Download Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion

Sociology 3301: Sociology of Religion
Lecture 24: Religion, Gender, and Sexuality III
Today we continue our look at religion and gender, beginning with how religion
and individual gender role attitudes contribute to the social construction of difference.
We then move on to look at issues related to religion and homosexuality.
The Catholic Church has remained steadfastly opposed to the ordination of
women, even though most people identifying as Catholic support it. This suggests that
sexism in teachings and institutional practices of this, and other religious traditions, may
not simply pass down to sexist attitudes in individual members.
There is much less research out there on the connection between religion and
gender attitudes than there is on the connection with racial attitudes. Most studies contrast
the religiously affiliated with the unaffiliated, or compare gender role attitudes between
denominations. Still, some findings are interesting. Generally the unaffiliated tend to
score lower on sexism than members of faith communities. Unlike studies of race (where
the most active members scored lowest on prejudice), the most active U.S. church
members are those most likely to hold negative attitudes towards women and oppose
equality. Interestingly, however, one study (Bibby, 1987) notes this doesn’t seem to hold
in Canada, where the religiously devout are no more likely than others to hold to
traditional gender roles.
One U.S. study considered the effects of 13 variables on gender role
traditionalism, finding religious affiliation to be the most important single factor in
predicting gender attitudes. International comparisons of 8 European countries also found
religious affiliates consistently more opposed to female employment outside the home.
Others show that those who are literalistic and authoritarian in religious outlook are more
likely than other religious folk to insist that women “stay in their place” or to show less
respect for women – though some more recent studies show conservative evangelicals
becoming more open to the two-career family.
Yet there are significant denominational variations in all this. Active members of
liberal denominations are, not surprisingly, more supportive of gender equality than
inactive members, also far more egalitarian than conservative Protestants. Indeed, in
every religious group except the liberal denominations, level of activity in religious life
has been positively linked to gender role traditionalism.
Another study used intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientations to look at gender bias.
Allport (1966) may have found that intrinsic religiosity (valuing it for its own sake) was
related to lower rates of racial antipathy, but Kahoe (1974) found that it was this same
factor that correlated highly with sex bias. Finally, one’s present religiosity and affiliation
were found to be more important predictors of gender role attitudes than one’s childhood
ones.
1
Despite all of this, some women intentionally join faith communities that have
high boundaries between men and women and seem to offer limited options for them.
Negotiating Gender Barriers in Religious Communities:
Naturally, social reality tends to be more complex than closed-ended surveys of
religion and gender role attitudes can fully capture. Some have used qualitative
techniques to add empirical depth to the processes by which women negotiate gender
barriers in organized religion. These show that women are not mere pawns of traditional
religious leaders, but actively engage conservative religion in a manner that leads them to
find personal fulfillment, even empowerment.
Davidman (1991) considered why young secular women choose to convert to
Orthodox Judaism, a tradition with very restrictive gender roles. She immersed herself in
their world by joining a Hasidic community, an Orthodox synagogue, and interviewed
over 100 women. She found this tradition was attractive to women who feel a lack of
fulfillment in today’s world and seek to become grounded in an ancient tradition. Part of
that grounding is, in fact, in the clarity of the gender roles it provides, but that combines
with their rootedness in long-established religious traditions and family life. This
contrasts with the gender role confusion in contemporary secular society and the
emptiness of working life in the modern corporate world.
Following Durkheim, several researchers looked at conservative Protestant
women’s understandings of the subservient role of women in their tradition. Brasher’s
(1998) ethnographic study found that fundamentalist women were seeking refuge from a
secular world in which the competing demands of work and home were often
overwhelming. Fundamentalist teaching offered some relief by providing clear dictates to
focus on one, the domestic sphere. Women responded to their exclusion from formal
positions of power by erecting a “sacred wall of gender” behind which they created
single-sex ministries that ultimately became sites of empowerment for them. They were
able to develop supportive bonds and exercise leadership in the women-only settings.
This sacred wall of gender is even more notable in Griffith’s (2000) ethnographic study
of a large, interdenominational, evangelical, women-only organization. She found that,
when at its best, women experienced considerable psychological healing, satisfaction,
and even transformation from group processes of prayer and testimony.
Manning (1999) went further. She spent 2 years observing conservative Catholic,
Evangelical Protestant, and Orthodox Jewish women, find that in each case women do
not see themselves as victims, but as active agents in defining gender roles for
themselves. Catholic women may be excluded from the priesthood, but they look up to
the many women saints as role models for their own leadership. Evangelical
Protestantism strongly professes the submission of women, yet it also stresses the
individual relationship of each believer to Christ, which can also be used to justify
women’s empowerment. Similarly, while Orthodox Judaism requires sex-segregated
worship at synagogue, it gives women a central role in the important domestic rituals.
Ultimately, while they wouldn’t accept the label, Manning sees these women as being, in
2
certain ways, feminists. In the contemporary U.S., even conservative religious traditions
must engage feminist ideas that have become mainstream.
The negotiation of gender and religion occurs in every religious tradition.
