Beyond the Liberal-Conservative Divide: Assessing the Relationship Between Religious Denominations...

1 23

Qualitative Sociology ISSN 0162-0436Volume 35Number 1 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65-87DOI 10.1007/s11133-011-9211-3

Beyond the Liberal-Conservative Divide:Assessing the Relationship BetweenReligious Denominations and TheirAssociated LGBT Organizations

Todd Nicholas Fuist, Laurie Cooper Stoll& Fred Kniss

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Springer

Science+Business Media, LLC. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you

wish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.

Beyond the Liberal-Conservative Divide: Assessingthe Relationship Between Religious Denominationsand Their Associated LGBT Organizations

Todd Nicholas Fuist & Laurie Cooper Stoll & Fred Kniss

Published online: 30 December 2011# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

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 conflictand change. Given that religious institutions continue to have significant authority inframing moral debates in the United States, we hypothesize that groups connected to eachother 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, wecompare the official rhetoric of the 25 largest religious denominations on gay and lesbianissues, as well as their orientation towards the moral order more broadly, with the rhetoric ofeach denomination’s respective movement for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenderinclusion, affirmation, or rights. We use Kniss’ heuristic map of the moral order to analyzeand theorize about the patterns that emerge from these comparisons. Ultimately, we find thatthe existing rhetoric of the parent denomination on gay and lesbian issues, along with thebroader moral stances they take, do appear to shape the rhetoric and ideologies of associatedpro-LGBT organizations. This provides support for the notion that existing culture, belief,and rhetoric shape the trajectories of conflict and change.

Keywords Religion . Sexuality . Social movements . Culture . Methods

A growing body of literature examines how existing belief, culture, and rhetoric can serveboth to enable and constrain religious groups and individuals as they construct discoursesand identities, particularly during periods of change and conflict (Ammerman 2005; Dillon1999; Edgell Becker 1999; Ellingson 2007; Kniss 1997; Moon 2004; Wellman 2008;

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87DOI 10.1007/s11133-011-9211-3

T. N. Fuist (*)Loyola University, Chicago, Chicago, IL, USAe-mail: [email protected]

L. C. StollUniversity of Wisconsin-La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA

F. KnissEastern Mennonite University, Harrisonburg, VA, USA

Author's personal copy

Wilcox 2009; Williams 1996). For example, recent work by Wilcox (2009) found thatqueer women used religion as a cultural tool to “unlock doors between differentaspects of identity” (206). Ellingson (2007), however, points out that religious groupssuch as congregations often find their ability to change constrained by the culturalpatterns already in place. Given that religious institutions, especially in the UnitedStates, have significant authority in framing social discourse, we follow the abovework in suggesting that the positions taken by denominations1 on controversial issueswill become cultural tools for groups staking out their own positions on these issues.

In this paper, we test this assertion by analyzing the discourse surrounding gay andlesbian issues2 within the 25 largest American denominations. While a significant amount ofresearch has found evidence that existing culture, rhetoric, and ideology shapes conflict andchange (for example, Fetner 2008; Kniss 1997; Moon 2004), much of this work focuses onrelationships within single denominations or between a limited number of social actors. Ouranalysis examines the discourse around gay and lesbian issues between a larger number ofdenominations and their associated pro- lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)groups, which we will call lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender religious organizations(LGBTROs)3 for the purposes of this paper. To analyze these relationships, we use a multi-dimensional heuristic map of the moral order, discussed in greater detail below. This paperaddresses two interconnected research questions:

1. What patterns can we discern when comparing the official positions denominations takeregarding gay and lesbian issues and the ideology and rhetoric of the LGBTROsassociated with these denominations?

2. What can mapping denominational responses to gay and lesbian issues according totheir orientation towards the moral order tell us about the types of available cultural

1 By denominations, we mean groupings of congregations with at least a modicum of centralized authoritythat share some combination of a common tradition, viewpoint, organizational style, practice, and culture withregards to religion. Examples include Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Episcopalians.2 A note on terminology: Although the terms are inexact, we refer to the particular issues around sexuality weare discussing as “gay and lesbian issues” as opposed to using the more clinical term “homosexual” or moreinclusive terminology such as LGBTQ issues. We follow Dawne Moon (2004) in this, noting that whiledifferent denominations are concerned with different issues with regard to sexuality, most denominationsdebate issues surrounding gay men and lesbians exclusively, with few explicitly exploring issues such asbisexuality, transgenderism, gender identity, etc. We do not mean for this term to be exclusionary. Rather, it isfor 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 toreference the most debated ideas and terms by saying “gay and lesbian issues.”3 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 areaffiliated with major American denominations, such as the Catholic group DignityUSA, and the Episcopalgroup Integrity USA. We have created the acronym LGBTRO (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenderreligious 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, genderidentity, and all of the groups referred to as LGBTRO in this paper explicitly refer to themselves in their publicstatements as serving lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender persons. We are aware of the limitations ofany terminology when attempting to tie together disparate groups of people based on issues of sexuality andgender identity, both analytically and politically (see Seidman 1996), but suggest that this is the most accurateterm given that these groups primarily conceptualize themselves as support groups or civil rights groups forLGBT persons. It should be pointed out that almost none of the groups discussed in this paper include “Q” atthe end of LGBT when they use this acronym and, as such, we have left this letter off the acronym. Thisreflects our attempt to be accurate with regard to our organizations and is non-judgmental on our part. Wewould also note than most of these organizations are not exclusively “for” LGBT persons, and welcome allpeople as members, including straight allies.

66 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


resources that exist for denominationally-associated LGBTROs attempting to stake outtheir own claims and counter claims regarding this issue?

We find that the parent denomination’s orientation towards the moral order, as well as thestance they take on gay and lesbian issues, both constrains and enables the kinds of culturalresources available for the LGBTROs associated with them to construct rhetorical claims.Through this, we construct a broader argument about how existing denominational cultureand rhetoric shapes the claims-making of associated groups seeking change.

The last decade and a half has seen a great deal of research on the connection betweenChristianity and the framing of gay and lesbian issues, with the ordination of openly gayclergy and opinions on same-sex marriage receiving the most attention (e.g., Ammerman2005; Beuttler 1999; Burgess 1999; Ellingson 2002; Koch and Curry 2000; Moon 2004;Olson and Cadge 2002; Olson et al. 2006; Wellman 1999). However, Gray and Thumma(2005) point out there is significantly less attention paid to LGBT-inclusive religiousalternatives, the groups we are calling LGBTROs in this paper. When these groups areexamined, even sympathetic researchers often take on the perspective of religious denomi-nations who suggest that a LGBT identity and Christianity are incompatible by predomi-nantly asking research questions which revolve around how LGBT Christians “reconcile”these two, allegedly incompatible, parts of their identities (see Drumm 2005; Ganzevoort etal. 2011; Mahaffy 1996; O’Brien 2004; Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000; Shokeid 2005;Thumma 2005; Walton 2006; Wilcox 2003; Wolkomir 2001; Yip 1997). While this workon identity reconciliation is useful and revealing, it often assumes that Christianity, espe-cially institutional Christianity, is monolithically anti-LGBT. As the present paper willdemonstrate, there are multiple discourses within Christianity on gay and lesbian issueswhich create highly divergent cultural resources for understanding individuals and groupsbeing both religious and LGBT-identified. Put simply, our research suggests that Christiangroups, drawing on different orientations towards the moral order, do not monolithicallypresent being a “LGBT Christian” as problematic. Rather, there are a variety of under-standings of sexuality and Christianity that LGBTROs draw on to construct their ownstances.

