"Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
Matthew 10:30
I have been thinking long and hard about the war of ideologies we are in. On both sides, people are fighting so hard to prove themselves right, especially on the internet. We talk about principles and doctrines, but we rarely talk about individuals.
In his talk, "The Worth of Souls is Great!" Elder Paul H. Dunn makes an important point, in a time before internet really existed. In talking about a schoolhouse, he said:
"...Along with the wonderful new discoveries in education, the emphasis must still be placed upon the individual and upon his needs and relationships with others....I understand from what the Lord has revealed to us through the prophets that people are his greatest concern. We are his children. We are somebody, as Elder Ashton so wonderfully stated this morning. We are his children, and he continually reveals himself through the prophets so that one day we can be like him.
Programs, then, wonderfully inspired programs, like the Sabbath, exist to help people. If we are not careful, it is very easy to put the mechanics of the program ahead of the person."
This is perfectly timely for me. The internet is full of people who denigrate religion and conservative politics. It is trendy and easy to be "progressive." Often, in the pursuit of progress, the very people who claim to be open-minded become just as bigoted as the worst conservative. To me, they are no different.
Being open-minded requires patience, an ability to ask questions, a quiet confidence in personal beliefs that can avoid reacting defensively when attacked.
But the biggest tragedy, to me, is when believing members of the Church, those who feel like they are disciples of Christ, focus so much on preaching principles they forget about ministering to the one. I don't know how successful I am, but when I blog, I try to always remember the people who might read what I write.
Christ taught by ministering to individuals. He urged principles, but without ever forgetting the individual value of souls. If we wish to truly follow Him, can we do less?
- Reason and Truth Rattling Around My Brain by Nathaniel Givens
- Watchman, Warn the Wicked by G
- Moral Foundations and Sacred Testimony by Daniel Ortner
- Doubts and People by Walker Wright
- Are We Listening to Their Warnings? by Jan Tolman
- The Political is Personal by Marilyn Nielson
Thanks for your reminder that above all we must cherish the one. Beautifully said!
ReplyDeleteI admittedly struggle with knowing how best to communicate on Gospel subjects online. On the one hand, a true ministerial relationship is best built over time on a one-on-one basis. On the other hand, the Internet is not conducive to such development of relationships. Of course developing these relationships should still be the goal, but it is unfortunately unrealistic (at least to me -- perhaps others are skilled in ways I am not) in most online interactions.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, what then can we do? How do we show love for those online -- many of whom the most we will ever know of them, their hopes and dreams, their trials and triumphs is to vaguely recall their username -- if we struggle to develop those relationships in that setting?
I know, for a large number of people on both side of whatever the argument de jour is, the answer amounts to tempering the doctrine (and I know you well enough from your posts to know that is not what you are advocating here). It seems that there are those who recognize the need to leave the 99 and to seek the 1, but instead of taking them on their shoulders and bringing them home to the fold they seek them out only to attempt to rebuild the fold wherever they find them. Likewise there are those who wander, demanding that others come look for them, yet become indignant when the shepherds try to bring them back to the flock instead of letting them remain where they have wandered to (and I find myself in this category far more often than is comfortable).
I often see the best thing that I can do online is to act as a counter to that particular approach. I understand what you are saying about the principle being more important than the person, and perhaps it happens. But, in the eternal scheme of things the greatest thing we can do for those we love is to help them to repent (speaking from experience -- I have been greatly blessed by others who called on me to repent). If my own life is a guide, repentance can solve about 90% of our problems in mortality and certainly repentance can solve 100% of our problems in the long-run view (eternity). And, if we believe Elder Packer, "True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior." In an online setting, I've concluded the best way I can show love to someone is to clearly present the principles of the Gospel.
I admit I don't know the best way to testify online -- I muddle through more than I would like and often consider and reconsider what to post (and I am sure I get things wrong). But my general standard is that the best thing I can do is to post whatever tends to motivate people to repent and that is through elucidating principles to the best of my ability. Because, in the grand scheme of things, I am less grateful to the people who made me feel good than I am to the people who are helping me become good.
