D&C 164 continued

Let me start this post with a prayer that I ought to have prayed before writing my last post (which ended up being more impassioned than I’d expected when I started—though I ought to know myself well enough by now to have expected that).

God of reason, Spirit of truth—
You have taught the Saints to listen to one another so that all may be edified of all.
Help me find words to communicate clearly and effectively what I’m thinking and feeling.
I don’t lack for zeal; give me the spirit of temperance.
In Christ’s name, amen.

************

I’ve been thinking for several days about the various comments posted in response to my last posting on D&C 164. They’ve all had an impact on my thinking, but I’m going to frame my comments as a response to David, specifically.

I think you’re probably right, David, about my misreading the intent of the revelation—more precisely, of the prefatory note from Stephen Veazey about female genital mutilation, child brides, etc. I take this as symptomatic of what John Hamer called D&C 164’s “deliberate ambiguity,” as result of which, he noted, the document “as written, could be open to all sorts of wide-ranging interpretations.” While that ambiguity troubles me considerably less than what I originally thought the document was implying, I want to propose, from my vantage point as an outsider, that the ambiguity of D&C 164 has the potential to create problems of its own.

Let me offer an attempt to get precise about what makes D&C 164 ambiguous. Question: When the World Conference voted to accept this document as revelation, what did the Conference understand that it was doing? Here are some options that occur to me:

Option A. The Conference affirmed that gay ordination and gay marriage are consistent with the fundamental gospel principles of “Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness” (D&C 164:6a); but the Conference also recognized that implementing this commitment would require different timetables and approaches in different parts of the world. If you understand D&C 164 this way, then the document becomes a “gay rights revelation.”

Option B. The Conference affirmed its commitment to the fundamental gospel principles of “Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness” (D&C 164:6a); but the Conference did not weigh in on what those principles imply about gay ordination or gay marriage. Instead, the Conference left those questions open for continuing discernment at the national or regional level, with the implication that the Conference was content to have members in different parts of the world arrive at different conclusions about those questions. This was my understanding of what D&C 164 accomplished—and note that it’s very different from Option A.

Option C. Conference delegates didn’t presume to understand what exactly D&C 164 was asking them to do; their vote to canonize the revelation was simply an act of faith and trust in their inspired leadership. I presume this option is merely hypothetical; i.e., I presume that the conference’s decision-making process was not so Kierkegaardian or authoritarian.

Option D. Conference delegates were not agreed in their understanding of what the revelation was asking them to do. Some understood that they were signing onto Option A; others, Option B.

John Hamer’s remarks about the multiple interpretations of D&C 164 he’s encountered suggest that Option D may be the best way to characterize what happened at World Conference. That raises for me the question: Did delegates realize that when they voted overwhelmingly to accept D&C 164, they appeared to be in consensus but in fact remained quite significantly divided in their understanding of what this vote implied?

Creating a kind of unity by having people sign onto a statement which they understand in different ways certainly isn’t without precedent in the lives of churches. It’s something I’ve seen religious conservatives fault liberal ecumenists for: papering over persistent differences with a deliberately ambiguous statement of common faith or commitment. Unlike many of ecumenism’s conservative critics, I’m not convinced that there isn’t value in that kind of “papering over” of differences: the ability, and willingness, to affirm together even an ambiguous formula is a step toward becoming more perfectly one in heart and mind.

At the same time, I want to underscore that if I’m correct that something like Option D most accurately describes what happened at World Conference, then this is a very limited consensus—a very limited kind of “common consent.” The ambiguity of D&C 164 may have been necessary to secure the document’s canonization; in that sense, its ambiguity could be regarded as a clever parliamentary tactic. But it doesn’t seem like the most forthright approach to developing common consent—one might even suggest that the intention of this tactic was to create the illusion of common consent. (I suspect that bewarethechicken may favor that reading of what happened.)

While my preference would have been to see the World Conference achieve consensus around Option A, even Option B would have been a significant accomplishment because at least delegates would have been agreed in their understanding of how the church was going to move forward on these contentious issues. But if you couldn’t create consensus even around Option B—if Option D was the best that the World Conference could do—then wow, your community must be holding together by its fingernails. Under those circumstances, a standing ovation doesn’t really strike me as the most appropriate response to the World Conference’s acceptance of D&C 164. A very anxious prayer of “Dear God, let this work out” would seem more fitting.

