Over the past year I have read several parts of Rita Felski’s book, The Limits of Critique, a fascinating look at how the western world has constructed our form of critique. She argues, in part, that we assume that a critical distance is necessary from our subject, and that an adversarial and negative approach is necessary to being objective and finding truth. It’s similar to the frequent idea that in order to build something good you must tear down anything in the way. Felski suggests that this kind of approach is not the only one that works.

I think this kind of approach sometimes enters into how we think about Church. We assume that we should complain or criticize when something doesn’t seem right to us. And we assume a kind of critical distance from what happens, thinking that we are somehow not involved in how it happens.

But Church is not an academic or critical experience. We don’t gain anything from being distant from what happens at Church. Finding a better way to experience Church won’t come from telling the Bishop that this or that was wrong. What will help is being present and becoming involved. We need to talk and think about what happens at Church We need to ponder on our experiences and look at ourselves and how we are responding. The gold mine that will make our Church experience better lies between our ears.

So, what are you thinking in reaction to what happens in Church?

In these posts I am trying to suggest that each of us can have better experiences at Church if we take responsibility for our experiences, and if we are open to learning from what happens by pondering it — by thinking about it in many different ways. We can choose to learn and benefit from what happens regardless of whether it fits our perception of what is “good.” Thinking about our reactions and what we understand allows for revelation and for better understanding.

In this vein, I like the statement that President Hugh B. Brown made in a 1969 BYU devotional, President Hugh B. Brown declared that the Church is “not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.” We should be carefully considering what we hear at Church, regardless of whether what we heard is right or wrong, orthodox or heterodox. 

A lot of our thought depends on how we look at it. It is not different from what many artists figure out—they understand that how you see the  world before you is more important than what you see. You might call it ‘active listening’ or shifting perspective. It just means that you see differently. And seeing differently reveals a different world.

In my case, I tend to focus narrowly, thinking about groups of words or sentences, sometimes taking them out of context and thinking about what they say, even if the speaker didn’t intend what I heard. It’s not at all like what we’re taught in school, where the focus is on understanding accurately and completely what the speaker or text says. Its about pulling out useful or inspiring thoughts in spite of what was said.

So, if you aren’t thinking this way, maybe try it next Sunday, or the next time you are in a class or meeting. If you have already thoughts inspired by what happened at church, what are they? How did you react to what happened in Church yesterday? What did you notice? Did you end up thinking differently? Do you think your reactions were what they should be? Were they looking for what God had to tell you? Did your reactions make things better?

This is the latest invitation for reactions to local meetings, continuing a series of weekly posts that started with my post on September 25th about how we receive what happens in Church meetings—sermons, lessons and anything else—and enter a conversation with them, magnifying what was said or adding what we think. In these posts I’m asking us all to think about how we listen and receive what happens at Church. If we only listen for mistakes, or things that bother us, what does that say about us? Is it most important to criticize others? Or to try to change ourselves?

The point here is that no matter how poorly prepared the speaker or teacher is, or no matter how what happens triggers us, or is objectively or doctrinally wrong, we can still find elements in what is said and what happens that inspires and edifies us. Even if church meetings aren’t conducted in a way that reaches us, we can take responsibility and find a way to feel the spirit.