Abstract
Emerging research suggests that existing culture, including religious culture, serves to constrain and enable the rhetoric and claims of social actors in situations of conflict and change. Given that religious institutions continue to have significant authority in framing moral debates in the United States, we hypothesize that groups connected to each other through a religious tradition will share similar orientations towards the moral order, shaping the kinds of rhetoric they use and the kinds of claims they can make. To test this, we compare the official rhetoric of the 25 largest religious denominations on gay and lesbian issues, as well as their orientation towards the moral order more broadly, with the rhetoric of each denomination’s respective movement for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender inclusion, affirmation, or rights. We use Kniss’ heuristic map of the moral order to analyze and theorize about the patterns that emerge from these comparisons. Ultimately, we find that the existing rhetoric of the parent denomination on gay and lesbian issues, along with the broader moral stances they take, do appear to shape the rhetoric and ideologies of associated pro-LGBT organizations. This provides support for the notion that existing culture, belief, and rhetoric shape the trajectories of conflict and change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
By denominations, we mean groupings of congregations with at least a modicum of centralized authority that share some combination of a common tradition, viewpoint, organizational style, practice, and culture with regards to religion. Examples include Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Episcopalians.
A note on terminology: Although the terms are inexact, we refer to the particular issues around sexuality we are discussing as “gay and lesbian issues” as opposed to using the more clinical term “homosexual” or more inclusive terminology such as LGBTQ issues. We follow Dawne Moon (2004) in this, noting that while different denominations are concerned with different issues with regard to sexuality, most denominations debate issues surrounding gay men and lesbians exclusively, with few explicitly exploring issues such as bisexuality, transgenderism, gender identity, etc. We do not mean for this term to be exclusionary. Rather, it is for ease of reference to what is being discussed for the purposes of this paper. As the paper makes clear, denominations are in very different places with regard to debate on these issues and we are seeking to reference the most debated ideas and terms by saying “gay and lesbian issues.”
By “LGBTRO,” we mean any religious organization whose primary mission includes serving, affirming, and advocating on behalf of LGBT persons. In this paper, we specifically reference LGBTROs that are affiliated with major American denominations, such as the Catholic group DignityUSA, and the Episcopal group Integrity USA. We have created the acronym LGBTRO (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender religious organization) to refer to the pro-LGBT organizations whose rhetoric we are analyzing in this paper. Unlike nearly all of the parent denominations, these groups often do explore issues of bisexuality, gender identity, and all of the groups referred to as LGBTRO in this paper explicitly refer to themselves in their public statements as serving lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender persons. We are aware of the limitations of any terminology when attempting to tie together disparate groups of people based on issues of sexuality and gender identity, both analytically and politically (see Seidman 1996), but suggest that this is the most accurate term given that these groups primarily conceptualize themselves as support groups or civil rights groups for LGBT persons. It should be pointed out that almost none of the groups discussed in this paper include “Q” at the end of LGBT when they use this acronym and, as such, we have left this letter off the acronym. This reflects our attempt to be accurate with regard to our organizations and is non-judgmental on our part. We would also note than most of these organizations are not exclusively “for” LGBT persons, and welcome all people as members, including straight allies.
It is worth noting that during the course of this research, the RMN conducted a substantial overhaul of the information on their website in which some of the more nuanced language was replaced with more firm language. We hypothesize this may be a result of the divided and transitional period the UMC is in with regard to gay and lesbian issues, and we will be interested to see how this process unfolds.
References
A Common Bond. 2010. About. http://www.gayxjw.org/?page_id=2. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Adams, Jan. 2008. Help Californians preserve equality for all of us! http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons. 2010a. Welcome new friend! http://www.affirmation.org/about. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons. 2010b. What do we do? http://www.affirmation.org/about/what_we_do.shtml. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Ammerman, Nancy Tatom. 2005. Pillars of faith: American congregations and their partners. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Anderson, James D. 2003. The lesbian and gay liberation movement in the churches of the United States, 1969–1993. http://www.mlp.org/resources/history.html. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Beuttler, Fred W. 1999. Making theology matter: Power, polity and the debate over homosexual orientation in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Review of Religious Research Volume 41: 239–261.
Blee, Kathleen M. 2003. Inside organized racism: Women in the hate movement. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2002. Cultural power. In Cultural sociology, ed. L. Spillman, 69–76. Malden: Blackwell Publishers Limited.
