In the past few years, one of the most influential books I have read is Wayne C. Booth’s masterwork, The Company We Keep, his attempt to look at the role of ethics in literature. Booth is one of the most influential literary thinkers of the last half of the 20th century, and is responsible for the concept of the “Unreliable Narrator”, the now widely used idea that you can’t trust what the narrator of a story is saying. Unfortunately, most of those who use the term don’t know that it originated with Booth’s 1961 book, The Rhetoric of Fiction. LDS Church members will be interested to know that Booth grew up LDS in American Fork, Utah, served an LDS mission in Chicago and married in the Temple before he decided to stop attending. However, through the rest of his life he did maintain connections and interest in the Church.
I’m fascinated with the ethical questions that Booth asks about literature. In The Company We Keep he asks a series of ethical questions, including what the author’s responsibility are to the book and to the reader. While that might seem an obvious question, he also asked a provocative and not-as-obvious question: What are the reader’s responsibilities to the author and to the book?
Does this also apply to what happens in Church?
Like with authors of all kinds, we are accustomed to thinking that the creator of a work or the person who runs the meeting has responsibility for what is created or what happens. They have the most control over the content, after all. I don’t know about your experience, but whenever I have heard complaints about sacrament meeting talks or teaching in classes, it’s always assumed that the responsibility lies with the leaders or with the person talking. The audience doesn’t have any responsibility (unless they make a comment).
This understanding is common in our culture. At least with the introduction of radio and television (if not with other mass forms of communication before that), the audience became passive recipients of media—the audience sat at home and listened or watched the broadcast. Clapping and booing and other expressions of approval or disapproval were no longer heard by anyone. Responses were reduced to sending letters or calling the broadcaster, both of which were delayed until well after the broadcast. Even if the audience wanted to respond, or thought that it had some responsibility, the means for reacting were limited, and essentially discouraged.
And worse, the lack of an immediate ability to respond often gives the feeling that everyone else is accepting the work. You might have seen this phenomenon in a theatre or concert—you end up clapping because everyone else is clapping, or giving a standing ovation because everyone else is standing up. There is a kind of cooption that happens when we are in a group. We go along to get along.
Is it really the case that the audience has no responsibility? Is Booth wrong about the responsibility of the reader or audience? If we say it does, are we “blaming the victim?”
I don’t think so. I’m NOT trying to say that the leaders and the speakers or teacher have no responsibility. I even think that they have more control, so more responsibility. But that doesn’t mean that the audience has no responsibility. What then are the audiences’ ethical responsibilities? While I’m not sure that I can list them all, we clearly have responsibilities to the speaker or teacher and to the leaders or those organizing the meetings. We should be honest in our reactions, letting them know clearly but kindly what we think. We have the responsibility to give helpful feedback. We have the responsibility to recognize the speaker or teacher’s abilities, strengths and weaknesses, and take those into account when giving feedback. We have the responsibility to pay attention, to give them the same attention we would want to have if we were the speaker or teacher. Or, we have a responsibility to recognize the difficulties that leaders face in assigning talks, calling teachers and training them.
We also have responsibility to ourselves. We have the responsibility to somehow feel the spirit even when the talks or lessons don’t make that easy. We have a responsibility to think about and react to what is said, so that we can process what we have heard and incorporate it into our lives.
How then do we balance all of these responsibilities? What do we do to participate in church and also fulfill our responsibilities as best as possible? Are you thinking about things the way that you want to? Or are you just accepting the assumptions of the culture around us?
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
9 responses to “Responsibility in our Meetings (Or What Did Church Lead You to Think About Yesterday), 8/9”
Here’s a few of my thoughts in reaction to what I experienced in Church yesterday (8/9):
Kent, I have one response that fits within the framework you’ve set up and then one question that doesn’t.
We had several youth talk about their experiences with Trek (Handcart Trek for the uninitiated). I appreciated the one girl who, though she made it clear that she didn’t have a good time, was able to point out the parts of the experience that were nonetheless meaningful to her. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be able to express our less-than-full enthusiasm for Church events from the pulpit, and I thought she did so in an appropriate and faith-promoting way.
On to the question. What do you do with or say to the people who either don’t have the capacity or don’t have the desire to do the spiritual heavy lifting of engaging with and finding meaning in an otherwise boring talk or lesson? Our congregations are full of these kinds of people.
Moreover, besides posting here on Times & Seasons which will reach, at most, a few hundred committed, mostly middle aged or elderly Latter-day Saints (apologies for the assumption and feel free to correct it), how does your prescription for making the boring meaningful get implemented with youth and the mentally checked-out? Are the readers expected or encouraged to evangelize this approach to the wider Church? Have you approached your ward leadership about this? If so, how did it go?
