In recent months, Salvation Army (SA) has been making efforts to shed its anti-LGBT (and anti-Semitic) history and reputation by removing anti-gay links and messages from its websites, and by posting a non-discrimination policy. The policy reads, in part:
The policy of The Salvation Army is to provide equal opportunity and equal consideration to all peoples without regard to race, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, color, creed, sex, age or physical disability.
The SA’s Massachusetts Division has, in addition, posted a web page dedicated to “Debunking the LGBT Discrimination Myth“. Major David E. Kelly, Divisional Commander, echoes a recent blog post by National Commissioner William Roberts when he assures readers that “The Salvation Army does not discriminate against members of the LGBT community. …Salvation Army service is all about a person’s need, not their beliefs or background, not their orientation, just their need.”
The reformation has been slow and haphazard, however. For example, the SA’s hurtful “Position on Homosexuality“, approved in 2002, can still be found on at least one SA website. It reads, in part:
Scripture forbids sexual intimacy between members of the same sex. The Salvation Army believes, therefore, that Christians whose sexual orientation is primarily or exclusively same-sex are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life. There is no scriptural support for same-sex unions as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.
Furthermore, although SA contends that it no longer discriminates against LGBT people in hiring or the provision of services, it has so far neglected to state whether it still permits its employees or volunteers to preach or counsel against same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage.
Salvation Army is, after all, an evangelical church. Usually that translates into preaching or counseling against same-sex relationships, as the excerpt above from “Position on Homosexuality” indicates.
What is missing from the SA’s posted non-discrimination policy is a statement that the organization prohibits its employees and volunteers from preaching or counseling against same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage. Until such a statement is in place, LGBT people will still fear the possibility of having to endure soul-crushing verbal judgment of their family while they’re being allowed equal access to SA services.
Judging by the numerous comments on yesterday’s Worcester Telegram article that attribute this year’s shortfall in SA’s red kettle drive to SA’s anti-LGBT reputation, it’s not just LGBT people who need to hear more comprehensive assurances from SA.
Late yesterday I wrote to Major Kelly, stating that I would like to know whether SA employees or volunteers are still permitted to preach or counsel against same-sex relationships or same-sex marriages, and asking what the SA’s policy is in this regard.
If I receive an answer, I’ll post it here.
Many people do not realize that the Salvation Army is actually a religious denomination, but it is, and one that has until recently adopted a strong anti-SSM and LGBTQ position. Historically it also had violent confrontations with organized labor. But in it’s defense I will say many of it’s members come from all walks of life, some found it after periods of homelessness or addiction, and it has always had a strong commitment to serving the poor which cannot always be said of other evangelical denominations (Rick Warren, Joel Olsteen, and the Prosperity Gospel come to mind there).
Also just as many Catholics, including this one, are ashamed of their Church’s stance and trying to change it so are many members of the Salvation Army. I knew little about the denomination or it’s issues on this front until I met a good friend at U Chicago James Davvisson whose blog I highly recommend. He confronts these issues head on. He grew up in the SA and his family are still highly active, but he attends an ELCA church in Chicago, in part, over this issue. This current statement is actually a considerable victory that he helped take part in. They are moving along.
The UMC, which my fiancee’s parents are pastors in, recently dismissed a Bishop who married his son to his son in law, and those issues are threatening it as well. This is an issue affecting the mainline, the Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches, Evangelical Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and the growing ranks of non-believers. It’s an issue people of all faiths and no faith can rally around as a human rights issue. But it is important that we do not paint in broad brushes when it comes to religious faiths, and the familiar red tin donations to the SA fund the non-sectarian charitable arm which does not proselytize. I agree with one gay author on the Atlantic that civility and dialogue are essential to winning these victories, and it’s important we do not fight the narrow minded bigotry of homophobia with a phobia of our own towards the religious who are still evolving on this issue. I think the SA is moving at a record pace towards the right direction, particularly considering it’s heritage and patrimony. I think Francis is doing all he can to move Rome forward without creating a schism. But the time will come, and is coming, and it is coming fast.
The SA has a documented history of discrimination, so it is up to them to do what it takes to convince us it’s changed. That’s not a display of phobia, it’s a display of common sense after you’ve been abused by an institution. I’m delighted that SA seems to be improving. I’m trying to help them see how they can improve further.
I was legitimately thanking you for raising this issue and it’s one most people do not think about. My issue about caution about developing a phobia was not directed towards your comments, but rather a word of caution regarding generalizations and turning a very complex, ever changing, and dynamic issue into a more black and white or us v them dichotomy.
I think the folks over at Freedom to Marry and the Human Rights Campaign have the right idea about how to continue to win this struggle. The legal and political one is tough enough, but truly converting hearts and minds within the faith community is essential to ensuring that equality is truly inherent within the social fabric of our culture and not just in our laws.
I used to hold the position that I would support civil equality outside my faith and still hold to the sacramental tenants of my Church when it came to it’s own internal guidelines. I realized the incongruity of it all and now hope and pray for full inclusion within the faith as well. I am certain that more and more people like me or my friend James or another friend Austin studying for the clergy, will continue to come to this realization. Dialogue and civility are key to ensuring that evolution continues not just in the law but in our culture. And I think the way you articulated this when it comes to the SA is the right way to do so, I also want to point out that there are many within that denomination fighting the good fight but this fight will be a slower and more gradual one than the one occurring in courthouses and statehouses across the country. It’ll be harder but no less important to win over pulpits and preachers as well as judges and lawmakers.
is that there are far better, more accountable and more tolerant organizations to give to than the Salvation Army. How much we give all amounts to a net-sum game — after all, it really is a bottom line. If we give to the Salvation Army, far worthier and better organizations will lose out — organizations where there is no risk of any dollar received having the potential to be used as a means to fuel intolerance.
At least, that’s my impression from reading the materials I linked to above. Sometimes organizations change because they begin to think in a new way, and sometimes it’s because they literally can’t afford not to. Or both!
Certainly I wouldn’t want to tell you how to donate your money, and I get where you are coming from and recognize that many organized religions have significant bridges to build with the LGBTQ community. I think part of the problem in getting greater acceptance has been the idea that gays are somehow hostile to religion (rather than the other way around). I don’t buy into that logic for one second, but in dialogue with marriage equality opponents who are religious, that is a refrain we here over and over. That somehow religions will lose freedom or be forced to do something. I think continuing the dialogue and continuing to keep channels with the faith based opponents of SSM is a way to demonstrate how false this myth truly is.
When it comes to fighting for LGBTQ equality inside and outside the church, I can think of few people that have fought as hard as James to improve his denomination for the better. He and his family will be out this Christmas ringing bells, and I don’t think its fair to lump them in with the past words and actions of their denomination.
I think it’s both to be frank. Francis is cognizant that the Church has a massive credibility gap on sexual ethics due to the criminality and incompetence of it’s leadership in responding to the sex abuse crisis. It was heartening to see him dismiss bishops in the Dominican Republic or to hear priests get automatically defrocked under the new rules in Nebraska. The ‘who am I to judge line?’ is as much a statement of Francis’ own personal humility while also an admission that the papacy has lost significant amounts of credibility in this department. His shift is pragmatic as much as it is personal. I suspect both aspects are at play with the SA as well.
The way I see it, if they are responding to emptying pews and dwindling coffers as much as their own hearts changing, either way that is the holy spirit at work. From James in the SA, my future father in law and his successful fight to make a conservative church a reconciling one, Francis in the Vatican to a priest I knew well in Chicago who clandestinely blessed SSMs, there are plenty of faithful people on the right side of this issue and history.