Church in Contrast: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 7/5?

Have you ever compared two different Church meetings? Maybe Sunday School lessons in two different wards on the same day? I did yesterday, and the two Sunday School lessons were very different. But I learned something in each case.

One lesson was much more to my preference—discussion based, less dogmatic, exploring. The other was more formal, with traditional approaches and conclusions and not much insight. But even though I didn’t care for the teaching style, I had an insight part-way through the lesson that changed how I see a frequently cited scripture in the lesson.

How? I participated. I reacted to the teacher, the topic and the lesson. I spoke up. And I thought about the implications of what was said and what I said. That participation made all the difference. When we are engaged in reacting and thinking about what happens at church, our brains find ideas that might not have been said. In this way we can be inspired and gain better understanding, even if the meeting is saying things that aren’t correct.

So, how do you participate in Church? Are you engaged in what happens?

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.

So please, write down reactions and thoughts to what happened in Church. You might keep your own ‘spiritual journal’, or, if you like, you can post your reactions below. I’m adding my own reactions and thoughts as a comment to this post — instead of as a part of this post, because my reactions aren’t any better than anyone else’s.

Let me emphasize that this is NOT a place to criticize what is wrong with church or your fellow congregants. The point is to post what you learned because of what happened at Church or how that led you to think. It’s about the good things we can get out of Church, not the negative things that disturbed or upset us. It doesn’t have to be orthodox, traditional or even on topic.

If you like, make your response in the format, “They said or did this, and I said or thought that.” Even the things you dislike the most can be turned into lessons for what the gospel teaches we should do.

My hope is that these reactions serve as an example of a better way to treat what happens at Church instead of the perennial complaints about speaker or teacher preparation or ability, or complaints that the Church should do things differently.


Comments

7 responses to “Church in Contrast: Participation and Meaning in Church (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About) Yesterday, 7/5?”

  1. Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (7/5):

    • As always, some of the things said in the testimonies given didn’t match my understanding of the gospel. I usually find those testimonies among the most fruitful for thought, since I have to think through what they say and why I don’t agree. Often those speaking are simply not well informed. And I’m glad that they help me improve my understanding of the gospel.
    • One testimony was given by an immigrant, who mentioned how lonely it is when you don’t speak the same language as everyone else. They said “the only thing I need is to have one friend.” What an important idea! Its been said before, but I suspect most of our wards and branches don’t do well with those who are different or who don’t speak the language (even though its common to have RMs in our wards who have served elsewhere — unfortunately many don’t maintain their ability to speak). It isn’t hard to get in the habit of reaching out to people at church who are unfamiliar and make sure that they have someone to talk to.
    • One member gave a testimony for another member who now resides in a care facility. We all knew the testimony because before entering the care facility, that member gave his same testimony every month. It was a little emotional to hear it — oft repeated things become familiar, and end up with emotions tied to them. I would have preferred to have the missing member there, but I was glad to hear the testimony regardless.
    • In the Sunday School lesson, we discussed the “still small voice” passage from 1 Kings, and I realized that the context for the great wind and the earthquake was Elijah escaping the wrath of Ahab and Jezebel. As absolute monarchs they had the ability to take his life. They had the power. In contrast, the Lord displayed that He had even more power, over nature itself in the form of wind, fire and earthquake. BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THAT POWER. He was in the still small voice. The power of humans is almost always unrighteous—it is often violent and often takes away the freedom and wellbeing of individuals. The Lord is NOT in such power. Violence is not His way.
  2. Last Lemming

    One testimony in our meeting endorsed the idea that the US should be a Christian nation. In response, our resident out-of-the-closet lesbian delivered a powerful rebuttal. She didn’t pretend that she was not prolonging controversy but explained that she was not willing to let the controversy always be one-sided. She did however, frame everything in gospel, rather than political terms. She’s obviously pretty fearless. The bishop never budged.

  3. Similar to Kent’s experience, I thought one of the testimonies offered was unwarranted, confusing, and more than questionable in terms of doctrine. But it was also exactly what one person in the meeting needed to hear and really helped them enjoy the rest of the meetings and have a positive experience at church. So I pretty much just let people say what they will when moved on by the spirit while I stay out of the way.

  4. Last Lemming: That sounds really interesting. Perhaps the issue is to what degree do opposing statements like that create anger and disharmony. While some discomfort is probably good (it often leads to examining what you think and why), if it goes too far, it can actually make people retreat into their pre-conceived ideas and not consider what others think. Unfortunately, I think we (the membership of the church in general) shy away so much from differences like what you saw that we don’t have experience dealing with them, which makes such situations harder.

    Jonathan: I agree!! One of the most important thoughts I find myself thinking when I’m in meetings is simply “It’s not necessarily about me!”

  5. DeAnn Spencer

    Last Lemming – I would love to hear how your ward’s out-of-the-closet Lesbian framed her rebuttal in Gospel (not political) terms. That would be so hard to do!

  6. I often use our ward fb page to comment on some of our s/school, or priesthood lessons on aspects of the lessons from which I have learnt, or to make further comment. I find our ward fb page to be an excellent medium to engage in gospel topic discussions.

  7. Our Sunday School class spent a lot of time on Solomon’s prayer dedicating the temple. It struck me that he saw it as a tool to help Israel repent and reconcile with God. Too often we treat attending the temple as a reward for overcoming sin rather than a source of strength that will help us do so.

    On this week’s apparent theme, in testimony meeting a missionary read a poem about a man who finds himself on a hole, tries to build a ladder with the available materials but it’s not long enough, and then someone drops a rope to him (apparently a short rope, because he has to be on his ladder to reach it). As an analogy for the atonement that strikes me as all wrong: nothing we can do helps in the slightest way to save us from sin and death. As for changing, in my experience Christ’s help is more like “If you’ll just tie this rope around you, I’ll pull you up.” But the poem was obviously meaningful to the elder who read it. I did like the ending, where the man expresses his gratitude to his helper–and then is given a rope of his own and pointed to the thousands of holes around him.

    @DeAnn Spencer. I’d start with the supreme importance of agency, and that we must freely choose Christ in order to be true Christians, not choose him because of government influence or coercion. I’d point out the 11th Article of Faith, and maybe quote Joseph Smith’s statements that non-Christians were welcome in Nauvoo to make it clear how broadly he meant it to apply. Add Alma 30:7 about how it would be strictly contrary to the commandments of God for the law to put men on unequal grounds because of their beliefs (and a non-Christian in a Christian nation is definitely on unequal grounds). Maybe touch on how mixing government with religion makes religion a path to power, and Jesus’ sharpest criticism was reserved for those who use religion as a path to power. (I’d say it already applies to some of our politicians today). But I think the most relevant statement came from President Oaks in his October 2020 talk Love Your Enemies:

    “The United States was founded by immigrants of different nationalities and different ethnicities. Its unifying purpose was not to establish a particular religion or to perpetuate any of the diverse cultures or tribal loyalties of the old countries. Our founding generation sought to be unified by a new constitution and laws.”

    It’s frustrating that a member can advocate for the US to be a Christian nation without realizing they’re going against the prophet. It would be clearer if President Oaks came out and said Trumpism is wrong, Christian Nationalism is wrong, post-liberalism is wrong, etc. But it would also cause a lot of people to stop listening. Leadership’s current strategy of instead advocating for their opposites: loving your enemies, peacemaking, religious freedom, pluralism, etc. makes sense to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.