A growing body of literature examines how existing belief, culture, and rhetoric can serve both to enable and constrain religious groups and individuals as they construct discourses and identities, particularly during periods of change and conflict (Ammerman 2005; Dillon 1999; Edgell Becker 1999; Ellingson 2007; Kniss 1997; Moon 2004; Wellman 2008; Wilcox 2009; Williams 1996). For example, recent work by Wilcox (2009) found that queer women used religion as a cultural tool to “unlock doors between different aspects of identity” (206). Ellingson (2007), however, points out that religious groups such as congregations often find their ability to change constrained by the cultural patterns already in place. Given that religious institutions, especially in the United States, have significant authority in framing social discourse, we follow the above work in suggesting that the positions taken by denominationsFootnote 1 on controversial issues will 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 and lesbian issuesFootnote 2 within the 25 largest American denominations. While a significant amount of research has found evidence that existing culture, rhetoric, and ideology shapes conflict and change (for example, Fetner 2008; Kniss 1997; Moon 2004), much of this work focuses on relationships within single denominations or between a limited number of social actors. Our analysis examines the discourse around gay and lesbian issues between a larger number of denominations and their associated pro- lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups, which we will call lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender religious organizations (LGBTROs)Footnote 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 paper addresses two interconnected research questions:

  1. 1.

    What patterns can we discern when comparing the official positions denominations take regarding gay and lesbian issues and the ideology and rhetoric of the LGBTROs associated with these denominations?

  2. 2.

    What can mapping denominational responses to gay and lesbian issues according to their orientation towards the moral order tell us about the types of available cultural resources that exist for denominationally-associated LGBTROs attempting to stake out their own claims and counter claims regarding this issue?

We find that the parent denomination’s orientation towards the moral order, as well as the stance they take on gay and lesbian issues, both constrains and enables the kinds of cultural resources available for the LGBTROs associated with them to construct rhetorical claims. Through this, we construct a broader argument about how existing denominational culture and 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 between Christianity and the framing of gay and lesbian issues, with the ordination of openly gay clergy and opinions on same-sex marriage receiving the most attention (e.g., Ammerman 2005; 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 religious alternatives, the groups we are calling LGBTROs in this paper. When these groups are examined, even sympathetic researchers often take on the perspective of religious denominations who suggest that a LGBT identity and Christianity are incompatible by predominantly asking research questions which revolve around how LGBT Christians “reconcile” these two, allegedly incompatible, parts of their identities (see Drumm 2005; Ganzevoort et al. 2011; Mahaffy 1996; O’Brien 2004; Rodriguez and Ouellette 2000; Shokeid 2005; Thumma 2005; Walton 2006; Wilcox 2003; Wolkomir 2001; Yip 1997). While this work on identity reconciliation is useful and revealing, it often assumes that Christianity, especially institutional Christianity, is monolithically anti-LGBT. As the present paper will demonstrate, there are multiple discourses within Christianity on gay and lesbian issues which create highly divergent cultural resources for understanding individuals and groups being both religious and LGBT-identified. Put simply, our research suggests that Christian groups, drawing on different orientations towards the moral order, do not monolithically present being a “LGBT Christian” as problematic. Rather, there are a variety of understandings of sexuality and Christianity that LGBTROs draw on to construct their own stances.

We suggest that the complexity of positions on these and other controversial issues cannot be fully captured using the simple liberal-conservative or mainline-evangelical dichotomies that often frame scholarly work on religious conflict. In this paper, we offer a nuanced, multidimensional framework that we suggest provides a useful, qualitative mapping of the variability in denominational positions and policies: a heuristic map of the moral order. 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 reflects how a group or institution defines its most central moral projects. Are these primarily collective projects, concerned with community building, structural change, and social justice? Or are they oriented primarily to the individual, concerned with projects such as reforming people’s personal behavior, affirming individuals, or “saving souls”? A second axis on the map regards the group’s conception of moral authority. Is authority primarily located 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 to the individual as an autonomous agent who depends on reason and experience when applying values or pursuing moral projects?

