A Primer on Protesting: Pants Edition

The recent Wear Pants to Church facebook event got me thinking about how to challenge Church culture.  There is a difference between (1) challenging non-doctrine-centered cultural norms within the Church’s membership and (2) criticizing the Church’s official teachings.  To do (2) is to attack the Church’s prophetic leaders and is not often indulged in by people who consider themselves devout members of the Church.  But to do (1) is the bread and butter of establishing Zion.  In fact, (1) is the primary reason members regularly gather together to review and learn the Church’s official teachings: we want to close the gap between our cultural practices and the Church's teachings.

I think that the Pants event was part of an effort to do (1) - not (2).  But the event was framed much too broadly.  And if it wasn't supposed to be about pants, it shouldn't have been titled Wear Pants to Church Day.  Because the event was framed so broadly, several people hijacked it to fuel their own agendas and reinforce their own prejudices.  Lots of journalists (and pseudo journalists) took advantage of the opportunity to report on how silly organized religion is, in general - and especially how silly the LDS Church is.  Others jumped at the chance to prove, once again, that LDS men hate and oppress LDS women.  Still others couldn't wait to point out that people who consider themselves LDS feminists just aren't fully persuaded that God loves them.  It was a free for all - and it was a bit of a blood bath.  Essentially, the event was eaten up by the discussion of whether the event was an attempt to do (1) or (2) - rather than a discussion of any actual issues.

In my opinion, we can be more successful in our attempts to do (1) - whether through a blog posting, Facebook discussion/event, Sacrament Meeting talk, Sunday School comment, etc - if we make clear from the outset that we're not trying to do (2) (assuming we truly are not trying to do (2)).  We might need to be ready to persuade people (especially, perhaps, those outside the Church) that we're not trying to do (2).  In which case, we simply need to be able to explain whether the Church has an official teaching on the topic and what it is.  As a rule, the Church's official teachings are not obscure.  The more public, unanimous, and current it is - the more official the teaching.  The Proclamation on the Family is a good example of an official teaching.  That thing somebody's seminary teacher said one time, is not.  

To be fair, the Wear Pants to Church Day event pointed out in its description that the Church does not require women to wear dresses.  But I think the point that the event was not an attempt to do (2) could have been made much more forcefully.  And I think a more specific purpose would have helped protect the event from hijacking, as well.  In the effort to bring non-Priesthood-related gender roles within Church culture in line with actual Church doctrine about gender roles, it would probably be easier to take one thing at a time.  If someone is in a ward where only men give the final talk in sacrament meeting (I honestly can't remember the last time I was in a ward like that, but I hear from all sides that they exist), maybe host an event where people invite their bishop to start having women speak last for a change.

Ultimately, I think the Pants event was good.  And I think it helped draw attention to some of the false traditions in the Church regarding gender roles.  But I think a greater degree of clarity would have both helped protect it from hijacking, and increased its likelihood of accomplishing real change.  The same goes for all of our efforts to bring Church culture into line with Church doctrine.