Burgess, John P. 1999. Framing the homosexuality debate theologically: Lessons from the Presbyterian church (U.S.A.). Review of Religious Research 41: 262–274.
Buzzell, Timothy. 2001. Gay and lesbian activism in American Protestant churches: Religion, homosexuality, and the politics of inclusion. The Politics of Social Inequality 9: 83–114.
Courage Apostate. 2011a. Member testimony: Chris. http://www.couragerc.net/Testimony_of_Chris.html. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Courage Apostate. 2011b. The courage apostate home page. http://www.couragerc.net. Accessed April 18, 2011.
DignityUSA. 2011. Statement of position and purpose. http://www.dignityusa.org/purpose. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Dillon, Michele. 1999. Catholic identity: Balancing reason, faith, and power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Drumm, Rene. 2005. No longer an oxymoron: Integrating gay and lesbian Seventh-day Adventist identities. In Gay religion, ed. Scott Thumma and Edward R. Gray, 47–66. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Edgell, Becker Penny. 1999. Congregations in conflict: Cultural models of local religious life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eliasoph, Nina, and Paul Lichterman. 2003. Culture in interaction. The American Journal of Sociology 108(4): 735–794.
Ellingson, Stephen. 2002. Introduction: Religion and sexuality in cross-cultural perspective. In Religion and sexuality in cross-cultural perspective, ed. Stephen Ellingson and M. Christian Green, 1–18. New York: Routledge.
Ellingson, Stephen. 2007. The megachurch and the mainline: Remaking religious tradition in the 21st century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ellingson, Stephen, Nelson Tebbe, Martha Van Haitsma, and Edward O. Lauman. 2001. Religion and the politics of sexuality. Journal of Contemporary Ethnograpy 30(1): 3–55.
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. 2009. Human sexuality: Gift and trust. http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/JTF Human Sexuality.aspx. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Evangelicals Concerned. 2011a. Who are we? http://www.ecwr.org/about-us/who weare.html. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Evangelicals Concerned. 2011b. About evangelicals concerned. http://www.ecwr.org/about-us.html. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Evangelicals Concerned. 2011c. EC FAQ. http://www.ecwr.org/aboutus/faq.html Accessed. April 18, 2011.
Evergreen International. 2010. Mission statement. http://www.evergreeninternational.org. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Fetner, Tina. 2008. How the religious right shaped gay and lesbian activism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ganzevoort, R. Ruard., Mark van der Laan, and Erik Olsman. 2011. Growing up gay and religious: Conflict, dialogue, and religious identity strategies. Mental Health, Religion and Culture 14(3): 209–222.
General Convention. 1976. Support the right of homosexuals to equal protection of the law. Journal of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Minneapolis 1976: C-109.
General Convention. 1998. Journal of the General Convention of…The Episcopal Church, Philadelphia, 1997: 278.
Gray, Edward R., and Scott Thumma. 2005. Introduction. In Gay religion, ed. S. Thumma and E.R. Gray, xi–xvi. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Gusfield, Joseph R. 1986. Symbolic crusade: Status politics and the American temperance movement. 2nd ed. University of Illinois Press.
Hinckley, Gordon. B. What are people asking about us? Ensign, November: 70.
Huff, Gene. 1999. What the bible says, or doesn’t say, about same sex relationships. More Light Update Vol. 20 (2). http://www.mlp.org/news/update/11.and.12.99. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Integrity USA. 2011a. What is integrity? http://www.integrityusa.org/WhatIsIntegrity. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Integrity USA. 2011b. Discrimination against LGBT lay people in the Episcopal church. http://www.integrityusa.org/discrimination. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Integrity USA. 2011c. Frequently asked questions. http://www.integrityusa.org/FAQs. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Jasper, James M. 1999. The art of moral protest: Culture, biography, and creativity in social movements. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Kniss, Fred. 1997. Disquiet in the land: Cultural conflict in American Mennonite communities. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.
Kniss, Fred. 2003. Mapping the moral order: Depicting the terrain of religious conflict and change. In Handbook of the sociology of religion, ed. Michele Dillon, 331–347. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Koch, Jerome R., and Evans W. Curry. 2000. Social context and the Presbyterian gay/lesbian ordination debate: Testing open-systems theory. Review of Religious Research 42(2): 206–15.