We suggest that the complexity of positions on these and other controversial issuescannot be fully captured using the simple liberal-conservative or mainline-evangelicaldichotomies that often frame scholarly work on religious conflict. In this paper, we offer anuanced, multidimensional framework that we suggest provides a useful, qualitative map-ping of the variability in denominational positions and policies: a heuristic map of the moralorder. This mapping (developed in the previous work of one of the authors, see Kniss 2003)is organized around two axes representing core issues for any moral order. One axis reflectshow a group or institution defines its most central moral projects. Are these primarilycollective projects, concerned with community building, structural change, and socialjustice? Or are they oriented primarily to the individual, concerned with projects such asreforming people’s personal behavior, affirming individuals, or “saving souls”? A secondaxis on the map regards the group’s conception of moral authority. Is authority primarilylocated in a collective tradition, whether that tradition is housed in a shared text, a hierarchy,or some other reference point outside of any one person? Or does moral authority belong tothe individual as an autonomous agent who depends on reason and experience whenapplying values or pursuing moral projects?

In the United States, we can identify clusters of religious groups at various points on themap formed by crossing these two continuums. Broadly speaking, conservative Protestantdenominations tend to locate at the collective end of the moral authority dimension and the

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 67


individual end of the moral project dimension, while liberal or mainline Protestants tend towardthe opposite ends of each dimension [see Fig. 1]. Much previous analysis of religious conflictand change, including work on gay and lesbian issues, has generally focused explicitly orimplicitly on the tensions between this liberal-conservative or mainline-evangelical axis (e.g.,Beuttler 1999; Burgess 1999; Koch and Curry 2000; Moon 2004; Olson and Cadge 2002;Olson et al. 2006; Smith 1998;Wellman 2008;Williams 1997;Wuthnow 2000).We suggest thenuance of the heuristic map of the moral order allows us to more accurately capture andexamine the ideological positions of the groups we discuss in this paper, especially groupswhich are located off of the liberal-conservative axis, with the aim of better analyzing therhetorical connection between denominations and their associated LGBTROs.

Our analysis suggests that groups who hold different basic assumptions about the moral orderframe gay and lesbian issues differently and use divergent rhetorical strategies when debatingissues of sexuality or arguing either for or against greater inclusion of sexual minorities in theirreligious communities. Following from this, we will argue that LGBTROs have their ideologiesand rhetoric constrained and enabled by the cultural resources provided to them by the largerdebate within the denominational field. Before detailing our methods and analysis, we turn toexisting literature on religion, culture, and conflict to further develop our theoretical perspective.

Theoretical Perspective

As previously mentioned, there has been little empirical work on LGBTROs, though notableexceptions do exist (e.g., Ammerman 2005; Dillon 1999; Drumm 2005; Moon 2004;

Fig. 1 Denominations coded by moral order

68 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


O’Brien 2004; Primiano 2005; Thumma 2005; Warner 2005; Wilcox 2003). These studies,while providing valuable analyses on how denominations, congregations, and individualLGBTROs deal with gay and lesbian issues, tend to focus predominantly on either, (1)questions of identity reconciliation; (2) individual congregations or LGBTROs; or (3) therelationship between an individual congregation or denomination and the LGBTRO associ-ated with it. Comparatively, this paper seeks to address the overall field of discursiverelationships between parent denominations and the LGBTROs associated with them, ratherthan assessing single organizations or relationships, using the heuristic map of the moralorder to assess any discernable patterns. As Buzzell (2001) points out, churches are often“contested sites” where conflicts over culture are worked out. Following this logic, we arebest served by turning our attention to literature that examines the relationship betweenreligion, culture, conflict, and collective action. If we conceptualize denominations asorganizational fields in which particular understandings of the moral order and specificsymbol systems are collectively used and validated, we open up new ways of thinking aboutthe relationship between the LGBTRO and their parent denomination.

A large body of work (e.g., Blee 2003; Bourdieu 2002; Eliasoph and Lichterman 2003;Gusfield 1986; Swidler 1986; Sewell 1992) discusses the relationship between culture,structure, and action. Swilder’s (1986) noted “tool-kit” metaphor suggests that cultureprovides repertoires used to create pathways to action. Blee (2003) suggests that culturebe thought of as constitutive of group life and identity, as well as a product of it. Kniss(1997) and Williams (1996) both discuss how “cultural resources” can be strategic tools inintergroup conflict. These cultural resources both reflect and shape the cultural differencesbetween groups. In a similar way, Young (2002) suggests that “cultural schemas… structuresocial life by subsuming a range of social experiences under symbols, metaphors, scripts,conventions, even habits” (664). This work collectively suggests that the cultural repertoiresavailable to us, shaped by the existing rhetoric and ideology of the groups we are embeddedin, constrain and enable our abilities to create meaning and to act in the social world.

Our analysis specifically follows recent work by Fetner (2008) on the Christian right andLGBT activism, Wilcox’s (2009) work on queer women’s religious beliefs, and Ellingsonet al.’s (2001) work on normative frameworks around sexuality in congregations. What thiswork has in common is that it takes a serious look at how existing culture, rhetoric, andideology about religion and sexuality shape conflict, change, and identity construction. Forexample, Fetner finds that LGBT social movement actions are constrained and enabled bythe rhetoric and tactical choices of anti-LGBT religious groups. Wilcox uncovered a varietyof ways how queer women use faith to construct their identities and suggests that we mustlook at ways how such identity construction is anchored in community. Ellingson et al. findthat official denominational teachings are “cultural constraints and resources… that shapehow religious organizations address sexuality” (9). In this paper, we follow the insights ofthis work but shift the focus to empirically examine the discursive field of relationshipsbetween denominations and their associated LGBTROs. By performing a broad analysisacross several discursive relationships, we find support for the notion that existing cultureshapes conflict and change in meaningful ways.

Research Methods

To explore our research questions, we examined the written record left behind by debates orconflicts within the 25 largest religious denominations in the U.S. as ranked according to the2009 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. We looked both at official statements

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 69


and other materials available on the public websites of the denominations, and at thewebsites or any other written materials we could find from LGBTROs associated with thesedenominations. We attempted to exhaustively cover each group’s writing about itself as itappears on their website and public statements to explore their official presentation as fullyas possible.

