I had a great conversation last night with an open-minded TBM friend. He asked what I would change about the LDS church (if I could/if I cared). I said I would change the behaviorist approach, starting by eliminating home and visiting teaching, and well, most auxiliary programs for that matter. Here was my reasoning:
- By approaching service as a duty/obligation, the church undermines and nullifies instinctive human desires to serve.
I'm not saying that home and visiting teaching are never meaningful. I'm just saying that I think that love/service would exist without the structure, and would perhaps be more genuine and satisfying.
- By emphasizing programs that socially integrate (and keep active) members, the church fosters false connections and inauthenticity.
My guess is that, if the church dropped all its programs, the dynamic of membership would change dramatically. There would be fewer lonely individuals sustained by false friendships (you know who I'm talking about). I personally think this would be a good thing. Everyone deserves the chance to seek love, without being deceived by its counterfeit (pity). Also, perhaps more of those individuals less-committed to the mission and objectives of the religion would leave (unobstructed by a church-based social network), but that is because they really don't belong/want to be there! So also, they'd be better off.
I think such changes would help make the LDS church a more authentic place. But I still wouldn't want to be there. And anyway, it's not gonna happen - because over authenticity (heart), the church values its appearance (behavior).
10 comments:
People at BYU really had funny ideas about 'service'. I was walking into the Bookstore one day, and a couple of people were just standing there holding the door open for people.
"Oh, thanks," I said to one guy. "Why are you doing this?"
"Service project," he said.
Apparently, if you're putting your time in, one kind of service is as good as another.
I completely agree. I especially like how you don't dismiss the concept that people INCLUDING church members will naturally be both social and actively provide service. I think that too many pro church arguments take credit for the good work their members. I also thing anti-theists tend to insinuate that the people that do service within the framework of the church only do so because the church makes them. The truth is most people in the church genuinely care or they wouldn't find the church life very enjoyable, gut I think the forced nature of the service organizations you mention does have s significant corrupting influence on the natural tendency to do good work within all of us.
Thanks so much for your post!
I am conflicted about this message. I would like to agree, but a part of me believes that things wouldn't be so ideal.
After all, from talking with some rather candid believers (e.g., Seth R of Nine Moons come to mind), it seems that some members truly do feel that the church is a place that challenges them to serve people that they otherwise would simply be unlikely to choose to serve of their own volition.
Let's go with the Facebook analogy...with Facebook, we socialize with our close friends. We don't necessarily reach out toward "undesirable" people, or people we don't like. If left to our own devices, we don't seek all people...rather, we form cliques and seek likeminded thinkers.
So, that the church shakes things up changes the game (and provides opportunity for growth). You don't just get to home teach people you like or people who are "desirable" in the church way of viewing people. Instead, you are challenged to serve people you are not attracted to socially.
Andrew - very, very good point.
I've frequently had the experience of coming to care for people who I wouldn't "normally" come in contact with - at church, at school, at work, etc. Sometimes those individuals become my close friends. So I can see the potential for unexpected friendships as a benefit from home/visiting teaching.
BUT.
Do we NEED assignments and structure to foster such relationships? Is it true that, in the absence of encouragement, we would only seek relationships with like-minded persons? The fact that we experience this same phenomenon (of surprising ourselves by who we connect with)
in almost every environment - in our neighborhoods, at school, at work, at church, etc - makes me wonder if its just the nature of human friendship. Our paths cross with random people, and we forge connections that we wouldn't have anticipated.
Sarah,
Maybe Seth R and I are horrible people, but *yes*, I can say that in absence of encouragement, I would only seek relationships with like-minded persons.
Now, this definition of "like-minded" may be pretty broad...it might not be like-minded, but may include a bunch of random "value judgments" against a person.
I mean, not to be mean...but some people I know just seem..."crusty." I don't want to really be near them, much less serve and teach them. A home teaching assignment fixes that up in a hurry.
You suggested that some might think you are horrible for following your natural social inclinations (without external pressures to help you out of your comfort zone).
Do you think that makes you horrible? Which people would think its horrible, and most importantly, why do they think that?
What is it that makes our relationships valuable? Including relationships with people we didn't used to want to be near. Is part of the value what we feel it says about ourselves?
Ah, I have so many questions!!!!!
I don't think it makes me horrible. But to people who have ideals of selflessness and service, they could easily point out that selfless service also requires serving "the least of" people.
OR, let's say I was one of the "crusty" people. Let's say I was one of the undesirable people. Then wouldn't *I* possibly feel others who wouldn't serve/talk/fellowship with me are horrible? (To note, I actually wouldn't. If people leave me alone, that's generally a win.)
I don't know what it is that makes a relationship valuable, precisely.
I think humans are (generally)social beings. We look for ways to connect with others, according to varied needs.
Is it possible that the churches actually attract "crusty" people (grin) by providing social systems that will allow them to be somewhat integrated in spite of their social undesirability?
If such organizations did not exist, would these individuals adapt until they were able to meet their social needs?
Who knows. Such organizations, as the church, do exist...and so do socialized anti-social people. Determining which came first is perhaps a chicken or the egg scenario? :)
Meanwhile, I'd like to explore the tangent of "like-minded" in a future post...
Sarah, being social beings doesn't mean we will connect with everyone who needs to be connected with in just the right proportion. We will form cliques, we will have people we like, people we dislike.
Now, as *I've* been saying, I think that churches *do* attract crusty people EXACTLY by providing social systems that will allow them to be integrated in spite of their social undesirability.
If we did not have such organizations, we would need *other organizations* (maybe not churches, but something else), to integrate these people. It's not that *these individuals* will adapt (although I'm pretty sure that a good percentage of "crust"iness could be fixed with some work...)...it's that the greater society (e.g., US noncrusty people) need to adjust. Actually, we could say that the physically crusty is not so crusty at all...but the rest of us are spiritually crusty, for our judgment and shunning of the physically crusty.
The thing is, I don't think the "crusty" people are anti-social. The fact is, most of them are social too...that they can't meet their social desires is simply tragic from their social undesirability. The church simply serves as matchmaker for several "blind dates" which create social contact that otherwise never would have happened.
If you don't get to that new post, then I'll have to beat you to it :D
Spiritual crustiness and social natural selection...I love this stuff!!!
Looking forward to your post. I'll either get to mine sooner (as a procrastination mechanism) or later (after I finish my papers and turn them in). :)
Post a Comment