say how the church should translate those principles into action as decisively as it did in instructing the church to recognize the baptisms of other Christians.
Which makes sense given that the point of the document is to let national and regional decision-making bodies decide what they think God wants them to do in relation to these issues. But that's precisely why I say this document doesn't take a bold stance in favor of gay/lesbian equality. What this document says, in effect, is: It's acceptable in this church to conclude that homosexuality is wrong, or not.
Maybe, pragmatically, that's the way for the Community of Christ to move forward on these issues. But I can't get as enthusiastic about it as I could if the World Conference had unequivocally said: Our understanding of scriptural teachings about Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness lead us to conclude that God is pleased by gay/lesbian relationships built on those principles, and as a community, we feel moved by the Spirit to recognize and bless such relationships. But that's not what D&C 164 gives us.
I'm troubled by what seems to be a well-meaning but uncritical cultural relativism underlying this document. How can I explain this? D&C 164 is essentially an attempt at conflict avoidance: it's letting nations and regions make their own decisions about these hot-potato issues to avoid a potential schism—but it makes that pragmatic strategy seem less pragmatic, and more principled, by invoking the need to respect cultural diversity in the context of the mandate to develop common consent. Here's how President Veazey introduces the portion of the revelation that addresses homosexuality-related conflicts:
Serious questions about moral behavior and relationships continue to arise in many nations. These issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.When I first read these words, they left me feeling vaguely unclean. There's something "icky" about those words, and here's what I think it is. "Female genital mutilation," "child brides," "forced marriages," and "exploitation of widows" are emphatically not "complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories [and] customs." They're just wrong, and a prophetic people should have no hesitation about saying so and doing what they can to see that those practices are ended.
Over the last several years the need to resolve various moral and justice issues has intensified and become more complicated because of the growing international diversity of the church. The church has been told in previous counsel that we have been given the struggles and joys of diversity for divine purposes (Doctrine and Covenants 162:4). In response to my prayerful pleas for light regarding God’s purposes being worked out through our difficult struggles over various issues, God graciously blessed me with the following counsel:
Now why is Stephen Veazey talking about female genital mutilation and child brides in connection with debates about same-sex marriage? That's not readily clear, actually. What does seem clear is that he's invoking them in order to paint a larger context for the same-sex marriage debate (which he mentions at the tail end of that list of supposedly "complex and difficult" issues). In other words, he seems to understand the same-sex marriage debate as one of a number of issues requiring the church's intercultural sensitivity and tolerance—alongside female genital mutilation and the exploitation of widows.
If I'm reading that correctly, then we're looking here at a case of liberal relativism run amok. The impulse to tolerance is overwhelming the mandate to bring justice to the marginalized and exploited. On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, a woman is lying mutilated, and Stephen Veazey is passing by on the other side murmuring about the need for intercultural respect in approaching these complex and difficult issues.
I'll tone the drama down now and pull this closer back to the issue we started with. I don't think that the injustice of treating gay/lesbian couples as second-class begins to compare, in degree, to the injustice of female genital mutilation or the other cases with which Veazey lumps it (which is probably another source of the "ick" factor I feel). But I do think that the marginalization of gay/lesbian couples is a question of justice, as are the other issues Veazey names; and I think that on these questions of justice, Veazey and the church he leads are in danger of letting an impulse toward relativism silence what could, and should, be a loud, ringing call for justice in the name of God.
I'm reminded of churches that prior to the Civil War tried to avoid schism over slavery by leaving it a matter of private conscience and thwarting resolutions that would have required them to take a firmer anti-slavery stance. Again, I hasten to clarify that I don't consider the injustice of denying full equality to gay/lesbian couples anywhere close to the degree of injustice represented by slavery. My point is: Slavery was not an issue on which Christian churches should have been making diplomatic compromises. Those who did were "not valiant in the testimony of Jesus" (D&C 76:79); in the language of Revelation 3:16, they were lukewarm. And while it's not so heinous a form of injustice, I'm inclined to view gay/lesbian equality as another issue on which Christian churches ought not to be lukewarm. Maybe you disagree with me. Certainly churches have to tolerate some range of diverse opinions and practices: I've opined in the past that the LDS church ought to be more tolerant of theological diversity and ought to decentralize its decision-making in the interest of respecting cultural diversity. But there comes a point where tolerance ends and a firm commitment to certain non-negotiable truths and values begins. I think gay/lesbian equality is one of the non-negotiables, and I think Christian churches ought therefore to be willing to contend for it at the risk of schism. Maybe you don't think gay ordination and gay marriage fall into that category of issues—in which case I think you're wrong, but at least we both understand what's at issue.