The denominations in question were previously placed onto the heuristic map based on acoding of their moral, ideological, social, and theological orientations according to Kniss’multi-dimensional model [Fig. 1] in an earlier work (Kniss 2003). The original codingperformed by Kniss is consistent with empirical findings and theoretical orientations regard-ing the moral positions taken by American denominations in other work (see Ammerman2005, particularly chapter 5; Ellingson et al. 2001). For this paper, we followed Wellman’s(1999) research using the same mapping framework. In an effort to create a typology ofdenominational positions on gay and lesbian issues which included both inclusive andexclusive variants of the different poles of the map, we developed ideal typical statementsreflecting both LGBT-inclusive and LGBT-exclusive variants of the four poles that comprisethe heuristic map [see Appendix I]. We then situated each LGBTRO [Fig. 2] on the heuristicmap by coding their mission statements and any other written materials with regard to theirpositions using these ideal types. We also used the ideal types to check the previous codingof the denominations in an effort to ensure that we agreed with their extant placement.Finally, we compared these maps and the positions on gay and lesbian issues taken byvarious groups and recorded and analyzed the patterns that emerged. Throughout the codingprocess, there was only one disagreement about the placement of a particular group on the

Fig. 2 LGBTRO and other organizations discussed in the paper

70 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


map that was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of all authors. All other placements wereunanimously agreed upon both when coded independently and then assessed collectively.

To be clear, what we are analyzing in this research is the relationship between thepositions taken by religious denominations with regard to sexuality, sexual ethics, and gayand lesbian issues and the positions taken by their affiliated LGBTROs. As such, LGBTROswere not assumed to be in the same position on the heuristic map as their parent denomi-nations, nor were they assumed to be in any particular position on the map prior to coding.The heuristic map was the tool we used to understand, assess, and theorize about the patternsof difference that emerged between LGBTROs and parent denominations after we had codedthem onto the heuristic map separately.

We found that the orientation towards the moral order, along with the stances taken ongay and lesbian issues by the parent denomination, do matter for the kinds of ideologicalpositions taken by gay Christian organizations. Denominations with traditions that empha-size social justice and the possibility of divergent scriptural interpretations appear to providefertile ground for activism and reform-oriented LGBTROs, while denominations that placean emphasis on individual sin/salvation and have a strong shared moral tradition or narrowscriptural interpretation offer little room for LGBTROs to make reformist claims, pushingthem in more individualistically oriented directions. We suggest this provides insight intohow religious conflict can be framed by the ideologies and rhetoric at work and howreligious traditions may be used as cultural resources in conflict. More broadly, by showinghow rhetorical strategies between dominant groups and minority groups play out in pat-terned ways, we demonstrate the usefulness of a mapping tool such as the one we are usingfor this paper. In the following section, we will examine the relationships in question,beginning with an exploration of the discourse around sexuality within highly inclusivedenominations.

Denominations and LGBTROs

Speaking to the English, Massachusetts colonial leader Samuel Adams once said “We boastof our freedom… and we have your example for it. We talk the language we have alwaysheard you speak” (Wood 1993, 110). We suggest LGBTROs are engaged in a similar sort ofnegotiation with their parent denominations that involves finding creative ways to “talk thelanguage” they have always heard spoken. In the remaining sections of this paper, we willdemonstrate that the positions taken by LGBTROs with regard to various issues are neitherrandom nor monolithic. Instead, a pattern emerges when we compare LGBTROs with theirrespective denominational traditions, which we can make sense of using the heuristic map ofthe moral order.

LGBTROs fall into several broad categories. These include, but are not limited to,religious movements for civil rights, denominational movements for inclusion, self-help groups, full service congregations, and information clearing houses. Many organ-izations fulfill several of these roles simultaneously. The patterns that can be discernedamong the groups, however, center largely around the orientation towards the moralorder and the position on gay and lesbian issues taken by the larger denominationalcultures in which the LGBTROs are embedded. In other words, the larger denomina-tion’s orientation towards the moral order and their position on gay and lesbian issuesshapes the rhetoric and public practices of LGBTROs. We will now explore thisconnection in greater detail by turning to some of the exemplary denomination/LGBTRO relationships that emerged from our data.

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 71


Welcoming and Affirming Denominations

Of the 25 largest denominations in the U.S., two take comparatively liberal positions on gayand lesbian issues, suggesting they are “welcoming and affirming” to sexual minorities: theEpiscopal Church and the United Church of Christ (UCC). These two denominations areboth coded into the bottom left quadrant of the heuristic map, suggesting an individual locusof moral authority and a moral project aimed at the collective. In this section, we willdemonstrate how the LGBTROs associated with these denominations use ideologies andassumptions present in the larger denomination’s orientation towards the moral order tostake out their claims. Put simply, the Episcopal Church LGBTRO, Integrity USA, and theUCC LGBTRO, the UCC Coalition for LGBT Concerns, explicitly draw on language,concepts, and orientations from their parent denominations to articulate their public stanceson gay and lesbian issues in church and society. We will begin with a brief look at some ofthe rhetoric the Episcopal Church and UCC have used in official language, which demon-strate both their orientation towards the moral order and their stance on gay and lesbianissues, then turn to connecting these positions towards the rhetoric used by their respectiveLGBTROs.

In a 1976 resolution, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church expressed its“conviction that homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with allother citizens,” and called upon “our society to see that such protection is provided inactuality” (General Convention 1976, C-109). Then, in 1998, the General Conventionpassed a resolution in which they sought to “apologize on behalf of the Episcopal Churchto its members who are gay or lesbian, and to lesbians and gay men outside the Church, foryears of rejection and maltreatment by the Church” (General Convention 1998, 278).Further, the Episcopal Church ordains openly gay and lesbian persons and blesses same-sex relationships. These stances reflect the Episcopal Church’s individualistic understandingof moral authority, treating interpretation as an ongoing process in which new understandingmay be used to evaluate religious texts, as well as their collective understanding of the moralproject in which they see gay and lesbian issues in terms of the expansion of civil rights toprotect an embattled minority. Finally, these stances demonstrate the denomination’s com-paratively progressive stance on gay and lesbian issues more broadly.