I think I can see your point, Jonathan. But I would counter with this: if the internet is not a good place to build the one-on-one interactions necessary for a ministerial approach, then does it have much hope of touching hearts at all?
ReplyDeleteRather, I submit that a one-on-one interaction, while ideal, is not necessary to inspire change. Of course the principles of the Gospel must be taught with clarity, but if they are not also taught with charity, they are not of God. It doesn't matter what you say if you are not representing God and His view of His children when you say it. People don't listen until they are first understood.
I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, but I submit that if you are trying to "counter" the teaching methods of Satan, you are only playing into his game. The spirit of contention is not of God. As disciples of Christ, we can afford to humble before we are right, because we know in whom we have trusted.
I think that "elucidating principles" is always a good thing when accompanied by a demonstration of charity. If your points are too long in a blog post to afford paragraphs which demonstrate charity towards your audience, maybe they should be narrowed until you have enough room.
Take a look at the biggest conservative blog. You know who rarely goes there? People struggling, looking for answers, and ways to believe in God. Think about that....why do you think that is not considered a safe place for people who doubt? They have made themselves a safe place for people who already feel they have the answers, but have closed the doors to those who are still in this mortal realm.
There are examples in scripture of people like that, and it is not a good place to be.
Christ descended into the dregs of mortality. Yes, you are right, he always lifted people up, brought them back to the fold. But why did the sheep want to follow Him there?
I appreciate your response. I hope you don't mind, but since this is a topic of thought and concern for me lately, I would like to continue the conversation (long post forthcoming).
ReplyDelete"I hope this doesn't sound too harsh, but I submit that if you are trying to "counter" the teaching methods of Satan, you are only playing into his game."
Not at all, I understand where you are coming from. And even if you were alleging that I was being Satanic in my approach, my hope would be that you would make a good argument for that position so that I could see it -- better a moment of painful recognition than a lifetime of poor behavior.
With that said, I am very aware of at least some of my deficiencies in this area, and I struggle to know where to balance certain things. I don't see eye to eye with you (as you will see), but that doesn't mean that I don't think that perhaps I need to move some in your direction.
"The spirit of contention is not of God. As disciples of Christ, we can afford to humble before we are right, because we know in whom we have trusted."
I couldn't agree more. One time I went through the Book of Mormon just isolating times when people were doctrinally correct but nevertheless wrong for engaging in contention -- it is there throughout, including some very direct examples.
But contention is not what I am talking about here. It is not uncommon to find a post online directly contrary to the doctrine (sometimes with criticisms of Priesthood leaders thrown in for good measure), followed by two dozen comments about how brave the poster is or how much they love the comments made. Yet if someone makes a post disagreeing with the premise, it is considered hateful or bigoted. To me, I do not see the presentation of doctrine as axiomatically contentious. Our current online environment seems to permit a heckler's veto of the doctrine by the person most prone to take offense.
Call it what you will, I believe that the truth needs to be spoken. I would love to know a more effective way of doing so, though, because you are very correct that oftentimes it seems to be ineffective (though admittedly I don't and cannot know the ultimate results).
"if the internet is not a good place to build the one-on-one interactions necessary for a ministerial approach, then does it have much hope of touching hearts at all?"
The scriptures lack one-on-one interactions as well, and yet it can touch people's hearts. That is one reason why I am a proponent of undiluted doctrine as it seems to be the best thing to bring the Spirit (which does have that one-to-one relationship with each reader) in hopes of Him doing His own work.
"If your points are too long in a blog post to afford paragraphs which demonstrate charity towards your audience, maybe they should be narrowed until you have enough room."
ReplyDeleteI don't disagree -- the reason for the doctrine is love. Again, speaking of the counterbalance I was talking about, it seems that for many paragraphs of demonstrations of love are made but there is little effort to either proclaim the Gospel or explain why the doctrine is loving. When someone is sinning, it is well and truly good to say "I love you" and "I understand where you are coming from" but while these sentiments must be genuine, they are also only meaningful and worthwhile if done with an eye towards that person's repentance. Unless we help the person to repent we have not helped them in any meaningful way -- we have just given them a more comfortable handbasket for their trip to Hell.