Lindner, Eileen W. 2009. Yearbook of American and Canadian churches 2009. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
Lutherans Concerned North America. 2010a. About LC/NA. http://www.lcna.org/lcna. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Lutherans Concerned North America. 2010b. About reconciling Lutherans. http://www.lcna.org/rl/about-reconciling-lutherans. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Mahaffy, Kimberly. 1996. Cognitive dissonance and its resolution: A study of lesbian Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(4): 392–402.
Moon, Dawne. 2004. God, sex, and politics: Homosexuality and everyday theologies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
More Light Presbyterians. About more light Presbyterians (MLP). http://www.mlp.org/index.php?topic=aboutmlp. Accessed April 18, 2011.
O’Brien, Jodi. 2004. Wrestling the angel of contradiction: Queer Christian identities. Culture and Religion 5(2): 179–202.
Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The. 1991. Presbyterians and human sexuality. Louisville: Office of the General Assembly.
Olson, Laura R., and Wendy Cadge. 2002. Talking about homosexuality: The views of mainline protestant clergy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41(1): 153–167.
Olson, Laura R., Wendy Cadge, and James T. Harrison. 2006. Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly 87(2): 340–260.
Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church. 2006. A season of discernment http://oga.pcusa.org/peaceunitypurity/resources/fullfinalreport.pdf. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Primiano, Leonard Norman 2005. The gay God of the city: The emergence of the gay and lesbian ethnic parish. In Gay religion, ed. Scott Thumma and Edward R. Gray, 7–30. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Ratziner, Joseph Cardinal, and Angelo Amato, S.B.D. 2003. Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexualunionsen.html. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal and Alberto Bovone. 1986. Letter to the bishops of the Catholic church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc1986100_homosexual-persons_en.html. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Reconciling Ministries Network. 2011a. About reconciling ministries network. http://www.rmnetwork.org/about-us. April 18, 2011.
Reconciling Ministries Network. 2011b. A side-by-side response. http://www.rmnetwork.org/a-side-by-side-response. April 18, 2011.
Rodriguez, Eric M., and Suzanne C. Ouellette. 2000. Gay and lesbian Christians homosexual and religious identity integration in the members and participants of a gay-positive Church. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 39(3): 333–347.
Seidman, Steven. 1996. Introduction. In Queer theory/sociology, ed. Steven Seidman, 1–29. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
Sewell, William H. 1992. A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. The American Journal of Sociology 98: 1–29.
Shokeid, Moshe. 2005. Why join a gay synagogue? In Gay religion, ed. Scott Thumma and Edward R. Gray, 83–97. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Smith, Christian. 1998. American Evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Southern Baptist Convention. 1976. Resolution on homosexuality. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=606. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Southern Baptist Convention. 1988. Resolution on homosexuality. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=610. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Southern Baptist Convention. 1996. Resolution on homosexual marriage. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=614. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Stotts, Jack L. 2004. Definitive guidance: The Church’s statements on homosexuality. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Swidler, Ann. 1986. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review 51(2): 273–286.
Thumma, Scott. 2005. Negotiating a religious identity: The case of the gay Evangelical. In Gay religion, ed. Scott Thumma and Edward R. Gray, 67–82. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Tilly, Charles. 2006. Regimes and repertoires. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
UCC Coalition 2008a. Mission. http://www.ucccoalition.org/about. Accessed April 18, 2011.
UCC Coalition 2008b. History. http://www.ucccoalition.org/about/history. Accessed April 18, 2011.
United Methodist Church. 2008. The book of discipline of the United Methodist church. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, The. 1978. The church and homosexuality. Louisville: Office of the General Assembly.
University United Methodist Church. 2008. “Social action.” http://www.uumc.org/?q=node/49. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Walton, Gerald 2006. “Fag church”: Men who integrate gay and Christian identities. Journal of Homosexuality 51(2): 1–17.
Warner, R. Stephen 2005. A church of our own: Disestablishment and diversity in American religion. Piscataway: Rutgers University Press.
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 2006. Practices that God hates. http://www.watchtower.org/e/rq/article_10.htm. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. 2008. Does God approve of same sex marriage? http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050408a/article_01.htm. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Wellman, Jerome K. 1999. The debate over homosexual ordination: Subcultural identity theory in American religious organizations. Review of Religious Research 41(2): 184–206.
