What messages should the Church portray to attract disaffected Christians?

[RevTestament]

In other words should the Church emphasize it is evolving to meet modern demands?
Or should the Church emphasize its steadfastness in specific traditional Christian views? In other words send out specific messages that "if you are looking for a new church, we believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, our Savior, who was resurrected from the dead so that all may be saved - even those who have not heard of Him or who died unbaptized."

This article suggests the latter would be a good approach:

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/15/conservative-churches-grow-liberal-churches-shrink

It says: "Those who don't attend church regularly but are scouting for Christmas services this year might be surprised to find fewer mainline Protestant churches around these days.  Across the English-speaking world the numerical decline of mainline Protestantism is accelerating. The largest mainline Protestant denominations in the United States are the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the Episcopal Church. Collectively, membership in these denominations decreases by about 1 million a year, resulting in hundreds of church closures annually."

Which protestant churches are shrinking the most?

"We surveyed more than 2,200 of the congregants, half attending growing churches and half at declining churches, and the clergy who serve them.   We found, without exception, the clergy and congregants of the growing mainline Protestant churches held more firmly to traditional Christian beliefs, such as the belief Jesus rose physically from the grave and that God answers prayer. The clergy of the growing churches were the most theologically conservative and the declining church clergy the least."

People who are searching are generally looking for an anchor in their lives. Traditional Christianity provides that anchor. It is up to us to show that the restored gospel provides the best anchor to Christ.  Can we do a better job at attracting those leaving liberal churches?

[hope_for_things]

Realistically I don't think Mormonism is a good fit for these people in more liberal churches as I don't believe they are not looking for a more conservative authoritarian church.  In general I'm thinking these people are migrating away from organized religion altogether, not looking for a more literal conservative religion like Mormonism offers.  

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Realistically I don't think Mormonism is a good fit for these people in more liberal churches as I don't believe they are not looking for a more conservative authoritarian church.  

Could you clarify your point here?  It appears that "people in more liberal churches" who are remaining in those churches meet your characterization of people who "are not looking for a more conservative authoritarian church."  I get that.

However, the point of the article is that these "more liberal churches" are losing members, lots of them.  Isn't it possible that some of the people leaving these churches are, in fact, dissatisfied with those organizations' movement away from "traditional Christian beliefs, such as the belief Jesus rose physically from the grave and that God answers prayer"?  And that such dissatisfied people may be interested in seeking out religious groups who continue to adhere to those beliefs?

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

In general I'm thinking these people are migrating away from organized religion altogether, not looking for a more literal conservative religion like Mormonism offers.  

But that's not the point of the article, which seems to indicate that "conservative" organized religions which retain "traditional Christian beliefs" are doing a markedly better job at retaining members than "liberal" organized religions (which are moving away from those beliefs).

It would be nice to see the data and analysis and methodology, tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

It sounds like some of them are leaving because they have itching ears for more conservative, fundamentalist teachings found in the Evangelical world, and aren't equipped to deal with a view of scripture that takes into account the best critical scholarship. Others are leaving religion altogether because religiosity I think has become branded as distinctly Republican activity. I'm not sure the LDS church is equipped to attract either group, but more likely the former than the latter. 

 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

It sounds like some of them are leaving because they have itching ears for more conservative, fundamentalist teachings found in the Evangelical world, and aren't equipped to deal with a view of scripture that takes into account the best critical scholarship. Others are leaving religion altogether because religiosity I think has become branded as distinctly Republican activity. I'm not sure the LDS church is equipped to attract either group, but more likely the former than the latter. 

Oh, I don't know.  I think most people don't "take into account the best critical scholarship" when making decisions "of the heart," so to speak.

Frankly, I'm not persuaded that your juxtaposition here (contrasting people with "itching ears for more conservative, fundamentalist teachings" with, presumably, "liberal"-minded folk who, in your view, "take into account the best critical scholarship").  I don't think "critical scholarship" is the base of knowledge which informs movement toward "liberal" theology.  Rather, I think that political views are the determinative base.  That is, there are segments of our society whose worldview and perspective on many/most social issues are principally informed by political ideology.  I think many of these folks then gravitate toward religious groups whose teachings/values mesh with their political leanings.

My sense is that this phenomenon is more prevalent with people who are on the political "left", though the "right" is by no means immune to it.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Edited December 16, 2016 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Could you clarify your point here?  It appears that "people in more liberal churches" who are remaining in those churches meet your characterization of people who "are not looking for a more conservative authoritarian church."  I get that.