Ultimately we cannot assume a direct or mechanical relationship between conservative
religious teachings, on one hand, and their acceptance or specific interpretation by
individuals, especially in a context where voluntarism is strongly emphasized.
Heterosexism, Homophobia, and Religious Systems:
Several commentators note that homophobia (intense fear and hatred of
homosexuality and homosexuals) is related to sexism, as it is highly correlated with and
maybe a cause of traditional notions of gender and sex roles. Some suggest that fear and
hatred of homosexuals is a personality trait or even a psychological abnormality.
Heterosexism, a more sociological concept, considers that society variously reinforces
heterosexuality and marginalizes those who do not conform to this norm. It focuses on
social processes that define homosexuality as deviant and sacralize heterosexuality. Most
established religious groups have had a strong assumption about the normality of
heterosexuality. Thus, marriage is ceremonially sanctified in all, but only recently have
some denominations even openly debated the possibility of officially wedding gays and
lesbians. Homosexuality has become a hot issue in faith communities, even threatening to
split some denominations.
Several facts and figures are relevant here: (1) homosexuality is more accepted by
the American population than it has ever been, with 50% saying that society should
accept it. (2) That acceptance has not yet extended to allowing gay marriage, something
only a minority (39%) favor. (3) Both views vary greatly by religious tradition, from 12%
of Jehovah’s Witnesses to 82% of Buddhists agreeing that homosexuality should be
accepted, and from 17% of evangelical Protestants to 45% of Catholics favoring same sex
marriage.
In the Christian tradition, there are 6 scriptural passages that condemn
homosexual relationships (Genesis 19:1-28; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1
Corinthians 6:9; 1Timothy 1:10). Yet only one of these condemns lesbian relationships.
Most focus on male/male couplings. Regardless, there is a link between religious
involvement and opposition to homosexuality, with opposition especially high among
fundamentalists. There have also been major conflicts in Presbyterian and United
Methodist denominations, but in the most conservative denominations the various issues
raised by homosexuality (e.g. ordination, marriage, sin vs. forgiveness and openness) are
not even debatable. The rightness of absolute heterosexuality is taken for granted.
Theological liberals often see this as prejudice against someone based on an
inborn trait. Conservatives argue that homosexuality is a choice, a behavior acquired
through socialization, with moral implications (i.e. the more it is accepted, the more will
choose it). These positions, ironically, reverse the position that liberals and conservatives
tend to make about gender and social roles. In other contexts, conservatives are more
3
likely to assert that gender is innate and inborn, while liberals argue that the roles
associated with gender are learned.
Regardless, religious conservatives tend to view liberal notions about
homosexuality and gender roles as a threat to the viability of society and as clear
debasement of the moral order. Conversely, liberals often feel that sexuality within a
committed relationship is not a moral issue at all. Rather, they feel it is lack of tolerance
of other lifestyles that they deem morally wrong.
Some mainstream denominations have created provisions for congregations to
proclaim that they are officially hospitable and supportive of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
persons. These designated congregations go by various names, and official numbers are
hard to come by, but, for example, the More Light Presbyterian website lists 124 member
churches in the U.S., just over 1% of Presbyterian Churches in the U.S. Similarly, 295
out of more than 30,000 United Methodist congregations are part of the Reconciling
Ministries Network.
In such congregations, homosexuals are recruited and told that they can be out of
the closet and still be accepted as members. Efforts are made to make them feel welcome
as part of the family of God. Yet, some feel that this does not go far enough. Thus, a new
denomination has developed: the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community
Churches. It has almost 300 local churches in 22 countries, and is a “gay/lesbian positive”
church that affirms homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle for Christians. One study
found homosexuals affiliated with this church to have exceptionally positive personal
development (i.e. they are more likely to have an integrated self concept as a both a gay
and a religious person, unlike gay members of traditional denominations).
Religious Divisions over Homosexuality:
Two of the most divisive issues in religion today deal with homosexuality: gay
ordination and marriage. A Gallup poll in the late 1990s showed an initial shift toward
acceptance of homosexual clergy by the majority of Americans (53% in 1996 vs. 36% in
1977). Still, in most religious traditions (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical
Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah’s Witnesses), the issue of
ordaining LGBT people as clergy is a nonstarter. Even in more moderate traditions, such
as Methodism, the official denominational position is to deny ordination to “self-avowed,
practicing homosexuals.”
In those denominations where LGBT ordination has been considered, controversy
has raged. The Presbyterian case is instructive. It focuses on the “fidelity and chastity
amendment” of 1996, which addresses sexually appropriate behavior for ministers. Four
times since 1997 the General Assembly voted to repeal the ban on noncelibate
homosexual clergy. The first three times a majority of individual presbyteries did not
ratify this vote, so the old standard remained in place.
4
The Evangelical Lutheran Church has become the largest Protestant body in the
U.S. to ordain noncelibate gay clergy. This was many years in the making. It appointed a
task force in 2001 to study the issue, then debated it for 8 years before voting in 2009 to
allow noncelibate but monogamous gays to be ordained. In 2010 the first gay Lutheran
ministers were welcomed onto the clergy roster and approved for service – though the
ultimate decision to hire individual clergy remains with the congregation. This decision
has not come without some cost to the denomination: 185 congregations voted to leave
the denomination (out of 10,296), and a coalition of theologically conservative Lutheran
churches may form a new denomination.