"Take a look at the biggest conservative blog. You know who rarely goes there? People struggling, looking for answers, and ways to believe in God."
You and I will have to disagree on this one. I went through a difficult time that resulted in me losing my faith completely (best described as a hard agnostic). There were lots of blogs on the Internet that told me that it was OK to doubt, and some even encouraged the doubts, but there are precious few who will say that you can go through that period of doubt and come out on the other side with a stronger testimony than you had before. The site you referenced is one of them, and I give credit to that site (and Jeff Lindsay) for helping me work through my difficult time and come to where I am today. I was struggling, looking for answers, and for ways to believe in God -- and I found them there. I consider myself blessed to have chanced upon that site instead of any number of others that could have led me down dramatically different paths.
I am not trying to convince you that this site is perfect, but there are plenty of places that embrace or even encourage doubts -- and what is encouraged and embraced increases (Economics 101). People should hear more often that doubts need not be permanent, and that site fills a vital niche in my opinion.
"Christ descended into the dregs of mortality. Yes, you are right, he always lifted people up, brought them back to the fold. But why did the sheep want to follow Him there?"
And here is the crux of the matter. I genuinely don't know if what I am doing online is effective. I think we can both agree that ultimately no clever argument or compassionate plea can replace the converting power of the Spirit, and the question is how best to invite the Spirit. I appreciate you taking the time to have this dialogue with me, as this is something that I have been questioning myself lately as well. I have been so very blessed to have had people help me get from where I was to where I am now (and admittedly I have a long way to go), and I would love to figure out how to be more effective in helping others in that same manner.
For some reason, I didn’t get notifications that you had posted these until recently. In the off-chance you haven’t completely moved on, I thought I’d try to continue the conversation.
Delete“And even if you were alleging that I was being Satanic in my approach, my hope would be that you would make a good argument for that position so that I could see it”
I’m not alleging that at all! I’m not even aiming this at you. I enjoy your posts. What I meant is that Satan’s aim is to distract us, make us distant from God. No matter how he accomplishes this, he rejoices in that result. If the people who claim to be on God’s side attack us, it certainly doesn’t make us closer to Him.
I do not argue that pure doctrine is important. But no one will listen to it if you don’t listen to them. I do not think that testifying is bigoted, nor do I think such accusations are just. But it is worth taking a few extra minutes to try to word things in ways that don’t put people on the defensive. I don’t know how successful I am at it, but I’ve tried for years.
Hecklers can’t veto doctrine. In that kind of environment, our capacity to testify is limited.
But I’m speaking, not against the tendency to comment, but the tendency to create a fortress for the “believing” and make critical posts in counterargument. That is not of God. That is nothing like what Christ did. Truth has to be spoken, yes, but if it is not spoken by the power of charity, it is nothing. Worthless. In fact, I argue that it isn’t truth.
Truth is God, and He himself said that if our spirits are not contrite (D&C 52), we are not of God. And if we are not of God, it doesn’t matter what words we say, we are not speaking truth. Truth is so much more than a Hellenistic idea of fact. Truth is not just empirical. It is situational. (D&C 50:17-23) The word of truth and the spirit of truth are not the same.
The scriptures can communicate truth only when the heart of the reader is filled with the Spirit. That is the answer you seek. I have tried for the last several years to only speak if I feel moved by the Spirit to speak. I hope it has helped.
I am glad you found help there. I didn’t say it helped no one. I said it was rare. I may be wrong in that. Truthfully, I have struggled because of my past association with people there and how I was treated. It wasn’t horrible. But it was further corroboration that I do not belong among the faithful when I was already struggling with that. It is why I stopped going there. And most of the posts since have portrayed an increasing air of self-righteousness over compassion.
I believe that there is a place and time for almost every kind of missionary work. I truly do. Just because I’m urging a particular aspect of missionary work doesn’t mean I think the others are entirely invalid. But I think those others would be more effective if tempered with compassion and charity.