The United Church of Christ (UCC), likewise, has a long history of progressive socialpolicy; the UCC was the first mainline Protestant denomination to make a public declarationagainst slavery (1700), to ordain a black person (1785), and to ordain a woman (1853). It isalso welcoming and affirming with regard to LGBT persons. The UCC passed their firstresolution on gay and lesbian issues, “Resolution on Homosexuals and the Law,” in April1969. In it, the Council for Christian Social Action declared that:

…homosexual practices between consenting adults in private endanger none of theproperly protective functions of civil law; and… laws against consentual [sic] homo-sexual practices between adults violate the right of privacy and are virtually unen-forceable… present laws and government practices regarding employment andmilitary service of homosexuals is based on false assumptions about the nature ofhomosexuality in general and the danger of homosexuals to society in particular.(Stotts 2004, 39)

The LGBTROs associated with UCC and the Episcopal Church reflect these welcomingand affirming stances, using ideologies and language present within extant denominationalbeliefs and policies to make their claims for greater civil and religious rights. Integrity USA,for example, is an Episcopal organization who call themselves “the leading grassroots voice

72 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


for the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the Episcopal Church” (Integrity USA 2011a).They present a highly collective moral project, use “civil rights” language to buttress theirclaims, speak openly about activism; and acknowledge they are advocating and organizingfor change within both the church and the greater society by combating structural oppres-sion. Indeed, Integrity USA offers the following suggestion to LGBT victims of religious“prejudice and oppression”:

If you experience discrimination in the church because of your sexual orientation,defend your rights! This is vital—not only for you, but to deter discrimination againstother LGBT lay people… consider initiating a presentment against the clergy person(s) who perpetrated the discrimination or failed to remedy it. (Integrity USA 2011b)

Integrity USA also actively campaigned against Proposition 8, presenting marriage as acivil right and framing the issue in terms of the structural oppression of a sexual minority. Astatement about the proposition reads:

Like the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech, the freedom to marry isfundamental to our society… Religious groups and clergy members have a constitu-tionally protected right to recognize or refuse to recognize religious marriages basedon the tenets of their particular faith. That has not changed and will not change. ButProposition 8 would unfairly strip LGBT people of full civil rights. (Adams 2008)

With regards to moral authority, Integrity USA uses the individualistic take on moralauthority that already exists within the Episcopal Church to make their claims.

Episcopalians have historically looked to three sources of spiritual authority—scrip-ture, tradition, and reason. Using scientific knowledge and personal experience, weemploy our God-given intellect to interpret the Bible. In the past, the Bible has beenused to justify slavery and the domination of women. Even so, the Holy Spirit isleading the church into a greater understanding of the truth about homosexuality.(Integrity USA 2011c)

Turning to the UCC, the UCC Coalition for LGBT Concerns uses similar language todiscuss their collective moral project. They claim to be “working for peace and justice,inspired by the Good News of God’s extravagant welcome” (UCC Coalition 2008a), as wellas working on issues “of import to the community, such as marriage equality, immigration,racial injustices, and other issues” (UCC Coalition 2008b). It is worth noting that the UCCCoalition is one of the few LGBTROs that is officially recognized and included by thegreater denomination as an integral part of denominational life and activity.

In both of these cases, the LGBTRO uses ideologies and language present within theirparent denomination’s extant beliefs, culture, and policy to make their claims for greater civiland religious rights. For Integrity USA, the greater Episcopal policy of calling for the socialprotection of gays as a sexual minority and theological tradition of using reason to interpretthe Bible allow them to make broad-based claims about the civil rights of sexual minorities,along with statements about understanding the Bible in light of contemporary science andpersonal experience. The UCC Coalition, similarly, uses UCC’s tradition of progressivestances on social issues to insert a structural understanding of LGBT rights as a social,political, and community issue alongside issues of concern to the denomination, such asimmigration and racism. In both cases, the parent denomination’s individualistic take onmoral authority and collective take on moral projects shaped the kinds of rhetoric availableto the LGBTROs. Integrity USA and the UCC Coalition are, to again borrow SamuelAdams’ appropriate phrase, speaking the language they have always heard spoken. Not all

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 73


denominations provide such affirmative rhetoric for use by LGBTROs. We turn now todenominations that share the lower left quadrant of the heuristic map with UCC and theEpiscopal Church, but present a more ambivalent take on gay and lesbian issues, constrain-ing the ability of associated LGBTROs to make reform-oriented arguments.

Ambivalent Denominations

The remaining denominations in the bottom left quadrant of the heuristic map of the moralorder share with the Episcopal Church and UCC certain viewpoints on moral authority andthe moral project, but are more ambivalent with regard to a number of specific gay andlesbian issues, particularly same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination. Many of these denomi-nations are in a process of study and transition, in which diverse voices seek to move thedenomination in varying directions. The United Methodist Church (UMC), for example, isone of a number of denominations that could be currently characterized as ambivalent withregard to gay and lesbian issues (see Moon 2004). The UMC opens membership to everyoneregardless of sexual orientation and insists all persons regardless of age, gender, maritalstatus, and sexual orientation should be entitled to basic human and civil rights (Book ofDiscipline, 2008, 123–127; 538–539). However, this does not include supporting same-sexmarriage or LGBT-ordination. While the UMC refers to homosexual persons as having thesame “sacred worth” as heterosexual persons, the Book of Discipline (United MethodistChurch 2008) states, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teach-ing” (206). Therefore, openly LGBT persons cannot be ordained as ministers, and ministerscannot conduct ceremonies that celebrate same-sex unions including same-sex marriages; allof these actions are chargeable offenses in the (United Methodist Church, 2008, 754–755),as dramatically illustrated by the cases of Jimmy Creech and Gregory Dell, who were bothsanctioned for performing same-sex unions.

Despite this, the UMC remains more progressive regarding gay and lesbian issues thanmost large denominations in the United States. They call upon their members to signpetitions and vote against measures denying basic human and civil rights to everyone, toadvocate for initiatives that prohibit job and housing discrimination based on sexualorientation, and to support legislation that provides extra penalties for hate-related crimes(United Methodist Church, 2008, 123–127; 538–539). Further, the UMC opposes excludingpersons from military service because of sexual orientation and encourages continuingdialogue on human sexuality utilizing sources external to the church, such as social scientificresearch. Finally, the UMC, like a number of other mainline Protestant denominations, offers“Welcoming and Affirming” ministries and congregations for members who are LGBT.

The Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (PCUSA) is often considered the most liberal faction ofPresbyterianism. Yet this progressiveness, like the UMC, has not always translated into anacceptance of LGBT persons. PCUSA has gone through several phases of dialogue withregard to gay and lesbian issues. In 1978, the denomination (then called UPCUSA) called forcivil rights for sexual minorities, but took a hard line against ordination (The UnitedPresbyterian Church in the United States of America 1978). In 1991, PCUSA published areport in which they reaffirmed these statements, but presented a more nuanced view,admitting that they had approached gay and lesbian issues with some ambivalence for20 years (The Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 1991). Thereport contained passages with regard to sexuality affirm justice as a goal, but the 203rd

assembly did not adopt the statements (Anderson 1993). More recently, in 2006, after muchdebate, PCUSA softened their language, suggesting that “licentious behavior,” as opposed tosexual orientation alone, is what determines if a person is ineligible for ordination. Despite

74 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


this, it was suggested that “ordaining bodies may not dispense with the church’s standards orpromulgate their own” (Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church2006, 17; 32.) These statements suggest that while the denomination’s stance has softened,they remain both divided and ambivalent on the issue without clear and strong guidelines forbehavior when compared to more affirming or exclusionary denominations.