Wellman, Jerome K. 2008. Evangelical vs. Liberal: The clash of Christian cultures in the Pacific Northwest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilcox, Melissa M. 2003. Coming out in Christianity: Religion, identity, and community. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Wilcox, Melissa M. 2009. Queer women and religious individualism. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Williams, Rhys H. 1996. Religion as political resource: Culture or ideology? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35(No. 4): 368–378.
Williams, Rhys H. 1997. Culture wars, social movements, and institutional politics. In Culture wars in American politics: Critical reviews of a popular myth, ed. R.H. Williams, 283–295. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter, Inc.
Wolkomir, Michelle. 2001. Wrestling with the angels of meaning: The revisionist ideological work of gay and ex-gay Christian men. Symbolic Interaction 24(4): 407–424.
Wood, Gordon S. 1993. The radicalism of the American revolution. New York: Vintage Books.
Wuthnow, Robert. 2000. The restructuring of American religion: Society and faith since World War II. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Yip, Andrew K. T. 1997. Dare to differ: Gay and lesbian Catholics’ assessment of official Catholic positions on sexuality. Sociology of Religion 58(2): 165–180.
Young, Michael P. 2002. Confessional protest: The religious birth of U.S. national social movements. American Sociological Review 67: 660–688.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Rhys H. Williams as well as the anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix I: Religious Moral Authority Ideal Types
Appendix I: Religious Moral Authority Ideal Types
These are the ideal-typical statements we devised to code groups onto the heuristic map. These statements represent the kinds of statements a group that would be coded towards a particular pole would make regarding gay and lesbian issues. We created both LGBT. Inclusive and exclusive variants of each pole to ensure we were not mistaking inclusivity/exclusivity for an orientation towards a moral category.
Individual Moral Authority
Inclusive
Sexual identity is an individual characteristic, each person’s is their own concern, and we place emphasis on the chosen or constructed aspects of identity. The individual adherent has the authority to interpret faith using other resources, such as the natural and social sciences, as they see fit. We allow for and legitimate myriad conclusions regarding homosexuality.
Exclusive
Individuals have the right to choose or construct their sexual identity, even if it is an unhealthy or deviant one. Our group accepts that some people will choose this path and we cannot stop them, but we do not accept homosexuals as members.
Collective Moral Authority
Inclusive
Sexualities of all varieties are part of the natural and/or created order. Sexual practices should be controlled or regulated in the interest of the public good. The community and/or faith tradition may decide what is considered a healthy sexual relationship. The Bible/faith tradition is authoritative in its acceptance of homosexual behavior.
Exclusive
Any sexual identity or expression other than heterosexuality is a violation of sacred or natural law. Deviant sexual expressions are a threat to the family, society and social order. Laws should restrict individual sexual behavior. The Bible/faith tradition is the only official and acceptable viewpoint regarding this issue. The Bible is unambiguous in its condemnation of homosexuality.
Individual Moral Project
Inclusive
Sexuality is expressive activity intended for pleasure and human fulfillment involving freely consenting participants. Homosexuals are individuals and should be treated accordingly, with respect. Our group’s goal is to help homosexuals feel personally fulfilled and well adjusted.
Exclusive
Practicing homosexuals are willful sinners. Therapy or counseling is appropriate for helping individuals to make better sexual choices or manage their deviant identity. In accordance with this position, denominations support policies and programs aimed at converting homosexual individuals to heterosexuals or seeking to minimize their same-sex attraction.
Collective Moral Project
Inclusive
Social justice and the public good requires that sexual minorities be given full legal and human rights and equality. Sexual diversity contributes to social well-being. Homosexuals are an oppressed minority group who deserve equal participation in faith and life. In accordance with this position, our group supports broader structural policies that ensure justice for persons regardless of sexual orientation: for example, same-sex marriage, and ordination of gays and lesbians.
Exclusive
Communities and institutions should be constructed to reflect, support, and reward heteronormativity. For the greater good of the community/society we must keep homosexuals from participation in various institutions or monitor and control their behavior within the confines of our community. In accordance with this position, we support policies and programs that address homosexuality at a broader level: for example, not ordaining gays or lesbians, opposing same-sex marriage, and promoting chastity or conversion within allegiance to the community. We are concerned about the rights of religious persons and families in our society.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fuist, T.N., Stoll, L.C. & Kniss, F. Beyond the Liberal-Conservative Divide: Assessing the Relationship Between Religious Denominations and Their Associated LGBT Organizations. Qual Sociol 35, 65–87 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9211-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-011-9211-3