The Sabbath Day

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a good thought experiment, although I'm not sure if I would come to the same conclusion. I must admit that I cringe a bit when I see people go on and on about the 'community' that the church provides and how that is the primary reason for why they stay. My gut feeling is that 'community' is the consolation prize that people settle for when they no longer accept the church's fundamental theological or historical claims. The communal benefits of worship, I think, are more a byproduct of shared beliefs rather than a primary motivating force in most cases. That's not to say that many people don't attend or participate out of social pressure or a desire to not disappoint a spouse or a parent. Or sheer habit. But I don't think that those kinds of cases can be explained in terms promoting a sense of community. That generally feels to me like an ex post facto justification of what folks are already doing.

When you see lots of members begin to explain their participation in terms of 'community,' that's when you know you've got a problem on your hands.

Holy cow, that was cynical.

[Moliere]

Holy cow, that was cynical.

Guess that's why I agreed with it

[ERCougar]

I don't know, is there a church/denomination that has universally adopted the Marcus Borg approach? Or the Robin Meyer approach? (Meyer claims that his congregation is thriving). And Borg most definitely believes in a literal supernatural force. He doesn't believe in an anthropomorphic god and his god is more of an omnipresent, all-powerful, yet less-interventionist god, but he certainly believes in a literal god.

But your main point is valid and it is well articulated by LDS scholar Armand Mauss.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Angel-Beeh.../dp/0252020715

He argues that in order for the church to survive it has to find a balance or tension between being too crazy and too boring (my words - not his). Become too "normal" and you cease to exist. Become too fundamental and you cause other problems. He makes a convincing argument.

Yeah, I didn't word that very well, but it sounds like you caught my point anyway. I meant that a certain fundamentalism seems necessary to keep a congregation or religious movement growing. While Borg likely believes in a literal supernatural force, he doesn't accept many of the more fundamentalist Christian ideas (many of the miracle, resurrected Jesus, etc), and while Borg is certainly a favorite of mine, yours, and many others, he's not driving a congregation personally. I'm curious how the Unitarians are doing lately. I would think well, but anecdotally, they seem to be much more like the St George congregation--people who think it's a great group but are sort of halfhearted in their dedication--they take their summers off, only attend every other week, and I'm sure I read somewhere that Unitarians are the lowest givers among all religious organizations. Can you really build a thriving community off that kind of dedication? I hadn't heard of Robin Meyer, but a quick google search seems to confirm that he has something good going on, so maybe it's possible.

Interesting book. These issues were being discussed even back in 1994. Would be a fascinating second edition.

[Harry Tic]

Holy cow, that was cynical.

I guess I say that because the community argument is just the kind of thing I am inclined to often give. Community's a part of it, to be sure. The community argument is safe because it's impervious to the kinds of attack that critics make on the history, doctrine, and policies of the institutional church. No one can gainsay the claim that you go to church because of a sense of community or even responsibility to that community. But I wonder if that isn't just a stopgap measure. Ultimately, you have to nourish the community somehow, you have to bootstrap it out. I worry that we put too much weight on the community argument. Why not come to care deeply about the guys on your bowling team and define that as your community? Even Donny has his place.

That said, I am interested in a variation on the community argument, one that conceives of Mormon identity as something more akin to an ethnic or even tribal identity (maybe that's just a subcategory of the community argument) rather than a free-standing community grounded in nothing other than the contingent connections that have brought it into being. I realize that some may find that kind of idea terrible, but I have always been unabashed in acknowledging that my connections to Mormonism are in part tribal and not just a matter of consciously electing to belong to the community. Truth be told, I don't really even like the LDS community that much (present company on this board excepted) but my point is precisely that that's neither here nor there.

TL, DR: I tend to think that being a Mormon is, or should be, more or less like being a Jew.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a good thought experiment, although I'm not sure if I would come to the same conclusion. I must admit that I cringe a bit when I see people go on and on about the 'community' that the church provides and how that is the primary reason for why they stay. My gut feeling is that 'community' is the consolation prize that people settle for when they no longer accept the church's fundamental theological or historical claims. The communal benefits of worship, I think, are more a byproduct of shared beliefs rather than a primary motivating force in most cases. That's not to say that many people don't attend or participate out of social pressure or a desire to not disappoint a spouse or a parent. Or sheer habit. But I don't think that those kinds of cases can be explained in terms promoting a sense of community. That generally feels to me like an ex post facto justification of what folks are already doing.