Turning to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), 2009 saw a long-awaited social statement on human sexuality entitled “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust”passing by a slim margin. The statement reaffirms ELCA’s denouncement of harassment anddiscrimination based on sexual orientation and addresses same-sex unions without affirmingthem. The social statement acknowledges that Lutherans hold a number of different beliefsabout gay and lesbian issues and calls on individual believers and congregations to drawtheir own conclusions about these matters (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 2009:18–21). Overall, the three discussed denominations are in periods of study and transitionwhere they avoid making statements which are too definitive in one way or another, oftensupporting civil rights for LGBT persons while hedging or presenting a divided front on gayand lesbian issues internal to the church.

The LGBTROs associated with these denominations reflect this ambivalent approach.The Reconciling Ministries Network (RMN) is a UMC gay organization that refers to itselfas a “a growing movement of United Methodist individuals, congregations, campus minis-tries, and other groups working for the full participation of all people in the UnitedMethodist Church” (Reconciling Ministries Network 2011a). The RMN has acknowledgedthey are “not officially United Methodist,” (University United Methodist Church 2008), inthat they are not organizationally connected to the denomination, but also claim to be “a partof the Methodist tradition of social concern and action, a justice-seeking, Spirited people”(United Methodist Church 2008). They use this “tradition of social concern and action” andan individualist understanding of moral authority against the greater denomination, stating:

One of the realities of our Book of Discipline is that the rules and regulations arepetitioned every 4 years, in the thousands of petitions, to change small and largeportions of the Discipline. We have kept many restrictive positions for many decadesand then changed them. We have gone through advocacies and dissensions before,coming out stronger, deeper in understanding and wider in evangelism. (ReconcilingMinistries Network 2011b)

The RMN often uses civil-rights oriented language, for example, discussing “heterosex-ism” and “homophobia,” but often limiting these discussions to church policy, rather thanexploring greater social structural oppression.4 This is a distinction we will return to below.

More Light Presbyterians (MLP), a LGBTRO associated with PCUSA, takes a similarview of itself, claiming that “the mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the fullparticipation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry andwitness of the Presbyterian Church (USA)” (More Light Presbyterians 2004). When com-pared to the RMN, they use more language that suggests that they see their sphere ofinfluence extending beyond the church, stating, for example, that they fund “proactive workin passing legislation that eradicates homophobia and injustice in the Presbyterian Churchand in society” (More Light Presbyterians 2004). Despite this, they remain predominantly

4 It is worth noting that during the course of this research, the RMN conducted a substantial overhaul of theinformation on their website in which some of the more nuanced language was replaced with more firmlanguage. We hypothesize this may be a result of the divided and transitional period the UMC is in with regardto gay and lesbian issues, and we will be interested to see how this process unfolds.

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 75


centered around church-specific issues, particularly same-sex marriage and gay ordination.MLP also has a highly individualistic take on moral authority, with one associated authorwriting that the Bible is too often treated “as an unimpeachable source of wisdom and truthon any subject one wants to use it for” (Huff 1999).

Finally, Lutherans Concerned/North America (LC/NA) is a LGBTRO associated with theELCA that “works for the full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Lutheransin all aspects of the life of their Church and congregations” (Lutherans Concerned NorthAmerica 2010a). In the lead up to the above discussed 2009 decision by the ELCA, LC/NAcreated “Reconciling Lutherans,” a list of individual Lutherans who affirm their “commit-ment to encourage the Lutheran church to extend a genuine invitation for full acceptance andinclusion to all people” (Lutherans Concerned North America 2010b). In the wake of thedecision, LC/NA created a blog (lutheransconcerned.blogspot.com) in which they begancalling for increased advocacy in the denomination. While most of the blog posts haveremained about church policy, there have been recent calls to support anti-LGBT bullyingefforts including the “It Gets Better” campaign.

Taking stock of the data presented so far, we find that all the LGBTROs discussed are inthe same quadrant of the heuristic map of the moral order as their parent denominations. The“welcoming and affirming” denominations have associated LGBTROs that are activism andreform-oriented—often seeing their sphere of influence as extending beyond the church intothe greater society—and making collectivist, structural arguments that link heterosexism toother forms of social inequality. The LGBTROs associated with the “ambivalent" denomi-nations also see themselves as activist-oriented, but tend to posit a somewhat more limitedsphere of influence when compared with the LGBTROs associated with the welcoming andaffirming denominations. In both cases, the LGBTROs use extant denominational languageand ideology. However, the more welcoming and affirming denominations have LGBTROsthat are more interested in turning these cultural tools outward, towards changing the greatersociety, while the more ambivalent denominations have LGBTROs who use the languageand ideology of the denomination as a tool to make claims within the field of the denom-ination itself, pushing for greater internal acceptance. This suggests that the orientationtowards the moral order of the parent denomination provides the LGBTROs with culturalresources to make claims, but the LGBTROs may also be constrained and enabled by theofficial discourse about sexuality within the parent denomination. We now turn towardsexamining denominations that are exclusionary in their understanding of gay and lesbianissues and individuals.

Exclusionary and Condemnatory Denominations

Denominations in the upper right quadrant of the map, where many evangelical Christiangroups are situated, tend towards exclusionary and condemnatory positions on homosexu-ality. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), for example, has a long history of resolutionsaddressing gay and lesbian issues, beginning with a 1976 order to “urge churches andagencies not to afford the practice of homosexuality any degree of approval throughordination, employment or other designations of normal life-style” (Southern Baptist Con-vention 1976). Their overall attitude towards gays and lesbians is encapsulated in their June1988 “Resolution on Homosexuality” that states “…we maintain that while God loves thehomosexual and offers salvation, homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle and is an abom-ination in the eyes of God” (Southern Baptist Convention 1988). This statement reflects theSBC’s individualistic take on the moral project, which sees individual sin and redemption ascentral to morality, and their collectivist take on moral authority, which gives preference to

76 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


“traditional” readings of the Bible. These beliefs have not changed, as evidenced by a 2010Resolution that opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The strongest resolution theSBC passed in terms of language was the June 1996 “Resolution on Homosexual Marriage”:

…we do most solemnly pledge our decision never to recognize the moral legitimacyof any such law [supporting same-sex marriage], policy or regulation, and we affirmthat, whatever the stakes, we will never conform to or obey anything required by anygovernment body to implement, impose or act upon any such law. So help us God.(Southern Baptist Convention 1996)

Jehovah’s Witnesses also condemn LGBT persons, but their theology prevents them fromengaging in political processes that may advance their position. This reflects their individ-ualistic take on the moral project, where social problems are understood as concerns aboutindividual sin and salvation rather than problems to be addressed at the structural level.Similar to other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern BaptistConvention, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses usestrong male/female complementary language to justify compulsory heterosexuality: “Menand women are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfyingeach other’s emotional, spiritual, and sexual needs and desires” (Watch Tower 2008).Further, Jehovah’s Witnesses list homosexuality along with sex before marriage, adultery,bestiality, and incest as “practices that God hates,” and calls upon Witnesses “to learn to hatewhat God says is bad” (Watch Tower 2006).