That's the discussion that needs to be had: Are gay ordination and same-sex marriage important enough to fight over? Why or why not? The Community of Christ has decided (intentionally or by default) that the answer is no, at least not at World Conference: they're willing to be a church where gays and lesbians can marry or serve in priesthood ministry in some places but not others. What keeps me from applauding that as at least a step forward is that I can't tell if the church sees the implications of its decision. D&C 164 presumptively places gay/lesbian equality into the category of issues where tolerance, rather than contending for truth and justice, is the trump value. Did anyone at World Conference, or in the discussions of this document that preceded it, question whether gay/lesbian equality does, in fact, belong in that category? (That's not a rhetorical question—I would sincerely like to know; it might make me feel a little better about the situation.) And then there's the ick factor: Stephen Veazey seems to believe that female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and exploitation of widows fall into that category as well. Does anyone in the Community of Christ find that appalling? (Again, I'd really like the answer to be yes.)
Maybe national or regional decision-making is, for pragmatic political reasons, the best way for the Community of Christ to advance gay/lesbian equality in at least some areas of the church. What troubles me is the, to my eyes, uncritical cultural relativism that D&C 164 offers as the rationale for this way of handling those decisions.
A DRAMATIC ADDENDUM: Let me put a finer point on this to clarify what troubles me. When Stephen Veazey places same-sex marriage alongside female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and exploitation of widows, with the implication that these should all be regarded as complex issues that require cultural sensitivity and a willingness to tolerate diverse moral viewpoints, it looks rather like a tacit deal is being struck with church members in the developing world: e.g., if Africans won't make a fuss about liberal Americans wanting to perform homosexual weddings, the liberal Americans won't make a fuss if Africans decide their consciences are at peace with cutting their daughters' genitals or marrying them off as children. As a gay man, I could not possibly consent to be married in a church where my marriage was possible because of such a bargain.
I realize I'm framing the issue in radical terms: but my point is that it looks to me like these are the unintentional implications of statements made in this document. And hopefully you can see why I find that very troubling.
10 comments:
Excellent essay. My response was too long to post here, so I've written it as a new post on SaintsHerald.
The link to my response can be found here: http://saintsherald.com/?p=614&preview=true
Hi John Charles,
My reading of the "child brides, female genital mutilation" list along with homosexuality was quite different than yours. I think that Steve, through the impulse of the Spirit, was giving African members authorization to speak out about child brides and female genital mutilation as just plain wrong. Both issues do not meet the criteria for loving, mutual, non-coercive, faithful relationships that the document so clearly upholds. But, it was authorizing them to criticize them based upon African criteria rather than impose rich, white Protestant values on them. African church leaders in the Community of Christ are diverse, but they are generally well-educated, graduates of African seminaries, and quote Desmond Tutu rather liberally. They may not approve of homosexuality, but most would not approve of child marriages. A few would approve of polygamy, but many more would condemn it (some have grown up with it and know the pain it caused their mothers--not kidding on this one). So...I think there is something else going on in 164 than what you critique in it.
Hi John Charles,
As a woman Elder in the Community of Christ, I think I understand the caution you notes in Section 164.
In 1984, when women were finally allowed into the priesthood of the Community of Christ (then RLDS Church) the first few years were a horrible experience not only for the newly ordained women but also for the church as a whole. The church lost 20% of it's membership and handled the dissent in a very bad way (closing and locking up many churches where the leadership was in dissent).
Plus, those of us in the first ordinations suffered terrible hostility and discrimination.
Therefore, I think the church is right in being cautious. The regional and national conferences will deal with these matters in the next two years, hopefully without endangering the lives of those in India, Africa, Haiti and China. And hopefully, without losing another 20% of the membership.
The Africans can handle their own cultural problems better then we could do it by imposing our western values on them. They need to be their own police much as those in East India handled their polygamy problems without interference from the church.
Good essay. My analysis is similar to yours. I'll post more on my blog - but essentially, if CofC leadership wants to permit openness regarding homoexuality while limiting schism - this is the way they'd do it.
But if CofC leadership DOESN'T want to permit opennes, or is indiferent about it and just looking to attain stability - this is also the way they'd do it.
So it all comes down to trust and motivation. Time will tell if John's optimism is well founded.
Hi again,
Let me address your questions that you raised based on what I witnessed on the conference floor during debate.
You say, "Are gay ordination and same-sex marriage important enough to fight over? Why or why not?"
Yes, and they will be fought over in a US national conference in 2012 for sure. The US church is not united on this issue, though at least 4/5ths of the US delegates at the World Conference supported gay ordination and same-sex marriage from what I could observe based on voting patterns throughout the conference.
You say, "D&C 164 presumptively places gay/lesbian equality into the category of issues where tolerance, rather than contending for truth and justice, is the trump value. Did anyone at World Conference, or in the discussions of this document that preceded it, question whether gay/lesbian equality does, in fact, belong in that category?"
Of course they did! Come one, that was a rhetorical question. People at all levels discussed this question. The Twelve said that they had never had a formal meeting where they discussed same sex marriage, but my own sense is that a few would not support it (perhaps three), while the majority would. This is only my sense, but I think it is accurate.
You say, "Stephen Veazey seems to believe that female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and exploitation of widows fall into that category as well. Does anyone in the Community of Christ find that appalling?" Again, I think you are badly misreading the intentions in the document. You really should not assume that African members or Indian members support child brides, etc. They don't. And they can use their own values to say no to them. These issues are pressing in their cultures. Homosexuality is pressing in our culture. Steve was simply raising the issues that are pressing in cultures, not saying that they were equivalent or that child brides=homosexuality.