And now let’s turn to the question of female genital mutilation, child brides, exploitation of widows, and so on. (I feel creepy that we’re even talking about these issues—but there they are, in the document, their presence needing to be explicated.) First off, let me clarify, David, that I think the parts of the document which are presented as revelation are much less susceptible to being interpreted relativistically than Stephen Veazey’s prefatory note, which was the part that set me off. As you noted in your response to me, the document is firm about rejecting “selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous, degrading, or abusive relationships" (164:6b).

At the same time, though, the prefatory note is there to help guide the interpretation of what follows. So: How are we to understand what the prefatory note is saying about FGM, child brides, etc.? As above, there are different options here. In fact, the options correspond to the options I’ve laid out above, since the prefatory note links the questions of gay ordination and gay marriage to FGM, child brides, etc. The note makes that link when it lists all these as examples of issues which “are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture” and which are therefore relevant to “previous counsel [which says] that we have been given the struggles and joys of diversity for divine purposes.” So let’s label these options A* and B*.

Option A*. Veazey means to say that FGM, child brides, and exploitation of widows are practices inconsistent with the fundamental gospel principles of “Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness” (D&C 164:6a). But Veazey recognizes that the most effective solutions to these issues will be developed on the ground by people who are immersed in the cultural contexts where these issues arise. You seem, David, to understand the prefatory note along these lines; and it’s an approach to these issues to which I would say, “Amen!”

Option B*. Veazey means to reaffirm the church’s commitment to the fundamental gospel principles of “Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness” (D&C 164:6a). But he is leaving it an open question, for continuing discernment at the national or regional level, whether or not practices such as FGM, child brides, or exploitation of widows might be consistent with these principles. This was my initial understanding of what the prefatory note implied, and I found it an appalling proposal.

Note that because the prefatory note links all the issues together, how you understand D&C 164’s implications for FGM or child brides will go hand-in-hand with how you understand its implications for gay ordination and gay marriage. The reason I understood Veazey’s prefatory note as implying B* (i.e., FGM and child brides are subjects of ongoing discernment at the national or regional level because the church is prepared to accept that people in different cultures will reach different conclusions about whether these practices are right or wrong) was because I understood D&C 164 to be implying Option B about gay ordination and gay marriage (i.e., these are subjects of ongoing discernment at the national or regional level because the church is prepared to accept that people in different cultures will reach different conclusions about whether these practices are right or wrong). If we are to understand A* as D&C 164’s attitude toward FGM and child brides (i.e., these practices are clearly wrong, but we need to leave it to people in different cultural settings to figure out how to implement that understanding), then by implication we need to understand Option A as D&C 164’s attitude toward gay ordination and gay marriage (i.e., stigmatizing gay ministries and committed partnerships is clearly wrong, but we need to leave it to people in different cultural settings to figure out how to implement that understanding).

In other words, with his prefatory note, Stephen Veazey has, perhaps unintentionally, tipped his hand regarding how he understands D&C 164. It would seem that John Hamer is right about how Veazey (and other leaders?) understand the implications of the document: D&C 164 affirms gay ministries and relationships in the name of “Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law,” and the rationale for shifting decision-making to the national or regional level is simply to let those bodies implement that vision on whatever timetable seems prudent. The problem here is: What about those delegates who understand D&C 164 as calling the church to continuing conversation about whether or not gay ministries and relationships are consistent with the principles laid out in the revelation? Veazey (and other leaders?) seem to understand that conversation as over—what’s at issue now isn’t whether God approves of gay ministries and relationships but how long it will take to implement that understanding in different parts of the world.

It looks to me like you have the potential here for a sense of betrayal on the part of delegates who thought they were signing on for Option B if the leadership proceeds as if the church just agreed to Option A. This is messy. I’m not a stakeholder, but my reaction is: I certainly hope, for your sakes, that the Spirit is in fact leading you down this path, but I have a hard time seeing this as a course inspired by the spirit of wisdom.