As with the more welcoming denominations, the LGBTROs associated with the abovedenominations are shaped by the discourse on sexuality with which they must contend.However, unlike the more welcoming denominations, the LGBTROs associated with thesedenominations are provided with few cultural resources from their respective traditions thatallow them to argue for greater inclusion of gay and lesbian individuals and groups withinthe life of the church. As such, several of these denominations appear to have no organizedLGBTRO whatsoever, or at least no organization that is public and active. There are Baptistand Lutheran LGBTROs, but they are explicitly connected to the considerably morewelcoming American Baptists and the aforementioned ELCA, rather than to the SBC orMissouri Synod. We suggest that the lack of active and public LGBTROs associated withmore condemnatory denominations reflects the inability of LGBT individuals within thesedenominations to find cultural resources to stake out effective positions. There areLGBTROs we can examine with regard to exclusionary and condemnatory denominations,however. These include a general evangelical LGBTRO called Evangelicals Concerned anda Jehovah’s Witness LGBTRO called A Common Bond.

Evangelicals Concerned (EC) paints a different picture of their work than do any of theLGBTROs in the bottom left quadrant of the heuristic map. While EC shares an individu-alistic orientation towards moral authority with the LGBTROs mentioned above that allowsfor a variety of scriptural interpretations, their moral project is significantly more individu-alistic, making little mention of activism, structural change, or reform. Instead, EC considersitself as providing “safe and comfortable places for men and women to reconcile theirChristian faith with their sexuality” (Evangelicals Concerned 2011a). Their primary orien-tation towards the moral project revolves less around structural change and civil rights andmore around the individualistic message that “the love and Grace of God is available to allpersons through Jesus Christ” (Evangelicals Concerned 2011b). They repeatedly state thattheir goal is uplifting the individual LGBT evangelical community through fellowship,education, and affirmation. EC explicitly avoids taking political stances suggesting thattheir “goal is not to persuade anyone how they should think, but to provide safe places where

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 77


those on their journey can ask questions, express doubts and concerns, and be cared for in anurturing and uplifting environment” (Evangelicals Concerned 2011a). They go on tosuggest that “political discussions can tend to divide people [so] the Evangelicals Concernedboard of directors does not advocate any particular position in the political arena”(Evangelicals Concerned 2011c).

The Jehovah’s Witness LGBTRO, A Common Bond, is even more explicit in theirunderstanding of their moral project as individual affirmation. Their website states that

We are here to be your friends and offer you our support and comfort, because we allhave shared the experience of being gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Jehovah’sWitnesses… It is not the purpose of A Common Bond to retaliate against theWatchtower organization, although we do recognize that we are called such thingsas “an abomination”, “abhorrent”, etc. in their literature… Our basic purpose is to helpguide you to a life of genuine happiness, self-confidence, and self-acceptance beyondyour involvement in the Organization… Our support network, as a group, is notinterested in participating in retaliation against the Watchtower organization…. Weare here for the express purpose of offering support and recovery to gay & lesbiancurrent and former Jehovah’s Witnesses. (A Common Bond 2010)

At various points in their public literature they state that they prefer one-on-one con-versations with individuals in crisis who seek them out, rather than more confrontationalapproaches. Like EC, A Common Bond holds little hope for reform and tends to avoidactivism. Instead, the explicitly stated goal is to provide support and affirmation to individ-ual members.

When we compare the statements made by EC and A Common Bond to those made byLGBTROs associated with denominations in the bottom left quadrant of the heuristic map,we can see a stark difference. The LGBTROs that grow out of denominations with anindividualistic orientation towards moral authority and collectivist moral projects are moreassertive with their questioning of anti-LGBT scriptural interpretations, tend to have anactivist mission, and rhetorically concentrate more on reform of the church and protection ofLGBT persons as a social group than the identity reconciliation of any one LGBT individual.The LGBTROs associated with denominations in the upper right quadrant, on the otherhand, are less direct with their theology, less activist-oriented, and place individual identityreconciliation above reform or structural change in their work.

We argue these patterns provide support for the hypothesis that LGBTROs are providedwith cultural resources by their parent denominations. LGBTROs associated with denomi-national traditions that concentrate on individual sin and traditional authority have littleroom for varied interpretations of scripture or tradition and are provided few culturalresources with which to articulate a reformist position with regards to gay and lesbianissues. They are provided, however, with a robust understanding of sin, repentance, andreconciliation that we suggest pushes their focus towards support for individual gaybelievers and away from social change. In the next section, we look at special cases, turningspecifically to Roman Catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints asexemplary of denominations and LGBTROs that diverge from the mainline-evangelical axis.

Special Cases: Catholics and Latter Day Saints

The largest denominations off the mainline-evangelical axis on the heuristic map are theRoman Catholic Church (RCC) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS),which both locate at the collective end of the moral authority and moral project axes. These

78 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


denominations have several similarities. Both the RCC and the LDS have a strong, centralauthority and both denominations place the community of believers above the individual(hence, their locations on the heuristic map). With regard to gay and lesbian issues, bothdenominations separate what the Vatican calls “homosexual tendencies” from “homosexualpractices,” and the LGBTROs associated with these denominations take complicated stancesbased on the rhetoric employed by their respective denominations. Both the RCC and theLDS have multiple LGBTROs associated with them that take highly divergent positions ongay and lesbian issues generally, and the moral project specifically. We suggest that thecultural work inherent in carving out a niche outside of the typical American mainline/evangelical axis, as well as the particularities of these two denominational traditions andpolity structures, may explain the divergent perspectives on gay and lesbian issues taken bythe multiple LGBTROs within these denominations. We will examine several LGBTROswithin both the LDS and the RCC, focusing on two prominent organizations in eachtradition with very different positions on gay and lesbian issues.

The Vatican refers to “homosexuality” as “intrinsically disordered.” Gay and lesbian personsare thought to choose sex over procreation and self-gratification over self-sacrifice. The mostnotable papal documents that concern homosexuality include the catechisms and the 1986“Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons”(Ratzinger and Bovone 1986). The three catechisms that address homosexuality specificallydistinguish between homosexual practices and homosexual tendencies. Homosexual practicesare never acceptable; homosexual tendencies on the other hand constitute a “trial” and thereforethese persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (Ratzinger andAmato 2003). As then-Prefect Ratzinger and Bovone (1986) wrote, “Homosexual activity isnot a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form ofself-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.” Ultimately, the gay orlesbian Catholic is called upon to live a chaste life to be counted in the body of the Church. Theposition that the LDS take on these issues is similar. Like the RCC, the LDS makes a distinctionbetween homosexual acts and inclinations. The late First President Gordon B. Hinckley (1998)acknowledged that inclinationsmay be “powerful” and “difficult to control” but they are but oneof many inclinations that a Christian can and should learn to manage (71). If they are able to dothis then, according to Hinckley, they should be able to participate fully in the life of the Church.