In the United States, we can identify clusters of religious groups at various points on the map formed by crossing these two continuums. Broadly speaking, conservative Protestant denominations tend to locate at the collective end of the moral authority dimension and the individual end of the moral project dimension, while liberal or mainline Protestants tend toward the opposite ends of each dimension [see Fig. 1]. Much previous analysis of religious conflict and change, including work on gay and lesbian issues, has generally focused explicitly or implicitly 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 the nuance of the heuristic map of the moral order allows us to more accurately capture and examine the ideological positions of the groups we discuss in this paper, especially groups which are located off of the liberal-conservative axis, with the aim of better analyzing the rhetorical connection between denominations and their associated LGBTROs.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Denominations coded by moral order

Full size image

Our analysis suggests that groups who hold different basic assumptions about the moral order frame gay and lesbian issues differently and use divergent rhetorical strategies when debating issues of sexuality or arguing either for or against greater inclusion of sexual minorities in their religious communities. Following from this, we will argue that LGBTROs have their ideologies and rhetoric constrained and enabled by the cultural resources provided to them by the larger debate within the denominational field. Before detailing our methods and analysis, we turn to existing 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 notable exceptions do exist (e.g., Ammerman 2005; Dillon 1999; Drumm 2005; Moon 2004; O’Brien 2004; Primiano 2005; Thumma 2005; Warner 2005; Wilcox 2003). These studies, while providing valuable analyses on how denominations, congregations, and individual LGBTROs deal with gay and lesbian issues, tend to focus predominantly on either, (1) questions of identity reconciliation; (2) individual congregations or LGBTROs; or (3) the relationship between an individual congregation or denomination and the LGBTRO associated with it. Comparatively, this paper seeks to address the overall field of discursive relationships between parent denominations and the LGBTROs associated with them, rather than assessing single organizations or relationships, using the heuristic map of the moral order 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 are best served by turning our attention to literature that examines the relationship between religion, culture, conflict, and collective action. If we conceptualize denominations as organizational fields in which particular understandings of the moral order and specific symbol systems are collectively used and validated, we open up new ways of thinking about the 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 culture provides repertoires used to create pathways to action. Blee (2003) suggests that culture be 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 in intergroup conflict. These cultural resources both reflect and shape the cultural differences between groups. In a similar way, Young (2002) suggests that “cultural schemas… structure social life by subsuming a range of social experiences under symbols, metaphors, scripts, conventions, even habits” (664). This work collectively suggests that the cultural repertoires available to us, shaped by the existing rhetoric and ideology of the groups we are embedded in, 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 and LGBT activism, Wilcox’s (2009) work on queer women’s religious beliefs, and Ellingson et al.’s (2001) work on normative frameworks around sexuality in congregations. What this work has in common is that it takes a serious look at how existing culture, rhetoric, and ideology about religion and sexuality shape conflict, change, and identity construction. For example, Fetner finds that LGBT social movement actions are constrained and enabled by the rhetoric and tactical choices of anti-LGBT religious groups. Wilcox uncovered a variety of ways how queer women use faith to construct their identities and suggests that we must look at ways how such identity construction is anchored in community. Ellingson et al. find that official denominational teachings are “cultural constraints and resources… that shape how religious organizations address sexuality” (9). In this paper, we follow the insights of this work but shift the focus to empirically examine the discursive field of relationships between denominations and their associated LGBTROs. By performing a broad analysis across several discursive relationships, we find support for the notion that existing culture shapes conflict and change in meaningful ways.

Research Methods

To explore our research questions, we examined the written record left behind by debates or conflicts within the 25 largest religious denominations in the U.S. as ranked according to the 2009 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. We looked both at official statements and other materials available on the public websites of the denominations, and at the websites or any other written materials we could find from LGBTROs associated with these denominations. We attempted to exhaustively cover each group’s writing about itself as it appears on their website and public statements to explore their official presentation as fully as possible.

The denominations in question were previously placed onto the heuristic map based on a coding of their moral, ideological, social, and theological orientations according to Kniss’ multi-dimensional model [Fig. 1] in an earlier work (Kniss 2003). The original coding performed by Kniss is consistent with empirical findings and theoretical orientations regarding the moral positions taken by American denominations in other work (see Ammerman 2005, 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 of denominational positions on gay and lesbian issues which included both inclusive and exclusive variants of the different poles of the map, we developed ideal typical statements reflecting both LGBT-inclusive and LGBT-exclusive variants of the four poles that comprise the heuristic map [see Appendix I]. We then situated each LGBTRO [Fig. 2] on the heuristic map by coding their mission statements and any other written materials with regard to their positions using these ideal types. We also used the ideal types to check the previous coding of 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 by various groups and recorded and analyzed the patterns that emerged. Throughout the coding process, there was only one disagreement about the placement of a particular group on the map that was eventually resolved to the satisfaction of all authors. All other placements were unanimously agreed upon both when coded independently and then assessed collectively.