Nope, I am stubborn enough that I haven't moved on (especially since, as I mentioned, this is an area of thought and concern for me). I agree with the majority of what you wrote, barring maybe your definition of "truth" (depending on if I understand you).
Delete"But it is worth taking a few extra minutes to try to word things in ways that don’t put people on the defensive."
My problem (and it may simply be my problem) is that when I spend too much time trying to word things in that way I find my posts devolve into something that is further rather than closer to the truth. It wouldn't surprise me if that was a personal weakness rather than something universal, however. How I've chosen to address this is to draft something and then read it again to see if there is anything that gratifies my pride or doesn't show love. If I find anything like that I excise it out. If I can get my pride out of the way, then whatever is left will hopefully be of some use to someone.
"But I’m speaking, not against the tendency to comment, but the tendency to create a fortress for the “believing” and make critical posts in counterargument."
"But it was further corroboration that I do not belong among the faithful when I was already struggling with that."
There is a Nibley quote that I absolutely love. "Who is righteous? Anyone who is repenting. No matter how bad he has been, if he is repenting he is a righteous man. There is hope for him. And no matter how good he has been all his life, if he is not repenting, he is a wicked man."
I have shortened it for my own memory to simply state that:
"There are no righteous or unrighteous -- only the repentant and the unrepentant."
(This is one of my two main life axioms that I strive to remember in my online interaction -- the other being "A man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument").
I think this is the near universal answer to so many problems that we face. When you say you "do not belong among the faithful," I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. But if the faithful are those who are repenting and you choose that path you belong among them. There cannot be a fortress of "believers" in any meaningful sense with that view of things.
I acknowledge that there is a sense of unbelonging that exists (both fostered by the "gatekeepers" and by those finding themselves "outside") -- particularly in some difficult cases. So many people find themselves on the outside -- you know some of my history and I know some of yours, and we each have points where we could be described as on the outside looking in. Pick a hot button topic online, and you will find the same inside/outside tension.
But my experience has also taught me that belonging and unbelonging are choices that we each make. When you say that you "don't belong among the faithful" that (at best) only tells half the story. You perhaps don't fit the culture. But each one of us, regardless of what divides us (whether in or outside of our control), may choose to belong or not belong in the only way that really matters by choosing to be repentant or unrepentant. I find in myself, with my experience being on the outside, a strong desire to let everyone know that unbelonging (like unbelieving) is not a permanent condition (no matter the cause).
As for the issue of truth? Well my experience tends to be that there is absolute Truth. While I do agree that our understanding of things is far from perfect, I don't believe truth is situational. I believe that true principles are universal, but our understanding of them are so limited as to make them appear that way.
DeleteI've recently tried giving my five-year-old the responsibility for loading the dishwasher, and he is struggling. The beginning task was to rinse the dishes and then load them. But then he got the first exception (certain plastic items don't go in the dishwasher). Then he learned that cast iron doesn't go into the dishwasher. Then sharp knives do go into the dishwasher, but only Dad loads them. To his mind, the process of loading the dishwasher likely seems like an absolute mess of arbitrary rules. Yet, from my more mature perspective, there are certain clear principles -- get the dishes clean, don't damage the dishes that would be hurt by going into the dishwasher, and (especially) don't have little hands get hurt handling sharp knives.
I think, when we get to the other side, we will find that Truth is far less relative than we imagine it to be and instead we have constructed a spider-web of semi-arbitrary rules (extraordinarily necessary ones, in our current fallen state) to compensate for the deficiencies of moral maturity that we have when compared to our Father. In the end, the dual law likely is "Love God and Love One Another" and everything else is to show us how to do that because (like my little boy) even being taught the principle we need clear guidance on the application to avoid hurting ourselves or others.
You have so many good points to talk about, but my focus is limited, so I'm going to start with the two biggest ones.
DeleteAbout belonging:
Yes, I see your perspective and agree with it. The people who belong are the people who Christ says belong, which is all the repentant. But that isn't much practical use in the here and now when the mortal soul aches for a sense of community and can't find it anywhere. Many people change their values to match a community, because the sense of belonging is more important than being right. (All subconscious, of course. Not many would make that choice consciously.) I haven't been able to do that, which is why one of the few labels I affix to myself doesn't feel like it fits.