These denominations present a unique scenario with regard to LGBTROs. Both denomi-nations have several LGBTROs associated with them and both also have pro-churchorganizations that seek to council gays and lesbians in chastity without forcing them to“change their orientation,” unlike so-called “ex-gay ministries” such as Exodus International.The most prominent LGBTRO associated with the RCC is DignityUSA (Dignity, from here).Dignity was evicted from Church property following the above quoted 1986 letter. Despite this,Dignity portrays their mission and theology as within the mainstream of Catholic thought andteaching. As Primiano (2005) observed, local Dignity chapters often function as a sort of “gayethnic parish” for LGBT persons who consider both their Catholic heritage and their sexualityto be salient parts of their identity. Dignity claims to provide a place for people who think that“Church is important,” but feel “alienated” from the RCC. As such, Dignity has a significantlymore collectivist take on moral authority than many other LGBTROs detailed so far. MostLGBTROs draw on a queer hermeneutics with which the Bible is interpreted. Dignity, instead,tends to emphasize specific Catholic teachings and policies they feel are in line with a tolerantstance towards gays. For example, Dignity states:

We believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics in our diversity aremembers of Christ’s mystical body, numbered among the People of God… Because of

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 79


this, it is our right, our privilege, and our duty to live the sacramental life of theChurch, so that we might become more powerful instruments of God’s love workingamong all people…We believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons canexpress their sexuality in a manner that is consonant with Christ’s teaching. We believethat we can express our sexuality physically, in a unitive manner that is loving, life-giving, and life-affirming. (DignityUSA 2011a)

The language used in this mission statement/statement of faith is strikingly Catholic.Rather than push for a new or alternative interpretation, Dignity seeks to shift and expand thecurrent understanding of the RCC to include LGBT persons. They go on to state:

We accept our responsibilities to the Church, to our Catholic heritage, to society, andto individual gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics… We strive to achieveChristian maturity through the sacraments, Scripture, prayer, an active love of neigh-bor as ourselves, and liturgical celebrations, especially the Mass. (DignityUSA 2011)

The above statements also hint at the generally structural view that Dignity has towardsthe moral project. Dignity’s reform oriented position pushes them to “work toward theeradication of all constraints on our personhood based on the ascribed social roles of womenand men” and “live the Gospel admonition to feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, clothethe naked, visit the prisoner, support the grieving and lonely” (DignityUSA 2011).

It is noteworthy that Dignity emerges out of a denomination that is not as supportive ofcivil rights for sexual minorities as either the Episcopal Church or UCC but still tends to beequally concerned with structural change and social activism as the LGBTROs from thosedenominations. This may be contrasted to LGBTROs associated with the LDS, such asAffirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, who tend towards a more individualistic moralproject which stresses providing “a forum for gay Mormons to associate with their peers”and seeks to “meet the needs of persons experiencing frustration or alienation from family,friends, and the Church because of their sexual orientation” (Affirmation: Gay and LesbianMormons 2010a). Despite this, Affirmation does use some activist language, speaking of“work[ing] together to help remove barriers to acceptance and promote dignity and respectfor sexual minorities, focusing on issues relevant to those from a Mormon background,” aswell as becoming highly involved with promoting same-sex marriage before and after thepassage of Proposition 8 (Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons 2010b). We will return tothis distinction below.

Additionally, both the RCC and the LDS have prominent pro-church organizations thattake a negative attitude towards same-sex relationships and seek to promote chastity amonggays and lesbians. Courage, for example, is a national pro-church Catholic group thatformed after Dignity groups were evicted from church property. Unlike Dignity, Courageis not a reform or activist group, nor are they, like EC or A Common Bond, a group whichseeks to reconcile identities. Rather, Courage functions as a sort of gay Catholics Anonymous,treating homosexuality (Courage explicitly avoids using the word “gay,” opting for moreclinical language) as a problem that needs to be managed. Courage accepts all official Catholicteaching on sexuality and seeks to assist its members in maintaining a chaste life so they mayparticipate in the life of the RCC. It is important to note that Courage does not consider itself an“ex-gay” ministry, such as groups like Exodus International (although they are cautiouslypositive towards such groups). As one member testimonial put it, “Courage… does not requireits members to change their orientation but does encourage and support them in their walk withGod to live chaste lives and develop their spiritual commitment to the Catholic Faith”(Courage Apostate 2011a). This is in line with Catholic teaching that suggests that

80 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


“homosexual tendencies” are strong and not always malleable, as ex-gay ministriesposit. Instead, Courage helps its members develop “an interior life of chastity, whichis the universal call to all Christians” so that they can “move beyond the confines of thehomosexual identity to a more complete one in Christ” (Courage Apostate 2011b).

The equivalent the LDS organization, Evergreen International, has a similar pro-church,anti-same-sex relations mission as Courage. Evergreen International believes “that individualscan overcome homosexual behavior and can diminish same-sex attraction, and is committed toassisting individuals who wish to do so” (Evergreen International 2010). Unlike Courage,Evergreen is not officially connected to the greater denomination but does claim they “[sustain]the doctrines and standards of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints withoutreservation or exception” (Evergreen International 2010). Evergreen has a somewhat moreindividualistic moral project with regard to serving their members than does Courage, rhetor-ically stressing personal choice to a greater degree, but both groups have a similar mission:Diminishing same-sex attraction through commitment to the teachings of the greater church.

Comparing the pro-LGBT groups Dignity and Affirmation with the pro-church groupsCourage and Evergreen International, we can theorize about patterns that emerge. The LDSand the RCC have several common features including: (1) a strong central authority; (2) anunderstanding of “homosexual desires” as potentially inherent and very strong; and (3) acollectivist orientation towards both the moral order and the moral project. Despite this, theLGBTROs associated with the RCC and the LDS as well as the pro-church groupsassociated with the denominations have important differences, discussed above. We suggestthese groups present a unique case in which these various factors present a toolkit that can beused differently by groups with highly divergent ideologies. Several hypotheses to explainthese similarities and differences could be proposed.

