When it come to an all-inclusive spirituality, many faith traditions continue to grant special status to men of select ethnic backgrounds associated with the tradition. In Christianity, Jesus was oft depicted as a European man. But changes are on the way.
It is not surprising that the leader of
the Roman Catholics created a lot of buzz with his seemingly gay-friendly statement
reported worldwide on 29 July, 2013. After all, he is the leader of the largest
group of Christians in the world and the position of the Catholic Church on
matters of same-sex marriage is well known.
What
makes the comment so noteworthy is that Pope Francis did not just speak about
Catholics who are homosexuals. He referred to priests. Also
see Ross Douthat at the NY Times for another thoughtful essay.
But,
what about women?
The Pope commented on a greater role
for women and the need for a better theology. So is the door closed forever? On 30
July, 2013 David Greene of NPR.org interviewed Rev. Thomas Reese of the
National Catholic Reporter. Responding to the Pope’s comments about women,
Reese said,
“Well, the most extraordinary part of
that statement was that he confessed that he didn't think we had a very good
theology of women in the church. I mean when was the last time you heard a pope
say that we didn't have a good theology?”
What’s new?
Perhaps an attitude?
I’m drawing here on Rachel
Donadio’s NY Times story of 29 July 2013.
So, here’s a quote from a different
Pope—a few years ago.
Pope
Benedict XVI expressed a stronger statement in 2005. The context affirms
persons with “Deep-seated homosexual tendencies…”as
persons worthy of “respect and sensitivity.” But there is a rule: “…the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in
question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who
practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support
the so-called "gay culture."
Change and Faith
How
do mere humans change centuries or millennia of teaching
considered to be the Word of God or at least what leaders of large religious
bodies report they heard from God? Conservatives wouldn’t be conservative if
they didn’t conserve old ways. Even so called liberal traditions within
protestant denominations have been slow at embracing women as leaders or
changing their views on other social-religious issues.
Change
happens of course. Saul “saw the light” and stopped
killing Christians (Acts 9). Peter saw a vision (big sheet story) and changed
his attitude toward non-Jewish Christians (Acts 10). Early Christians gave up old rules about animal
sacrifice, the Sabbath, circumcision, and more. Teachers and spiritual leaders
pray, read ancient texts, and report their revelations. Nowadays people hold
conferences, discuss new ideas about old texts, and find ways to revise old
doctrines in the light of new findings, new understandings, new wineskins. I
suspect the rules will be different in 500 years.
What
might explain the resistance to change?
I shall leave aside that aspect of
experience reported by those spiritual leaders who report their visions and
revelations for I am not in a position to make a judgment about the validity of
those revelations. But from a psychological perspective, much of entrenched
behavior can be viewed from the perspective of the principle of sunk costs. The term "sunk costs" often appears in an economic
context but it has a wider application in social psychology. When people invest
heavily in a business or relationship that is failing, they are more likely to
continue investing rather than cut their losses and move on. Businesses end in
bankruptcy and marriages end in divorce. Governments continue to fund wars and
send young people to fight even when the odds of success seem overwhelming.
Many of the well-known religions of the
world have been around for centuries or millennia. Living in the West, I am
more familiar with some versions of Christianity, which of course has been
around for 2,000 years. Relevant to the discussion, the prohibition against
women as leaders is even older since Christians trace their heritage to
Judaism. Christian leaders have defined appropriate roles for women and men for
millennia. And in western cultures, older citizens were committed to Christian
congregations. They trusted their leaders and the truths they taught.
What’s
at stake (excuse the pun)? A lot... to name a few: Competence, commitment, and
an entire way of life.
Conservative Christians believe the
Bible is without error, truths are absolute, and violations of God’s plan
result in dire consequences. The competence of those people who originally
formed the doctrines about women as derived from the text is at stake along
with the competence of hundreds or thousands of faithful leaders who were
committed to those truths for centuries. Ways of worship and marriage were
guided by doctrines about men and women. It doesn’t cost much to nibble around
the edges-- add some love and respect. But to give up a doctrine and confess
that “we were wrong” -- that takes a miracle or the social equivalent of
bankruptcy and divorce. Reputations are expensive and heavily defended. The cost of change is high.
Progressive Protestants have used
reason and research to examine old texts and find new ways to respect old rituals
as symbolic rather than mandatory. Or they view old phrases as metaphors rather
than literal teachings. In any event,
many have found a path to exit the investment in beliefs limiting the role of
women and stand to reap the social rewards of their new investment in
egalitarianism. The mainline churches who were open to changing traditional
beliefs about women were also losing members to conservatives so, what’s to
lose if a few more members leave? The costs of change are lower for progressive Christians.
I
think the case of sexual minorities is different from the case of women.
Sure the famous biblical texts about the sinfulness of homosexuality have been
around for millennia. But the idea that people of the same sex could openly
live in committed relationships as loving couples-- that’s new. There is no long history condemning gay marriage. There’s no tradition condemning people for loving
each other in a committed relationship. There’s no long-term church tradition assigning religious,
social, and family roles to sexual minorities. It was as if sexual minorities did not exist. It is only in recent
years that people who identify as part of a sexual minority became known to the
rest of society. They found some support and a lot of hostility. Religious
groups did establish position papers and began to preach or teach about
homosexuality while simultaneously trying to show that they were loving and
respectful to all people. Some groups clearly have invested time and money in
support of laws limiting the rights of sexual minorities but these efforts are
recent—not the result of centuries of teaching. And now there are financial and
reputational costs associated with fighting the social trends. Note that I am
not saying the church has changed its beliefs about homosexuality. It’s just
that the idea of same-sex relationships and marriages wasn’t a long-standing
issue.
But young people, those who have not
sunk their lives into a rigid position against women’s roles or against sexual
minorities—have no loss of reputation to incur. They can be committed to one of
many local progressive faith groups that no longer find the need to limit what women or
sexual minorities do in church. And
the data show religious conservatives are much less common in each age group of
the population.
So I offer the hypothesis of sunk costs as a psychological explanation for why
change might be difficult for leaders of religious organizations who are
tightly connected to long traditions of faith. In the case of women, Progressive
Protestants had already found a way to move on from literal interpretations of
biblical texts. They could have their texts and embrace women as well.
In the case of attitudes toward
same-sex relationships and acceptance of sexual minorities, Progressive Protestants
could use the same path as they used to move away from the literal meaning of
biblical texts for the role of women. But it may have been easier because the
concept of people living in loving same-sex relationships is relatively new. There
has been limited time to build up centuries of investment of time and public
proclamations condemning these new marriages and relationships. The principle of sunk costs may explain why the recent changes in favor of rights for sexual minorities appear to have occurred at a quicker pace than was true for the rights of women. But only for Progressive Christians.
The cost of change for conservative Christian groups remains high-- not just because of the investment in teachings about women and sexuality but also because of their commitment to a way of interpreting scripture.
There may be another aspect to understanding sunk costs. Most people
are heterosexual. They have little to lose when some prefer to be with their
own sex. The personal costs are not the same when a small percentage of
humanity want equality compared to the case of women where half of humanity
wants to be treated as equals. Thus the principle of sunk costs may explain the rapidity of change on a social level, especially for those not committed to conservative groups.
So, I am still thinking about this principle and invite comments.
Sources
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York:
Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less.
New York: HarperCollins.
No comments:
Post a Comment