HEResy: Exploring Authoritarianism in the Church
Authoritarianism is a type of political regime in which a single hegemonic entity consolidates executive power using a number of tools such as coercion, clientelist networks, or military force. A single person can be authoritarian, but so can an entire government or organization. In any case, these actors restrict liberty and rely on structural inequality to assert dominance across a system. Authoritarianism is not uncommon; it exists in every corner of the world in numerous capacities (think Russia, China, Iran, and Donald Trump). Political scientists classify people and countries as authoritarian if they display behavioral patterns that fit the criteria established above. Do they create bureaucratic systems that reward friends and punish enemies? Do they ostracize dissenters and threaten them for their defiance? Do they arbitrarily deny power to certain groups in order to establish a clear hierarchy? Essentially, if ordinary people, regardless of their background, are unable to access authority or challenge those who have it, that means a system is authoritarian.
Living in the United States of America, we have high expectations for democracy, even when our leaders do not. For this reason, authoritarianism can often feel foreign or abstract, when in reality it exists quite close to home. I could point to the current federal administration or the GOP to illustrate this concept, but I think a better demonstration of authoritarianism is the Church. Yes, that one. For those of us who haven’t yet denounced it entirely—our church. As proponents of progress, we have a mandate to first critique organizations that matter to us and then, when possible, generate real change based on those evaluations, and to create the church as it ought to be. A church for women, a church for the queer community, a for the poor and downtrodden: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So here goes nothing.
The Church is an authoritarian organization largely because of the way it consolidates and distributes power among members and leaders. Given what you now know about authoritarianism, or maybe what you knew before, I’m sure you could come up with hundreds of reasons as to why this might be true. But I would like to focus on one reason in particular, namely that it systematically denies an entire demographic access to authority and positions of power. The demographic in question? Women. In the church, authority is explicitly tied to the priesthood. This link is not based on arbitrary access, but rather on the ability one has to hold it and therefore confer it upon others. Sure, leaders of the church have said that women are capable of using the priesthood in their own way, but these statements are entirely unproductive. They do not solve the core issue of authority: who has it, and who does not?
A key aspect of any political regime, authoritarian or not, is agenda-setting power. This term refers to the ability one has to establish precedent and execute a strategy or plan on behalf of a country, or in this case, a religion. In the church, those with agenda-setting power are men. You need the priesthood to be a bishop, you need the priesthood to be a stake president, you need the priesthood to be an area seventy, you need the priesthood to be an apostle, you need the priesthood to be a prophet, and you even need it to be a Sunday school president. These positions in the church enable those who hold them to set an agenda, whether for a ward, a stake, an area, or the whole damn church. Women might have power over women, but men have power over everyone. Seems fishy to me.
I think it might be time for a personal plug: I was sitting in church one Sunday when my bishop made an announcement about a set of activities that would be happening the following week. There was nothing inherently wrong with his plans, but I wasn’t a fan. I remember thinking to myself, “When I’m the bishop, I’ll do things differently.” I felt content for a whole minute before I realized I would never be the bishop and I would never have a chance to do things differently. I had forgotten I was a woman. In the case of the marginalized, forgetting who we are is something we should never do. Indeed, our unique identities and perspectives are the most powerful tools we have to fight against unjust institutions.
How do we combat authoritarianism, not only in the church but wherever we find it? In my view, there are two equally important routes to change, one that occurs at the top and another that occurs at the bottom among people like you and me. The antithesis of authoritarianism is democracy, and democracy is about deregulating access to authority and spreading it among as many people as possible. In order for change to occur at the top, leaders of the church would need to suddenly decide that women and other disempowered groups can access authority in the same way men can. If they were to do so, they would need to either dismantle the hierarchy they have established in which positions of power derive their authority from the priesthood or grant the priesthood universally among members of the church. Neither seems likely. That leaves us with one last option… well, maybe two. The first would be to leave. If you need to get out, please do so, because nothing is worth your identity or your life. But for those of you who choose to stay, I would say this: if you are denied authority in any capacity, claim instead the innate authority you have simply by virtue of being who you are. As Jesus Christ once said, gird up thy loins and empower thy selves—and then empower others.