Fig. 2
figure 2

LGBTRO and other organizations discussed in the paper

Full size image

To be clear, what we are analyzing in this research is the relationship between the positions taken by religious denominations with regard to sexuality, sexual ethics, and gay and lesbian issues and the positions taken by their affiliated LGBTROs. As such, LGBTROs were not assumed to be in the same position on the heuristic map as their parent denominations, 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 patterns of difference that emerged between LGBTROs and parent denominations after we had coded them onto the heuristic map separately.

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

Denominations and LGBTROs

Speaking to the English, Massachusetts colonial leader Samuel Adams once said “We boast of our freedom… and we have your example for it. We talk the language we have always heard you speak” (Wood 1993, 110). We suggest LGBTROs are engaged in a similar sort of negotiation with their parent denominations that involves finding creative ways to “talk the language” they have always heard spoken. In the remaining sections of this paper, we will demonstrate that the positions taken by LGBTROs with regard to various issues are neither random nor monolithic. Instead, a pattern emerges when we compare LGBTROs with their respective denominational traditions, which we can make sense of using the heuristic map of the 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 organizations fulfill several of these roles simultaneously. The patterns that can be discerned among the groups, however, center largely around the orientation towards the moral order and the position on gay and lesbian issues taken by the larger denominational cultures in which the LGBTROs are embedded. In other words, the larger denomination’s orientation towards the moral order and their position on gay and lesbian issues shapes the rhetoric and public practices of LGBTROs. We will now explore this connection in greater detail by turning to some of the exemplary denomination/LGBTRO relationships that emerged from our data.

Welcoming and Affirming Denominations

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

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 all other citizens,” and called upon “our society to see that such protection is provided in actuality” (General Convention 1976, C-109). Then, in 1998, the General Convention passed a resolution in which they sought to “apologize on behalf of the Episcopal Church to its members who are gay or lesbian, and to lesbians and gay men outside the Church, for years 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 understanding of moral authority, treating interpretation as an ongoing process in which new understanding may be used to evaluate religious texts, as well as their collective understanding of the moral project in which they see gay and lesbian issues in terms of the expansion of civil rights to protect an embattled minority. Finally, these stances demonstrate the denomination’s comparatively progressive stance on gay and lesbian issues more broadly.

The United Church of Christ (UCC), likewise, has a long history of progressive social policy; the UCC was the first mainline Protestant denomination to make a public declaration against slavery (1700), to ordain a black person (1785), and to ordain a woman (1853). It is also welcoming and affirming with regard to LGBT persons. The UCC passed their first resolution on gay and lesbian issues, “Resolution on Homosexuals and the Law,” in April 1969. In it, the Council for Christian Social Action declared that:

…homosexual practices between consenting adults in private endanger none of the properly protective functions of civil law; and… laws against consentual [sic] homosexual practices between adults violate the right of privacy and are virtually unenforceable… present laws and government practices regarding employment and military service of homosexuals is based on false assumptions about the nature of homosexuality 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 welcoming and affirming stances, using ideologies and language present within extant denominational beliefs 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 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 their claims, speak openly about activism; and acknowledge they are advocating and organizing for change within both the church and the greater society by combating structural oppression. 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 against other 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 a civil right and framing the issue in terms of the structural oppression of a sexual minority. A statement about the proposition reads:

Like the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech, the freedom to marry is fundamental to our society… Religious groups and clergy members have a constitutionally protected right to recognize or refuse to recognize religious marriages based on the tenets of their particular faith. That has not changed and will not change. But Proposition 8 would unfairly strip LGBT people of full civil rights. (Adams 2008)

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

Episcopalians have historically looked to three sources of spiritual authority—scripture, tradition, and reason. Using scientific knowledge and personal experience, we employ our God-given intellect to interpret the Bible. In the past, the Bible has been used to justify slavery and the domination of women. Even so, the Holy Spirit is leading 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 to discuss 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 well as 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 UCC Coalition is one of the few LGBTROs that is officially recognized and included by the greater denomination as an integral part of denominational life and activity.