When you see lots of members begin to explain their participation in terms of 'community,' that's when you know you've got a problem on your hands.

OK, I have a little more time to respond to this. I regret using the term "community" because it poorly expresses the point I was trying to make. I guess what I was trying to say was that making church more "entertaining" is probably going to be the least effective of any of the ideas expressed. You need some higher causes.

I certainly wouldn't classify myself as someone "just here for the community", but I have found that the experiences that impact me most deeply on a spiritual level come when I am fully engaged and interacting with and serving others. I found this quote recently that resonates with me:

What we may have thought was our private pathway to salvation, was intended all along as a collaborative enterprise, though we often miss the point. The confusion is understandable, since our current generation’s preference for “spirituality” over “religion” is often a sleight of hand that confuses true discipleship with self-absorption.

...

Holiness is found in how we treat others, not in how we contemplate the cosmos. As our experiences in marriages, families, and friendship teach us, it takes relationships to provide the friction that wears down our rough edges and sanctifies us. And then, and only then, those relationships become the environment in which those perfected virtues are best enjoyed.

Givens, Terryl; Fiona Givens (2012-10-01). The God Who Weeps: How Mormonism Makes Sense of Life (Kindle Locations 1826-1836). Deseret Book Company. Kindle Edition.

[ERCougar]

I guess I say that because the community argument is just the kind of thing I am inclined to often give. Community's a part of it, to be sure. The community argument is safe because it's impervious to the kinds of attack that critics make on the history, doctrine, and policies of the institutional church. No one can gainsay the claim that you go to church because of a sense of community or even responsibility to that community. But I wonder if that isn't just a stopgap measure. Ultimately, you have to nourish the community somehow, you have to bootstrap it out. I worry that we put too much weight on the community argument. Why not come to care deeply about the guys on your bowling team and define that as your community? Even Donny has his place.

That said, I am interested in a variation on the community argument, one that conceives of Mormon identity as something more akin to an ethnic or even tribal identity (maybe that's just a subcategory of the community argument) rather than a free-standing community grounded in nothing other than the contingent connections that have brought it into being. I realize that some may find that kind of idea terrible, but I have always been unabashed in acknowledging that my connections to Mormonism are in part tribal and not just a matter of consciously electing to belong to the community. Truth be told, I don't really even like the LDS community that much (present company on this board excepted) but my point is precisely that that's neither here nor there.

TL, DR: I tend to think that being a Mormon is, or should be, more or less like being a Jew.

Yes, I like this explanation much better. I don't go to church much these days, but when I do, I find a real value in hearing people who have very different ideas than I do, and yet still finding the goodness in them and the parts where we agree. So I don't agree that a community's strength is in its common beliefs, like you seemed to imply earlier--it lies in its diversity. I love Eugene England's thoughts on the truth of the Gospel really being in the day to day interactions with the other members, with whom you may not have a lot in common.

I just heard a nice idea from Krista Tippetts on this: Kindness is the tea, religion is the cup. Unfortunately, we get a little too focused on what the cup looks like.

[ERCougar]

OK, I have a little more time to respond to this. I regret using the term "community" because it poorly expresses the point I was trying to make. I guess what I was trying to say was that making church more "entertaining" is probably going to be the least effective of any of the ideas expressed. You need some higher causes.

I certainly wouldn't classify myself as someone "just here for the community", but I have found that the experiences that impact me most deeply on a spiritual level come when I am fully engaged and interacting with and serving others. I found this quote recently that resonates with me:

I got interrupted in the middle of my post, or I would have just seen this Givens quote and left it at that.

That's not to say I'm all on board with what happens in the LDS church these days. The organization isn't being run by the Givens et al.

[Harry Tic]

OK, I have a little more time to respond to this. I regret using the term "community" because it poorly expresses the point I was trying to make. I guess what I was trying to say was that making church more "entertaining" is probably going to be the least effective of any of the ideas expressed. You need some higher causes.

I certainly wouldn't classify myself as someone "just here for the community", but I have found that the experiences that impact me most deeply on a spiritual level come when I am fully engaged and interacting with and serving others. I found this quote recently that resonates with me:

I don't think it's just you. Or me. The word 'community' is bandied around a lot these days in the bloggernacle. And not just by us 'progmos' grasping at straws. Now, in my cynical moments, I am inclined to say that any use of the term 'community' in a religious context is a dead giveaway that someone no longer believes (I know that's not true, but I do think that for a lot of folks "community-talk" is just an ersatz way of saying that one no longer believes but hasn't yet found the exit. Can I get an amen, SU?).