The image that came into my mind was, strangely, Nephi's dream. It is telling that the symbol of righteousness was not a building, it was an open space with a beacon (the tree,) and that beacon was representative of the love of God.
About truth:
I knew when I said it that it would sound like relativism, even though that isn't at all what I meant. I, also, believe that there is absolute Truth. I just don't think that Truth is limited to facts.
Going back to Nephi's dream, the fruit of the tree was not knowledge. It was love. That is important. Two trees in the Garden: the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. Both good, both of God, both necessary to exaltation. Truth encompasses them both.
So when I say that truth is situational, I do not mean it is relative.
This may be an awkward analogy, but I'm going to use the one you made. Imagine that you are teaching your son to load the dishes. You can teach him dispassionately, repeating the correct principles every time he messes up, with no harshness, but with no compassion. Imagine that every time he messes up, you explain the correct way in more detail, more precisely, and more firmly. How do you think he might learn compared to teaching him with compassion when he does something wrong: smiling, making a joke, patting him on the back and telling him it's okay if he breaks a few dishes on the way, giving him your confidence in him that he will do better next time?
He might learn to do the dishes the right way no matter how you teach. He may throw up his hands and refuse, either way. But if he chooses to learn, if you teach with compassion he will not only learn the practice of doing dishes the right way, he may also bond more deeply with you, remember you when he does them, and find joy in doing them because of the positive memories.
Both are factually accurate. But one is true.
Does my awkward illustration make any sense of what I'm trying to say?
Your illustration was not awkward -- it makes perfect sense, and I find it convincing.
ReplyDeleteI also understand what you are saying about belonging. But I suppose my experience has led me to some slightly different conclusions.
C. S. Lewis said (paraphrasing) that the soul of man is made to run on God's love, and whenever we substitute something for God's love as a source of our happiness we invite misery. You said:
"But that isn't much practical use in the here and now when the mortal soul aches for a sense of community and can't find it anywhere."
But I think, in my life, my period of isolation from my community ended up being a profound blessing. I loved the feeling of community and I loved the Lord. But you were very right that I changed in ways to match my community -- and as good as that community was, any deviation from the Lord's will is sufficient to set us on the wrong course. What I found, being isolated from the community, was instead that the Lord was sufficient. It changed the way that I associate with the community (what I look for from it and what I provide to it) in ways that I likely could never have learned without my isolation from my community. I find now that I am able to reenter my community, rejoice with them, find a sense of belonging, and at the same time recognize that the value of that community (as pleasant and important as it is) is not a necessity and doesn't replace a relationship with the Lord. I expect from reading what you have written that you have come to that same conclusion, though without some of the comfort in that understanding that the Lord for whatever reason has given to me.
I suppose that it gets back to the utility of suffering. I don't think belonging was good for me or for the community until I learned the painful lessons that I needed to learn. So where I disagree with you is your belief that belonging with Christ has no practical use when our souls ache to belong with those around us. Yes, maybe it isn't enough as we are, but through Grace we don't need to stay who we are.
That being said, once again, I don't think we differ that much. And, having this conversation has given me some good concepts to consider in talking about the Church online (though applying them will be an altogether different challenge for me). Thank you for taking the time.
I think you're right, that we don't differ much.
DeleteTwo thoughts when I read what you wrote:
First, I have never felt that sense of belonging anywhere. I'm not separated for a time. I don't have a community. I don't think it is wrong for me to wish it was otherwise. Zion is community. Fellowship is part of heaven.
Secondly, my relationship with the Lord is...pretty damaged. I trust Him, but I have no faith in my ability to know what He wants me to do, and no belief that I'm even relevant any more. Logically, I can think through this. But conviction is rooted in emotion, and emotions don't always respond to logic.
I'm the man with one talent. It's easy to judge him. What the story didn't say is that he was scared of losing the talent because he was once the one given five, and he lost them all.
It's not so easy to just stop being scared. It is a lack of faith, yes. But it is a lack of faith in myself. I don't see that changing in this life. I've tried.