In both of these cases, the LGBTRO uses ideologies and language present within their parent denomination’s extant beliefs, culture, and policy to make their claims for greater civil and religious rights. For Integrity USA, the greater Episcopal policy of calling for the social protection of gays as a sexual minority and theological tradition of using reason to interpret the 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 and personal experience. The UCC Coalition, similarly, uses UCC’s tradition of progressive stances 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 as immigration and racism. In both cases, the parent denomination’s individualistic take on moral authority and collective take on moral projects shaped the kinds of rhetoric available to the LGBTROs. Integrity USA and the UCC Coalition are, to again borrow Samuel Adams’ appropriate phrase, speaking the language they have always heard spoken. Not all denominations provide such affirmative rhetoric for use by LGBTROs. We turn now to denominations that share the lower left quadrant of the heuristic map with UCC and the Episcopal Church, but present a more ambivalent take on gay and lesbian issues, constraining 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 moral order share with the Episcopal Church and UCC certain viewpoints on moral authority and the moral project, but are more ambivalent with regard to a number of specific gay and lesbian issues, particularly same-sex marriage and LGBT ordination. Many of these denominations are in a process of study and transition, in which diverse voices seek to move the denomination in varying directions. The United Methodist Church (UMC), for example, is one of a number of denominations that could be currently characterized as ambivalent with regard to gay and lesbian issues (see Moon 2004). The UMC opens membership to everyone regardless of sexual orientation and insists all persons regardless of age, gender, marital status, and sexual orientation should be entitled to basic human and civil rights (Book of Discipline, 2008, 123–127; 538–539). However, this does not include supporting same-sex marriage or LGBT-ordination. While the UMC refers to homosexual persons as having the same “sacred worth” as heterosexual persons, the Book of Discipline (United Methodist Church 2008) states, “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” (206). Therefore, openly LGBT persons cannot be ordained as ministers, and ministers cannot conduct ceremonies that celebrate same-sex unions including same-sex marriages; all of 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 both sanctioned for performing same-sex unions.

Despite this, the UMC remains more progressive regarding gay and lesbian issues than most large denominations in the United States. They call upon their members to sign petitions and vote against measures denying basic human and civil rights to everyone, to advocate for initiatives that prohibit job and housing discrimination based on sexual orientation, and to support legislation that provides extra penalties for hate-related crimes (United Methodist Church, 2008, 123–127; 538–539). Further, the UMC opposes excluding persons from military service because of sexual orientation and encourages continuing dialogue on human sexuality utilizing sources external to the church, such as social scientific research. 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 of Presbyterianism. Yet this progressiveness, like the UMC, has not always translated into an acceptance of LGBT persons. PCUSA has gone through several phases of dialogue with regard to gay and lesbian issues. In 1978, the denomination (then called UPCUSA) called for civil rights for sexual minorities, but took a hard line against ordination (The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America 1978). In 1991, PCUSA published a report in which they reaffirmed these statements, but presented a more nuanced view, admitting that they had approached gay and lesbian issues with some ambivalence for 20 years (The Office of the General Assembly Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) 1991). The report 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 much debate, PCUSA softened their language, suggesting that “licentious behavior,” as opposed to sexual orientation alone, is what determines if a person is ineligible for ordination. Despite this, it was suggested that “ordaining bodies may not dispense with the church’s standards or promulgate their own” (Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church 2006, 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 for behavior 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 and discrimination based on sexual orientation and addresses same-sex unions without affirming them. The social statement acknowledges that Lutherans hold a number of different beliefs about gay and lesbian issues and calls on individual believers and congregations to draw their own conclusions about these matters (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America 2009: 18–21). Overall, the three discussed denominations are in periods of study and transition where they avoid making statements which are too definitive in one way or another, often supporting civil rights for LGBT persons while hedging or presenting a divided front on gay and 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 itself as a “a growing movement of United Methodist individuals, congregations, campus ministries, and other groups working for the full participation of all people in the United Methodist Church” (Reconciling Ministries Network 2011a). The RMN has acknowledged they are “not officially United Methodist,” (University United Methodist Church 2008), in that they are not organizationally connected to the denomination, but also claim to be “a part of 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” and an 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 are petitioned every 4 years, in the thousands of petitions, to change small and large portions of the Discipline. We have kept many restrictive positions for many decades and then changed them. We have gone through advocacies and dissensions before, coming out stronger, deeper in understanding and wider in evangelism. (Reconciling Ministries Network 2011b)

