{"id":13067,"date":"2010-07-23T12:09:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-23T17:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=13067"},"modified":"2010-07-23T20:12:48","modified_gmt":"2010-07-24T01:12:48","slug":"reforming-the-church-a-response-to-nate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2010\/07\/reforming-the-church-a-response-to-nate\/","title":{"rendered":"Reforming the Church – A Response to Nate"},"content":{"rendered":"

Nate has written a very articulate and worthwhile post that I think cuts to the heart of a common problem in how we emotionally respond to issues we have with the church. It goes together well with this other post of his<\/a> which is similarly worth (re-)reading.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m responding not because I particularly disagree with the things he has said (though I think he has mis-framed the issue a bit), but because there\u2019s so much more to say on the subject that I fear Nate\u2019s characterization may threaten to cover up rather than shed light on the issue.<\/p>\n

A few quick disclaimers: 1. I\u2019ve not had the time to read through the comments, so much of what I have to say might have already been said and said better there; and 2. Nate\u2019s and my own truncated treatment of this issue are unfortunately subject to the constraints of the format in which we\u2019ve chosen to discuss it \u2013 a blog \u2013 clearly not a format conducive to a substantive exploration of the issue. 3. In addition to writing a very thoughtful and perspicacious post, Nate writes in a very generous and non-confrontational tone. I don\u2019t think I have the same talent. But I\u2019m undeniably responding to an ally and hope that what I say is able to be read in a friendly spirit. At any rate, here\u2019s the response:<\/p>\n

1. The framing: We\u2019ve got too many exclusive binaries floating around: reform-minded vs. passive fatalists; practical\/active response vs. emotional response; democratic liberalists vs. liberalism-resistant Mormonites (\u201ccommunitarians\u201d is probably the appropriate term, though Nate doesn\u2019t give one). The difficulty is not simply that issue is not susceptible to a binary reduction (with each of these there are a multiplicity of possible positions on both sides of Nate\u2019s specifically named points on the spectrum; ironically I think one of Nate\u2019s overall goals is to point this out: it\u2019s not simply a matter of living up to or failing to live up to our individual, sovereign responsibilities \u2013 such a claim would be an exclusive binary of modern \u201cliberal\u201d perspectives). Nor is the problem that setting up the framework in this binary fashion implicitly denigrates the legitimacy or relevance of positions that don\u2019t squarely fit into one or the other sides of the binaries. Rather the problem is that as is, Nate\u2019s framework only allows him to give us a purely negative treatment. In other words, while I certainly don\u2019t think he\u2019s in danger of giving us a \u201cglib\u201d dismissal (\u201cthe church is not a democracy\u201d), I think he has in fact given us a more sophisticated dismissal (\u201cthe perspectives of democratic liberalists are inadequate to the phenomenon of living faithfully in the church \u2013 because it\u2019s not a liberal democracy\u201d). In the end, it\u2019s still merely a dismissal. What\u2019s needed (and what I ought to be doing here rather than copping out and merely responding to Nate like I am) is first giving a much more positive account of what it is<\/em> to live in Zion and what sort of a creature the church is as<\/em> an institution. This would then help us to weigh the appropriateness of various attempts at reforming the church.<\/p>\n

2. Democratic liberalism: I think this term picks out too broad a political philosophy for what Nate\u2019s discussing. Various forms of communitarianism (which is what I think Nate is gesturing toward with his description of lived experience in the church), the politics of difference, agonistic political approaches, and the host of Habermasian\/critical theory approaches are all going fit under the umbrella of Nate\u2019s democratic liberalism. Maybe Nate meant to cast a wide net; either way, I think the net is too wide to be very helpful. What\u2019s more, Nate\u2019s discussion sounds not just like a pointing out of various limits to what he calls democratic liberalism, but as though there were significant failings to this political philosophy generally that we ought to eschew or at least be skeptical of. What I think Nate wants to do is not to eschew democratic liberalism and the obvious host of goods and improvements on other historical experiments that go with it, but to avoid certain pernicious tendencies which modern democratic liberalism is prone to. Specifically, I think Nate is opposed to pernicious strains of individualism, soft relativism, and the undermining of any legitimate source of authority (beyond self-authority) that often thrives in modern liberal democratic societies.<\/p>\n