Okay, more comments.
You say, "it looks rather like a tacit deal is being struck with church members in the developing world: e.g., if Africans won't make a fuss about liberal Americans wanting to perform homosexual weddings, the liberal Americans won't make a fuss if Africans decide their consciences are at peace with cutting their daughters' genitals or marrying them off as children." Again, I think African members would be deeply offended by the suggestion that they wanted acceptance of child brides or female genital mutilation. They don't, they don't, they don't. So, I think I can say with relative confidence that a compromise has been struck, but not the one you see. The compromise is this: various cultures need to address the most pressing ways that people are being oppressed and marginalized in their cultuers. In the US, it is about homosexuality. In Orissa, India, it is about aborting female fetuses because they are not male. In Africa, it is about polygamy and AIDS. Section 164 authorizes each culture to deal with these issues with cultural sensitivity, yet using "universal" principles that the whole church can agree on. I am surprised you arguments about cultural relativism overlooked completely the universal principles articulated so clearly in the document. It's not complete universalism, but it's not straight cultural relativism, too. It almost seems like the kind of cultural sensitivity that you say you advocate for LDS theology.
Finally, the First Presidency (Dave Schaal) assured the conference that a priesthood member in one part of the church would be a priesthood member in any part of the church. Priesthood is priesthood, period. Obviously, this means that an LGBT priesthood member is still a priesthood member in any jurisdiction in which she or he would live. And, no matter what a national conference says, the First Presidency has the final say if a policy will be adopted. This is a final safeguard on what a regional conference can do.
Honestly, I really trust the First Presidency. They made a very sensitive, very thoughtful, and very well-planned plea to address pressing issues while avoiding all-out civil war. I pray it works.
I wanted to let those who have taken the time to respond that I'm listening and reflecting and plan to post a follow-up of my own in a few days.
After reading the book AMISH GRACE I have a whole other perspective on things. I think one of the points not mentioned here is the recognition of the division between church and state.
Homosexual marriage is civil law and I am all for it - in fact I think plural marriage should be included - allowed - as well, since the whole point is to be fair and equitable for the masses. But for CHURCH doctrinal or policy changes, I think in this instance they are recognizing their place in the scheme of things: promote and live the teachings of Jesus: love. The point made in D & C 164 is that the focus is on the person and not on any defining label - "Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary."
Yet there are issues that the church struggles with, and they are not putting strictures on how it is to be dealt with. I don't see the ambiguity as an avoidance so much as leaving room for individualized response. Because whether the church approves of something or not, what is its power to do something about it? No, the missionary mandate is conversion through loving so inciting riot by taking a hard-nosed approach wouldn't be of much use - to the contrary, the church wants to keep a presence in places where (most unfortunately) the "state" or local government supports or allows such things as child-brides, female genital mutilation, etc. so as to have a chance to assist in changing the hearts of the people who support and participate in such and eventually put a stop to it.
Yes, I'd like to see an immediate stop put to such things, and I am of the opinion the Community of Christ church leadership would as well; but as I said, what can they do? What power and influence they have they are using, and they want to stay in a position to continue to do so.
And as far as lumping it all together goes, if it gets down to what is important, consider that gay marriage may to have to take a back seat to issues of abuse etc. in some places. First let's keep people alive, whole and healthy, then worry about whether they can partner with the blessings of civil-secular and/or ecclesiastical authority.
In places such as the US and Canada (that - in theory - has such personal rights violations under control) I think plural marriage should be included with homosexual marriage as changes in marriage law for that reason - make it legal and set up guidelines so parenting and sexual abuses can be dealt with under civil law just as they would be with monogamous marriages.
Isn't it interesting how we each read something different in this section?
After reading the book AMISH GRACE I have a whole other perspective on things. I think one of the points not mentioned here is the recognition of the division between church and state.
Homosexual marriage is civil law and I am all for it - in fact I think plural marriage should be included - allowed - as well, since the whole point is to be fair and equitable for the masses. But for CHURCH doctrinal or policy changes, I think in this instance they are recognizing their place in the scheme of things: promote and live the teachings of Jesus: love. The point made in D & C 164 is that the focus is on the person and not on any defining label - "Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary."
Yet there are issues that the church struggles with, and they are not putting strictures on how it is to be dealt with. I don't see the ambiguity as an avoidance so much as leaving room for individualized response. Because whether the church approves of something or not, what is its power to do something about it? No, the missionary mandate is conversion through loving so inciting riot by taking a hard-nosed approach wouldn't be of much use - to the contrary, the church wants to keep a presence in places where (most unfortunately) the "state" or local government supports or allows such things as child-brides, female genital mutilation, etc. so as to have a chance to assist in changing the hearts of the people who support and participate in such and eventually put a stop to it.
Yes, I'd like to see an immediate stop put to such things, and I am of the opinion the Community of Christ church leadership would as well; but as I said, what can they do? What power and influence they have they are using, and they want to stay in a position to continue to do so.
Post a Comment