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

More Light Presbyterians (MLP), a LGBTRO associated with PCUSA, takes a similar view of itself, claiming that “the mission of More Light Presbyterians is to work for the full participation of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA)” (More Light Presbyterians 2004). When compared to the RMN, they use more language that suggests that they see their sphere of influence extending beyond the church, stating, for example, that they fund “proactive work in passing legislation that eradicates homophobia and injustice in the Presbyterian Church and in society” (More Light Presbyterians 2004). Despite this, they remain predominantly 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 author writing that the Bible is too often treated “as an unimpeachable source of wisdom and truth on any subject one wants to use it for” (Huff 1999).

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

Taking stock of the data presented so far, we find that all the LGBTROs discussed are in the 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 and reform-oriented—often seeing their sphere of influence as extending beyond the church into the greater society—and making collectivist, structural arguments that link heterosexism to other forms of social inequality. The LGBTROs associated with the “ambivalent" denominations also see themselves as activist-oriented, but tend to posit a somewhat more limited sphere of influence when compared with the LGBTROs associated with the welcoming and affirming denominations. In both cases, the LGBTROs use extant denominational language and ideology. However, the more welcoming and affirming denominations have LGBTROs that are more interested in turning these cultural tools outward, towards changing the greater society, while the more ambivalent denominations have LGBTROs who use the language and ideology of the denomination as a tool to make claims within the field of the denomination itself, pushing for greater internal acceptance. This suggests that the orientation towards the moral order of the parent denomination provides the LGBTROs with cultural resources to make claims, but the LGBTROs may also be constrained and enabled by the official discourse about sexuality within the parent denomination. We now turn towards examining denominations that are exclusionary in their understanding of gay and lesbian issues and individuals.

Exclusionary and Condemnatory Denominations

Denominations in the upper right quadrant of the map, where many evangelical Christian groups are situated, tend towards exclusionary and condemnatory positions on homosexuality. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), for example, has a long history of resolutions addressing gay and lesbian issues, beginning with a 1976 order to “urge churches and agencies not to afford the practice of homosexuality any degree of approval through ordination, employment or other designations of normal life-style” (Southern Baptist Convention 1976). Their overall attitude towards gays and lesbians is encapsulated in their June 1988 “Resolution on Homosexuality” that states “…we maintain that while God loves the homosexual and offers salvation, homosexuality is not a normal lifestyle and is an abomination in the eyes of God” (Southern Baptist Convention 1988). This statement reflects the SBC’s individualistic take on the moral project, which sees individual sin and redemption as central to morality, and their collectivist take on moral authority, which gives preference to “traditional” readings of the Bible. These beliefs have not changed, as evidenced by a 2010 Resolution that opposed the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The strongest resolution the SBC 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 legitimacy of any such law [supporting same-sex marriage], policy or regulation, and we affirm that, whatever the stakes, we will never conform to or obey anything required by any government 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 from engaging in political processes that may advance their position. This reflects their individualistic take on the moral project, where social problems are understood as concerns about individual sin and salvation rather than problems to be addressed at the structural level. Similar to other denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses use strong male/female complementary language to justify compulsory heterosexuality: “Men and women are designed to complement each other so they may be capable of satisfying each 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 hate what God says is bad” (Watch Tower 2006).

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

Evangelicals Concerned (EC) paints a different picture of their work than do any of the LGBTROs in the bottom left quadrant of the heuristic map. While EC shares an individualistic orientation towards moral authority with the LGBTROs mentioned above that allows for a variety of scriptural interpretations, their moral project is significantly more individualistic, making little mention of activism, structural change, or reform. Instead, EC considers itself as providing “safe and comfortable places for men and women to reconcile their Christian faith with their sexuality” (Evangelicals Concerned 2011a). Their primary orientation towards the moral project revolves less around structural change and civil rights and more around the individualistic message that “the love and Grace of God is available to all persons through Jesus Christ” (Evangelicals Concerned 2011b). They repeatedly state that their goal is uplifting the individual LGBT evangelical community through fellowship, education, and affirmation. EC explicitly avoids taking political stances suggesting that their “goal is not to persuade anyone how they should think, but to provide safe places where those on their journey can ask questions, express doubts and concerns, and be cared for in a nurturing and uplifting environment” (Evangelicals Concerned 2011a). They go on to suggest that “political discussions can tend to divide people [so] the Evangelicals Concerned board 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 their understanding 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 all have shared the experience of being gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Jehovah’s Witnesses… It is not the purpose of A Common Bond to retaliate against the Watchtower organization, although we do recognize that we are called such things as “an abomination”, “abhorrent”, etc. in their literature… Our basic purpose is to help guide you to a life of genuine happiness, self-confidence, and self-acceptance beyond your involvement in the Organization… Our support network, as a group, is not interested in participating in retaliation against the Watchtower organization…. We are here for the express purpose of offering support and recovery to gay & lesbian current and former Jehovah’s Witnesses. (A Common Bond 2010)