3. The Church & democratic liberalism – Unfortunately, in his sophisticated claim that the church is not a democracy, I think Nate steamrolls over some significant facts. I certainly agree that the church is not merely<\/em> a liberal democracy, nor friendly to the pernicious forms of individualism that I think he eschews. But there are numerous strains of democratic liberalism and post-enlightenment individualism in the cosmology, doctrine, tradition, and policies of the church. I am personally quite communitarian, and convinced that the church is institutionally more closely aligned with certain communitarian ideologies than with more bland or general forms of liberalism. Consequently, I agree that certain of the liberal approaches to reform are inappropriate to the sort of institution that the church is. But even if Nate and I are right, more needs to be said than for horses to claim that we don\u2019t belong to the genus Equus simply because we\u2019re not jack-asses.<\/p>\n

4. Liberal DNA – What\u2019s more, the church was born and has grown up in what is arguably the most successful experiment of liberal democracy in history, and even more importantly almost all of us, particularly as a largely convert church, have grown up in a climate where liberal values are ubiquitous (not even the most conservative among us reject them!). We DO have \u201cdemocratic liberalism\u201d firmly implanted in our intellectual, emotional, and practical DNA. If all Nate and I can do is vaguely gesture at the unique institutional nature of the church, without helping others understand what <\/em>it or its values are, then all we end up doing is covering over the defects of the institution when we say that certain lines of criticism are inadequate or illegitimate. This is why no mere dismissal \u2013 even a sophisticated one \u2013 is adequate.<\/p>\n

5. Appropriate idioms for expression \u2013 I too would like to filter my own complaints\/attempts at improvement through a more native (and faithful) idiom. Given the sui generis<\/em> nature of the church as an institution, however, I\u2019m not sure how to do this. The reality is, we\u2019ve never been explicit enough with ourselves or what we are institutionally, and as far as I know we\u2019ve yet to have a competent sociologist or political scientist (or better yet, prophet) give an adequate analysis of what we are and hence what sort of vocabulary would be more adequate. Growing up in the church, we do <\/em>gain a sort of native dialect, but again, I don\u2019t think it\u2019s one with a vocabulary adequate to meta-criticisms of our institutional make-up. Consequently, I echo Nate\u2019s sentiments about wanting at the end of the day to just build the Kingdom of God. I don\u2019t see how this blanket claim, however, helps move the dialogue forward on how properly to work toward reform.<\/p>\n

6. Sovereignty \u2013 this is perhaps, I think, the biggest gap in Nate\u2019s discussion. Obviously we are<\/em> self-sovereign, with a theology and narrative of eternity that strongly reinforces this notion. Nonetheless, Nate is certainly right that we are likewise bought with a price and owe proper humility an other<\/em> Sovereign. Once again, however, merely stating this threatens to obscure both the picture that the gospel gives us and our own responsibilities therein. Having already waxed too long-winded, I\u2019ll leave this point with the pregnant metaphor given by Joseph Smith: we are<\/em> subject to God, but not in the sense that a peasant was subject to a king in medieval times. Rather, we\u2019re subject in the sense of a princess or prince \u2013 as daughter or son \u2013 are subject to their mother and father the Queen and King. Subject in the sense of needing to adequately prepare and improve oneself for the day when one will be called up and anointed Queen or King. The atonement and its legitimate ransom is perhaps reduced to mere empty suffering without the subsequent exaltation of God\u2019s children.<\/p>\n

In the end, I genuinely appreciate Nate\u2019s post and think he is getting at some very important ideas. Nonetheless, I think it\u2019s too narrowly negative (i.e., dismissive), inadequately framed, and in need of a positive account of the church as an institution and what therefore an adequate response to its shortcomings would be. This said, one might fairly accuse my response of the exact same thing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Nate has written a very articulate and worthwhile post that I think cuts to the heart of a common problem in how we emotionally respond to issues we have with the church. It goes together well with this other post of his which is similarly worth (re-)reading. I\u2019m responding not because I particularly disagree with the things he has said (though I think he has mis-framed the issue a bit), but because there\u2019s so much more to say on the subject that I fear Nate\u2019s characterization may threaten to cover up rather than shed light on the issue.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":122,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13067","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-corn"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/122"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13067"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13067\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13071,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13067\/revisions\/13071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}