First, the actual theologies of the denominations, which suggest that “homosexualdesires” are inherent and call for chastity, may provide some rhetorical space. If desiresare seen as inherent, it is possible to suggest they are God-given and, therefore, argue thatsame-sex relationships should be within the parameters of church teaching. However, it isalso possible to concentrate on the “chastity within the community” elements of thetheologies, as both Evergreen and Courage do. In this way, the actual rhetorical space ofthe ideologies provides room for multiple interpretations. The heuristic map, along with thepolity structure of the denominations, leads us to a second hypothesis about the relationshipsbetween the groups: Both the RCC and the LDS locate at the collective end of both axesbecause they have powerful centralized authorities that take interpretation out of the hands ofindividuals as well as moral projects that are oriented towards support for the churchcommunity and intervention in the world (particularly the RCC, who have traditionallyhad an activist slant to their work, see Ammerman 2005). The polity structures and collectivetake on moral authority of these denominations suggests that groups such as Courage andEvergreen, which seek to reconcile the individual gay or lesbian with the church community,may be attractive to some adherents—especially given the power of the respective hierar-chies to make decisions about who is and is not a member. Likewise, Dignity’s activistorientation may be explained by the greater concentration on social justice by the RCC whencompared to the LDS.

Finally, following from this, it can also be suggested that falling off of the mainline-evangelical axis that characterizes much thought in American religion creates the space forcultural work to occur in divergent and deliberate ways (Kniss 2003). Because the RCC andthe LDS fall outside of the main theoretical boxes in which we think about religion inAmerica, they have more space with which to create alternative and divergent understandingson various issues. Additional research would be required to more fully assess these hypotheses.

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 81


Regardless, the RCC and the LDS appear to provide enough rhetorical space for groupswith highly divergent ideologies, both pro-LGBT and pro-church, to make their claims,despite the condemnatory position taken by both denomination’s central authorities withregard to gay and lesbian issues.

Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research

In conclusion, we have found that denominations with individualistic orientations towardsmoral authority and collectivist moral projects offer cultural tools for LGBTROs to constructactivist and reformist discourses, while denominations that have a more collectivist view ofmoral authority and pursue more individualistic moral projects provide cultural resourceswhich allow for identity reconciliation for LGBT individuals. Our research suggests thatparent denominations indeed provide cultural resources for the debates concerning sexualityand sexual ethics that can be used in rhetoric and claims-making by groups with stakes inthese issues. Kniss’ (2003) heuristic map of the moral order served as a useful tool toqualitatively map these various positions, allowing us to conceptualize and analyze wheresimilarities and differences were occurring. We suggest that this paper lends support to theidea that existing culture constrains and enables groups as they create rhetoric and makeclaims in times of conflict and change.

This, of course, is not the full story. The data for this paper come predominantly from thepublished materials of the groups in question and, as Ellingson et al. (2001) suggest, theseofficial discourses may not map directly onto the behavior of groups and individuals at themicro- and meso-level. We believe, therefore, that this research can be further strengthenedby additional data that explores our hypotheses in the context of the lived experiences ofLGBT individuals. Additionally, meso-level research examining the organizational qualitiesof different denominational hierarchies or the way congregations deal with gay and lesbianissues could help to further expand on the data presented here. In the meantime, this paperprovides an important step towards advancing our sociological understanding of howculture, ideology, rhetoric, and policy shape the interactions between denominations andorganizations which push for LGBT rights, inclusion, or affirmation, as well as the strategiesemployed in organizational, religious, and cultural conflicts more broadly.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Rhys H. Williams as well as the anonymous reviewers forcomments on earlier versions of this paper.

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 aparticular 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

82 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


adherent has the authority to interpret faith using other resources, such as the natural andsocial sciences, as they see fit. We allow for and legitimate myriad conclusions regardinghomosexuality.

Exclusive Individuals have the right to choose or construct their sexual identity, even if it isan unhealthy or deviant one. Our group accepts that some people will choose this path andwe 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. Sexualpractices should be controlled or regulated in the interest of the public good. The communityand/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 ofsacred or natural law. Deviant sexual expressions are a threat to the family, society and socialorder. Laws should restrict individual sexual behavior. The Bible/faith tradition is the onlyofficial and acceptable viewpoint regarding this issue. The Bible is unambiguous in itscondemnation of homosexuality.

Individual Moral Project

Inclusive Sexuality is expressive activity intended for pleasure and human fulfillmentinvolving freely consenting participants. Homosexuals are individuals and should be treatedaccordingly, with respect. Our group’s goal is to help homosexuals feel personally fulfilledand well adjusted.

Exclusive Practicing homosexuals are willful sinners. Therapy or counseling is appropriatefor helping individuals to make better sexual choices or manage their deviant identity. Inaccordance with this position, denominations support policies and programs aimed atconverting homosexual individuals to heterosexuals or seeking to minimize their same-sexattraction.

Collective Moral Project

Inclusive Social justice and the public good requires that sexual minorities be given fulllegal and human rights and equality. Sexual diversity contributes to social well-being.Homosexuals are an oppressed minority group who deserve equal participation in faithand life. In accordance with this position, our group supports broader structural policies thatensure 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, andreward heteronormativity. For the greater good of the community/society we must keephomosexuals from participation in various institutions or monitor and control their behaviorwithin the confines of our community. In accordance with this position, we support policiesand programs that address homosexuality at a broader level: for example, not ordaining gaysor lesbians, opposing same-sex marriage, and promoting chastity or conversion within

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 83


allegiance to the community. We are concerned about the rights of religious persons andfamilies in our society.

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 thepolitics 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 April18, 2011.

Evangelicals Concerned. 2011b. About evangelicals concerned. http://www.ecwr.org/about-us.html. AccessedApril 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.

84 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


Fetner, Tina. 2008. How the religious right shaped gay and lesbian activism. Minneapolis: University ofMinnesota 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 theGeneral 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 UniversityPress.

Koch, Jerome R., and Evans W. Curry. 2000. Social context and the Presbyterian gay/lesbian ordinationdebate: 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 thepastoral 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.

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 85


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 religiousidentity integration in the members and participants of a gay-positive Church. Journal for the ScientificStudy 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 ofSociology 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 ChicagoPress.

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: WestminsterJohn 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 Homosexu-

ality 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: Aldinede Gruyter, Inc.

Wolkomir, Michelle. 2001. Wrestling with the angels of meaning: The revisionist ideological work of gay andex-gay Christian men. Symbolic Interaction 24(4): 407–424.

Wood, Gordon S. 1993. The radicalism of the American revolution. New York: Vintage Books.

86 Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87


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 positionson 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.

Todd Nicholas Fuist is a Ph.D. candidate at Loyola University, Chicago. His dissertation is on religiousorganizations that emphasize social justice in their beliefs and practice.

Laurie Cooper Stoll is an Assistant Professor in the Sociology and Archeology Department at the Universityof Wisconsin-La Crosse. She is currently working on a book about racial and gender inequality in publicschooling.

Fred Kniss is a sociologist and the provost at Eastern Mennonite University. His published research explorescultural and religious conflict and change.

Qual Sociol (2012) 35:65–87 87


Beyond the Liberal-Conservative Divide: Assessing the Relationship Between Religious Denominations...

Documents

Transcript of Beyond the Liberal-Conservative Divide: Assessing the Relationship Between Religious Denominations...