Church Power, Governance, and Private Voluntary Organizations

In her recent editorial about ecclesiastical actions and women, acclaimed author Terry Tempest Williams wrote, while referring to “spiritual patrimony” of “organizational misogyny”:

This kind of governance is not tolerated in the United States of America. And it should not be tolerated by those of us who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The word governance here opens an intriguing avenue of comprehending Mormonism.  This is particularly clear if we compare it with another term used by a contrasting writer (this time an attorney), Ashley Isaacson Woolley:  

A church is a voluntary private association based on shared convictions (one of which, for Mormonism, is the inspired calling of leaders).

In this sling-fest of contrasting terms from the conflict over so called “courts of love” these two ideas governance--something that seems to pertain to the state, versus  private, voluntary organization we see contrasting idea of what a Church is and does. 

Both of these words locate churches as one category or another of social reality within a modern state, where ostensibly states are different from non-state organizations. This separation is an oddity of contemporary legal life. You see it in the different legal standards which apply to public (read governmental) organizations as opposed to private ones (read non-governmental). 

While these terms seem simple statements of fact -- after all you can easily see the difference between what is government and what is not, can’t you? -- in fact social life is much more messy than this. Government interpenetrates no-governmental organizations and they, in turn, use government.  

Furthermore, these terms are kinds of procrustean beds applied by powerful institutions to forcibly organize society in their terms, even when such is not its organic nature. Without going into detail, I can simply explain this by referring to the Mormon transition from a nineteenth century society into a twentieth century Church. 

The word church, itself, displays the problems of this simplistic separation of private from government and its normative nature.  Max Weber, a founder of the sociology of religion, actually struggled with this. His definition barely distinguishes church and state, and then only on the fact that the state is territorial, while the church may potentially not be, and that the state has a monopoly on violence while the power of the church is supposed to mostly be psychological by limiting access to salvation.  

The casuistry of Weber’s separation, and its historical and empirical problems since churches and states still interpenetrate in much of the world, demonstrate why the separation of the two is a problem, as does the government / private distinction. 

But there is more. In its origins the word government referred, as best I recall since I do not have the ability to check source at the moment, to the organization and management of a household, or to the directing through leadership of a ship or some such. As such, the very word carries inherent notions of Western patriarchy and hierarchy. 

Terry Tempest Williams suggests that there are principles of equality in governance and of the rights of the governed as well as the governed that spread broadly in society that run counter to this. She is suggesting, per contra Woolley that these notions, though they may have origin in notions pertaining to the state, also set a moral stance for evaluating private organizations. They widely influence people’s perceptions of propriety, despite legal niceties or peculiarities. 

Beyond that, it is worth noting that Mormonism is not well described, even today, as a private voluntary organization. The LDS Church, at least in the mountain West of the US is still a para-state, that is it carries out many state functions, such as welfare, organization of economy, and it is territorial. It also is strongly intertwined with society, another word derived to separate the state from church in Europe. As a result, for this region it makes little sense to insist on it as private and voluntary, since it is neither in the strict sense. 

Outside the region, the Church may be more such, but it still maintains senses of a para state, now a transnational society beyond the state. The tensions between it and state processes and functions are numerous, but one is worth mentioning in this brief space.  The church is not its legal existence, it is beyond that, as Church attorneys know as they have struggled to fit the ideals of Church functioning into the enormous variety of national and international laws that would define it differently. 

As a result, the Church's legal existence as an ostensibly private voluntary organization  requires relating to its existence as a government that must also engage the will of its members. Their will is never simply limited to affirmation or exit, despite how some might will it.  

As an organization, the LDS Church lives tensions, including those between some of its governors and some of its society. These are inherent and are natural, as are arguments that it is inappropriate to organize and push for change and those that see members organized concerns as natural as independently forming a Primary or a Sunday School.  Governance, whether of a state or a private voluntary organization is about managing these tensions.  

Many of those tensions are struggles over imposing notions of the Church's essence through simple statements, i.e. "the Church is . . ."

Many analysts of Mormon life would rather purify the categories to remove the categorical messiness that is, in reality, part of Mormon life.  

As some leaders of the Church push for Church Courts on people now defined as dissidents, it is important to remember that all this is in a field of argument where all the sides are legitimate, even if they would bring closure, such that the other side is no longer legitimate.  Mormonism is both president Packer and President Uchtdorf, both "you can`t do that" and "Ordain Women."  The one is really not without the other at this moment, nor can they be without some such in the future.