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

When we compare the statements made by EC and A Common Bond to those made by LGBTROs 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 an individualistic orientation towards moral authority and collectivist moral projects are more assertive with their questioning of anti-LGBT scriptural interpretations, tend to have an activist mission, and rhetorically concentrate more on reform of the church and protection of LGBT 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 other hand, are less direct with their theology, less activist-oriented, and place individual identity reconciliation above reform or structural change in their work.

We argue these patterns provide support for the hypothesis that LGBTROs are provided with cultural resources by their parent denominations. LGBTROs associated with denominational traditions that concentrate on individual sin and traditional authority have little room for varied interpretations of scripture or tradition and are provided few cultural resources with which to articulate a reformist position with regards to gay and lesbian issues. They are provided, however, with a robust understanding of sin, repentance, and reconciliation that we suggest pushes their focus towards support for individual gay believers and away from social change. In the next section, we look at special cases, turning specifically to Roman Catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as exemplary 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 the Roman 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 denominations have several similarities. Both the RCC and the LDS have a strong, central authority 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, both denominations separate what the Vatican calls “homosexual tendencies” from “homosexual practices,” and the LGBTROs associated with these denominations take complicated stances based on the rhetoric employed by their respective denominations. Both the RCC and the LDS have multiple LGBTROs associated with them that take highly divergent positions on gay and lesbian issues generally, and the moral project specifically. We suggest that the cultural 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 and polity structures, may explain the divergent perspectives on gay and lesbian issues taken by the multiple LGBTROs within these denominations. We will examine several LGBTROs within both the LDS and the RCC, focusing on two prominent organizations in each tradition with very different positions on gay and lesbian issues.

The Vatican refers to “homosexuality” as “intrinsically disordered.” Gay and lesbian persons are thought to choose sex over procreation and self-gratification over self-sacrifice. The most notable 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 specifically distinguish between homosexual practices and homosexual tendencies. Homosexual practices are never acceptable; homosexual tendencies on the other hand constitute a “trial” and therefore these persons “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (Ratzinger and Amato 2003). As then-Prefect Ratzinger and Bovone (1986) wrote, “Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living.” Ultimately, the gay or lesbian Catholic is called upon to live a chaste life to be counted in the body of the Church. The position that the LDS take on these issues is similar. Like the RCC, the LDS makes a distinction between homosexual acts and inclinations. The late First President Gordon B. Hinckley (1998) acknowledged that inclinations may be “powerful” and “difficult to control” but they are but one of many inclinations that a Christian can and should learn to manage (71). If they are able to do this 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 denominations have several LGBTROs associated with them and both also have pro-church organizations 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 and teaching. As Primiano (2005) observed, local Dignity chapters often function as a sort of “gay ethnic parish” for LGBT persons who consider both their Catholic heritage and their sexuality to 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 significantly more collectivist take on moral authority than many other LGBTROs detailed so far. Most LGBTROs 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 tolerant stance towards gays. For example, Dignity states:

We believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics in our diversity are members of Christ’s mystical body, numbered among the People of God… Because of this, it is our right, our privilege, and our duty to live the sacramental life of the Church, so that we might become more powerful instruments of God’s love working among all people…We believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons can express their sexuality in a manner that is consonant with Christ’s teaching. We believe that 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 the current 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, and to individual gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics… We strive to achieve Christian maturity through the sacraments, Scripture, prayer, an active love of neighbor as ourselves, and liturgical celebrations, especially the Mass. (DignityUSA 2011)