This post doesn’t make me think of church from this past week, but the week before that. Two days before the Gospel Doctrine teacher texted me, and asked if I could teach because they were coming down sick. I’m not an officially called substitute teacher, but I was happy to help. In the earlier part of the lesson I made it clear that I was going to introduce a controversy. I felt that Zerubbabel was wrong to not let the Samaritans help rebuild the temple. I honestly thought that I wasn’t going to get a response more than a couple of people shaking their heads as they thought about it. I was wrong. So many comments. Nothing heated. This isn’t anything that anyone has sacrificed anything in their lives about. After sufficient time spent on it, I moved the lesson on.
I received a lot of positive feedback about the controversy part of my lesson at the end of church. I ran into ward member whose only living with his parents until school starts again, today, and he went out of his way to mention how much he liked the controversy that I introduced in the lesson from two Sundays ago.
Even as a class members, being responsible enough to read the lesson, and share opinions, is a responsibility of the class members.
jader3rd, I substituted in youth Sunday School, and I shared that neither Ezra nor Nehemiah were prophets; rather, they were political appointees — and that their books contain no prophecy, only history. I also pointed out that the forced divorces were driven by Ezra as a man, not by God — indeed, Malachi the prophet lived during this period and he opposed the divorces.
“…whenever I have heard complaints about sacrament meeting talks or teaching in classes, it’s always assumed that the responsibility lies with the leaders or with the person talking. The audience doesn’t have any responsibility…”
This isn’t my feel for our general church culture. My feel has been that it is assumed that the member is a lazy learner, a casual disciple, a sinner, or such as that, and I have heard words in conference to this effect. It seems to me that, in our culture, it is so easy to always blame the members for any failure or imperfect outcome and to always exonerate and extol the leaders.
“…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’…”
I also like that statement and I agree with Pres. Brown’s sentiment, but I don’t think his sentiment has prevailed in our church culture. Rather, I think other sentiments have prevailed, such as those espoused by who some might call hard-liners among the brethren both current and previous. Maybe your reminder of Pres. Brown’s sentiment will be helpful in moderating our church culture?
I agree that there must be some personal responsibility among the members for personal growth, but I also think that our leaders have some responsibility for our church culture. An environment such as Elder Corbridge described a while back, where Darth Vader is one’s bishop and the culture feels like Alcatraz, will impede personal growth in every member. Such attitudes blame the members and excuse (or extol and exonerate) the leaders.
All that said, I have enjoyed this series of postings.
Not a Cougar:
“What do you do with or say to the people who either don’t have the capacity or don’t have the desire…”
Well, I don’t want to stereotype anyone into a particular understanding of the world — people do change at least a little. And often that change comes because of outside influences—cultural factors that make it uncomfortable to not change. I suspect that a lot of the reason that some people don’t look for meaning in what happens in life (and therefore in church also) is cultural—we are essentially taught that we don’t need to look further than our surface impressions.
You seem to think I have some grand plan worked out for how to spread these ideas beyond what I am doing here. I don’t. I guess I just hope that showing a few people a good idea will let that idea spread. Regardless, I hope by doing this I can help a few people—kind of like the guy who was throwing stranded starfish back into the ocean. When someone pointed out that he couldn’t save all the starfish, he said, as he threw another one into the water, “well, I can save that one.”
I think these ideas work and can help at least some people. The process of writing these posts and reading comments has helped me think through these ideas better. Maybe that will lead to something more.
jader3rd:
I love how that worked out!!
We don’t need to be afraid of controversy!
ji:
“This isn’t my feel for our general church culture…” I must admit that I hear the complaints mostly on the bloggernacle (do we still use that term?) and othe online discussion forums. I have not heard it in GC or from leaders, nor from all members at church. I hope I didn’t give the impression that I thought it was everyone. I think it’s a vocal minority.
You also said: “but I also think that our leaders have some responsibility for our church culture”
Oh, I agree completely. My ideas are meant to help those who are struggling with church until such time as things improve or they are in a place where they can influence change, I think that the change sought will take a while. We need something to help in the meantime. And we need better and more detailed ideas to persuade leaders of the changes needed.
In sacrament meeting, a sister who joined the Church a few years ago told us about her spiritual journey, both before and after her baptism. The remarkable thing is that several of her stories directly addressed issues discussed in the ward council meeting just before. That cannot have been a coincidence.
Our Elder’s Quorum lesson went badly off the rails and we ended up discussing the Book of Joshua and the other times the Old Testament has God commanding large-scale violence. (This was clearly not what the instructor had intended but, honestly, he should have known the material he brought in was going to take us there.) I eventually brought up that many biblical scholars and archeologists doubt the violence described in Joshua ever happened, and it wouldn’t affect my testimony if it didn’t–Stephen F would have been proud. I got no pushback. I was surprised and amused that the missionaries were eager to talk about it afterward, and brought up the theory that the Deuteronomists had warped the Old Testament histories.
My ward is definitely not representative of the Church as a whole, but in it there’s room both for people who take the Old Testament as accurate history and those who don’t, and we get along just fine.