In the Episcopal Church, an even bigger step was taken when, in 2003, Gene
Robinson – an openly gay Episcopal Priest – was consecrated as Bishop of New
Hampshire. This caused much controversy, with some congregations and even some
dioceses withdrawing from the denomination, while the worldwide Anglican Communion
has struggled to deal with the fallout from this decision of the liberal U.S. church. African
Bishops were especially upset with this decision and many have severed ties. The
Episcopal Church, however, has not faltered in its support for Bishop Robinson, and, in
2009, the Los Angeles diocese elected the Rev. Mary Glasspool to be their next Bishop,
believing that her openly lesbian identity was irrelevant. Her appointment was approved
by a majority of U.S. dioceses, and she was consecrated Bishop in 2010. Churches and
dioceses displeased by this decision have usually affiliated with the conservative
Anglican Church of North America.
Then there is the controversy over same-sex marriage. While legal in many
countries (e.g. The Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Norway, and Argentina), in the U.S.
jurisdiction resides with the individual states and has been debated and decided on a state
by state basis (beginning with Hawaii in 1993, overturned by voters in 1998). Over 99.3
of all U.S. counties have same-sex couples, and about 3.1 million people live in such
relationships. 1 out of 9 common law couples and 1 in 5 gay male couples are raising
children. As of summer 2010 Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and the D of Columbia are issuing same-sex marriage licenses. The increasing
legal recognition of gay marriage has forced religious groups to consider whether to
allow their clergy to participate.
Few American denominations do so. Even the Presbyterians, which recently
endorsed gay ordination, narrowly voted at the same General Assembly to retain the
traditional definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman. The issue has since
been tabled. Among the denominations that do allow their clergy to perform same sex
marriages are the Metropolitan Community Church, the Unitarians, and the United
Church of Christ.
Of course, despite official denominational bans, that doesn’t mean that some
clergy perform these ceremonies anyway. Controversy among the United Methodists
involves ministers who perform “holy unions” (a commitment ceremony for gays and
lesbians similar to the marriage ceremony). A number of them have been performing
these, while the official denominational position is that clergy can be defrocked for doing
5
so. When the church’s General Conference voted to reaffirm this position in 2001, a
demonstration ensued and four bishops were arrested for their involvement. Some
ministers continue to perform these ceremonies as protest against a policy they feel is
immoral. It has been reported that a significant number do these privately, taking a “don’t
ask, don’t tell” position with their bishops. (e.g. one retired minister estimated that even
in his very conservative Midwestern state that there were roughly 50 of these ceremonies
performed by Methodist pastors each year, and claimed that this was like the prohibition
against remarrying divorced people back in the 1950’s – which eventually fell by the
wayside).
Whether or not this is correct remains to be seen. One 1998 study documented a
softening of opposition to homosexual rights among religiously committed people, but
most find that religious affiliation and religiosity continue to be powerful predictors of
public opinion about same sex marriage.
We again turn to open-systems theory to help understand all of this. It argues that
religious organizations influence society (e.g. in this case, predominantly fostering
traditionalism and opposition to homosexuality), while, in turn, the larger society
influences religious groups. Chaves (1997) argues that religious gender attitudes are
shaped by the views of other similar denominations. Each looks around to see what is
defined as acceptable among comparable groups. Thus, very conservative denominations
are less likely to change because the other conservative ones serve as “comparison
communities.” However, if either the Presbyterians or Methodists ultimately change their
policies, this may well have a liberalizing effect on their counterpart since they tend to
see themselves as similar. Indeed, since the UCC (Congregationalists) already allow
same sex marriage, and the Presbyterians see them as a comparison community, the
movement toward a more open policy by Presbyterians isn’t surprising.
As well, attitudes in a local community or region would be expected to influence
congregational attitudes – irrespective of the official denominational position. People
living in a local community are in regular contact with neighbors, friends, co-workers,
and the attitudes of these people are likely to shape outlooks of those within a religious
community. Further, many new congregational recruits involve those whose views were
previously shaped by local customs. One study found that most resolutions to the
Presbyterian synod seeking to restrict homosexuality came from congregations located in
religiously conservative regions. Likewise, one can predict that regions with more liberal
attitudes are more likely to have “Open and Affirming” or “More Light” congregations.
Homosexuality is often defined as a moral issue. Gender, too, is laden with
normative expectations. Religious bodies as institutions have historically been
conservative or traditional forces in society, even if the meaning system of the faith is
not. Two catalysts are creating pressure for change: (1) the emphasis on the equality of all
people before God in Christian theology; and (2) an impetus in the larger society that
normalizes and legitimates women in leadership roles and affirms alternative types of
sexual relationships. Much research is needed to understand the dynamic changes
happening in these areas.
6
While we have largely focused on the Christian tradition, these same issues face
many other religious traditions as well, and may struggle variously with them as the 21st
century progresses.
7