The above statements also hint at the generally structural view that Dignity has towards the moral project. Dignity’s reform oriented position pushes them to “work toward the eradication of all constraints on our personhood based on the ascribed social roles of women and men” and “live the Gospel admonition to feed the hungry, comfort the afflicted, clothe the 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 of civil rights for sexual minorities as either the Episcopal Church or UCC but still tends to be equally concerned with structural change and social activism as the LGBTROs from those denominations. This may be contrasted to LGBTROs associated with the LDS, such as Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, who tend towards a more individualistic moral project 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 Lesbian Mormons 2010a). Despite this, Affirmation does use some activist language, speaking of “work[ing] together to help remove barriers to acceptance and promote dignity and respect for sexual minorities, focusing on issues relevant to those from a Mormon background,” as well as becoming highly involved with promoting same-sex marriage before and after the passage of Proposition 8 (Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons 2010b). We will return to this distinction below.

Additionally, both the RCC and the LDS have prominent pro-church organizations that take a negative attitude towards same-sex relationships and seek to promote chastity among gays and lesbians. Courage, for example, is a national pro-church Catholic group that formed after Dignity groups were evicted from church property. Unlike Dignity, Courage is not a reform or activist group, nor are they, like EC or A Common Bond, a group which seeks to reconcile identities. Rather, Courage functions as a sort of gay Catholics Anonymous, treating homosexuality (Courage explicitly avoids using the word “gay,” opting for more clinical language) as a problem that needs to be managed. Courage accepts all official Catholic teaching on sexuality and seeks to assist its members in maintaining a chaste life so they may participate 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 cautiously positive towards such groups). As one member testimonial put it, “Courage… does not require its members to change their orientation but does encourage and support them in their walk with God 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 “homosexual tendencies” are strong and not always malleable, as ex-gay ministries posit. Instead, Courage helps its members develop “an interior life of chastity, which is the universal call to all Christians” so that they can “move beyond the confines of the homosexual 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 individuals can overcome homosexual behavior and can diminish same-sex attraction, and is committed to assisting 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 without reservation or exception” (Evergreen International 2010). Evergreen has a somewhat more individualistic moral project with regard to serving their members than does Courage, rhetorically 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 groups Courage and Evergreen International, we can theorize about patterns that emerge. The LDS and the RCC have several common features including: (1) a strong central authority; (2) an understanding of “homosexual desires” as potentially inherent and very strong; and (3) a collectivist orientation towards both the moral order and the moral project. Despite this, the LGBTROs associated with the RCC and the LDS as well as the pro-church groups associated with the denominations have important differences, discussed above. We suggest these groups present a unique case in which these various factors present a toolkit that can be used differently by groups with highly divergent ideologies. Several hypotheses to explain these similarities and differences could be proposed.

First, the actual theologies of the denominations, which suggest that “homosexual desires” are inherent and call for chastity, may provide some rhetorical space. If desires are seen as inherent, it is possible to suggest they are God-given and, therefore, argue that same-sex relationships should be within the parameters of church teaching. However, it is also possible to concentrate on the “chastity within the community” elements of the theologies, as both Evergreen and Courage do. In this way, the actual rhetorical space of the ideologies provides room for multiple interpretations. The heuristic map, along with the polity structure of the denominations, leads us to a second hypothesis about the relationships between the groups: Both the RCC and the LDS locate at the collective end of both axes because they have powerful centralized authorities that take interpretation out of the hands of individuals as well as moral projects that are oriented towards support for the church community and intervention in the world (particularly the RCC, who have traditionally had an activist slant to their work, see Ammerman 2005). The polity structures and collective take on moral authority of these denominations suggests that groups such as Courage and Evergreen, 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 hierarchies to make decisions about who is and is not a member. Likewise, Dignity’s activist orientation may be explained by the greater concentration on social justice by the RCC when compared 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 for cultural work to occur in divergent and deliberate ways (Kniss 2003). Because the RCC and the LDS fall outside of the main theoretical boxes in which we think about religion in America, they have more space with which to create alternative and divergent understandings on various issues. Additional research would be required to more fully assess these hypotheses. Regardless, the RCC and the LDS appear to provide enough rhetorical space for groups with highly divergent ideologies, both pro-LGBT and pro-church, to make their claims, despite the condemnatory position taken by both denomination’s central authorities with regard to gay and lesbian issues.

Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Research

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

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