The Givens' shtick, I think, is mostly devotional even if it is often construed as apologetic. I mean, who would possibly disagree with a passage like that? The experience is real and they express it much better than I could. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to use those very lines in a sacrament meeting talk myself. But I guess my point is that that kind of argument (that is, if we take it as an argument and not just a homiletic gesture) won't get us too far because there's nothing in that particular description of community that is unique to us as LDS. At the end of the day, we need something more.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think it's just you. Or me. The word 'community' is bandied around a lot these days in the bloggernacle. And not just by us 'progmos' grasping at straws. Now, in my cynical moments, I am inclined to say that any use of the term 'community' in a religious context is a dead giveaway that someone no longer believes (I know that's not true, but I do think that for a lot of folks "community-talk" is just an ersatz way of saying that one no longer believes but hasn't yet found the exit. Can I get an amen, SU?).

The Givens' shtick, I think, is mostly devotional even if it is often construed as apologetic. I mean, who would possibly disagree with a passage like that? The experience is real and they express it much better than I could. In fact, I wouldn't hesitate to use those very lines in a sacrament meeting talk myself. But I guess my point is that that kind of argument (that is, if we take it as an argument and not just a homiletic gesture) won't get us too far because there's nothing in that particular description of community that is unique to us as LDS. At the end of the day, we need something more.

Why would it have to be unique to us as LDS in order to be compelling (especially when combined with the cultural identity thing you articulated and other factors)? I.e., why can't one find great value in an LDS religious experience but at the same time recognize that others may fine equally valuable experiences in other faiths (or without faith)?

[Harry Tic]

Why would it have to be unique to us as LDS in order to be compelling (especially when combined with the cultural identity thing you articulated and other factors)? I.e., why can't one find great value in an LDS religious experience but at the same time recognize that others may fine equally valuable experiences in other faiths (or without faith)?

I didn't think the question was whether it was compelling but whether it would be sufficient to nail us to the LDS faith. I can imagine one could have just such an experience as a member of the LDS church but then wander over to the Catholics and have the same kind of experience, just as powerfully. I guess the point I'm trying to make (not that it's necessarily worth making) is that I think that there's something just off-kilter in our recourse to community-talk to justify or explain our attachment to the LDS faith. Maybe it's related to my misgivings about the casual use of community-talk in other contexts (e.g., the "gay community," the "Latino community," and so on. I tend to think the term in those contexts is used more aspirationally and not descriptively).

I suppose I'm saying that I'd like to find other, more theologically substantive, vocabularies for describing how we are attached to the faith without resorting to litmus tests like laundry lists of dogmatic statements that one must either accept or reject. Common, shared experiences of mutual worship and service are important. But my gut feeling is that that's not enough either.

[creekster]

As a no-longer-religious-guy, Sundays are *great* for spending time with my kids: disc-golf, swimming, games, park, sports practice, movies, etc. I feel sorry for folks who are artificially restricted from enjoying whatever they want to enjoy with family and friends. I mourn all the wasted Sunday time from when I was religious.

That's a very patronizing and smugly self-satisfied statement. Even so I'm very glad you're so happy now.

[byu71]

As a no-longer-religious-guy, Sundays are *great* for spending time with my kids: disc-golf, swimming, games, park, sports practice, movies, etc. I feel sorry for folks who are artificially restricted from enjoying whatever they want to enjoy with family and friends. I mourn all the wasted Sunday time from when I was religious.

artificially restricted? I believe in the rewards that come from working although out golfing, traveling, etc. would be more "fun". Having to work and provide is that also another form of artificial restriction.

I do have a liberal interpretation of keeping the Sabbath Holy, but I certainly don't feel sorry for those who choose a strict interpretation.

[smokymountainrain]

As a no-longer-religious-guy, Sundays are *great* for spending time with my kids: disc-golf, swimming, games, park, sports practice, movies, etc. I feel sorry for folks who are artificially restricted from enjoying whatever they want to enjoy with family and friends. I mourn all the wasted Sunday time from when I was religious.

You know people who don't do whatever they want to enjoy with family and friends on Sundays? Like, adults? I've never met anybody like that. Fascinating.

[TripletDaddy]

That's a very patronizing and smugly self-satisfied statement. Even so I'm very glad you're so happy now.

actually he doesn't sound happy at all. He is mourning.

[Joe Public]

actually he doesn't sound happy at all. He is mourning.

His mojo is suboptimal.