However, the point of the article is that these "more liberal churches" are losing members, lots of them.  Isn't it possible that some of the people leaving these churches are, in fact, dissatisfied with those organizations' movement away from "traditional Christian beliefs, such as the belief Jesus rose physically from the grave and that God answers prayer"?  And that such dissatisfied people may be interested in seeking out religious groups who continue to adhere to those beliefs?

You make a good point, I think this is possible that there are some who are feeling their church has gotten too liberal.  My suspicion is that this would be a minority view.  I'm basing this on some of the human developmental work that has been done by people like James Fowler and his stages of faith.  Someone who's at a later stage of faith/development doesn't typically go backwards from my experience.  My assumption is that a more liberal Christian is someone who takes a more metaphorical/symbolic approach to religious beliefs and I have a hard time seeing that kind of perspective reverting to a more literal belief system.  

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

What messages should the Church portray to attract disaffected Christians?

I realize I'm an ultra pessimist but no matter what Christianity's message is (in western civilizations) it's not going to work in this Internet enlightened time. Christianity always failed to fulfill it's promises.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You make a good point, I think this is possible that there are some who are feeling their church has gotten too liberal.  My suspicion is that this would be a minority view.  I'm basing this on some of the human developmental work that has been done by people like James Fowler and his stages of faith.  Someone who's at a later stage of faith/development doesn't typically go backwards from my experience.  My assumption is that a more liberal Christian is someone who takes a more metaphorical/symbolic approach to religious beliefs and I have a hard time seeing that kind of perspective reverting to a more literal belief system.  

I think a study which examines where the people are going who are leaving liberal churches would help. My guess is that "liberal" churches are acting as a "stopping point" between leaving Christianity altogether and more traditional Christianity. My guess is that these more liberal churches are having difficulty meeting their financial needs - in other words they don't get enough tithing. I imagine a lot just find the liberal churches not fulfilling their spiritual needs. While it might be a safe assumption that a lot are giving up on church altogether, some may be returning to a more traditional worship - this could be reflected in why the traditional churches are growing a little. Myself - I gave up on traditional churches for awhile due to my views on the "doctrine of the trinity," creeds and so forth. However, I found the "liberal" churches such as the Unity Church and Unitarian Church to be unsatisfactory. I know I wasn't a very good giver. I finally ended up returning to the Church. This church is the first I feel good tithing to. I imagine there are others who do the same, although they are probably a minority - but that is something. Those are real people who are real potential investigators.

Perhaps there are already some statistics which indicate why more traditional churches are still growing. My guess is tho that churches might keep those kind of statistics "under their wing."

[Gray]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Oh, I don't know.  I think most people don't "take into account the best critical scholarship" when making decisions "of the heart," so to speak.

Frankly, I'm not persuaded that your juxtaposition here (contrasting people with "itching ears for more conservative, fundamentalist teachings" with, presumably, "liberal"-minded folk who, in your view, "take into account the best critical scholarship").  I don't think "critical scholarship" is the base of knowledge which informs movement toward "liberal" theology.  Rather, I think that political views are the determinative base.  That is, there are segments of our society whose worldview and perspective on many/most social issues are principally informed by political ideology.  I think many of these folks then gravitate toward religious groups whose teachings/values mesh with their political leanings.

My sense is that this phenomenon is more prevalent with people who are on the political "left", though the "right" is by no means immune to it.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Well, let me unpack things a bit more. There are issues that affect political liberals and different issues that affect theological liberals.

I think that liberals, in the political sense, ARE leaving churches because going to church has become associated with conservative politics. It's an identity thing, and has nothing to do with church doctrine or theology per se. Political conservatives face no such identity crisis.

Theologically conservative Christian orthodoxy is not supported by critical scholarship - that is to say, a scientific approach to history of the Bible. There are theologically liberal churches that acknowledge this and are seeking to reconstruct a Christianity that is in harmony with the history. I think that's one factor that is going to send theological conservatives packing. They want a Jesus who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, who declared himself as God, who rose from the empty tomb on the third day, and so forth. They don't want to engage with the history. Which is fine, and the Evangelical churches are a great "safe space" for people like that. 

I would contrast that with the theological liberals (nothing to do with politics) who are more comfortable engaging with a more realistic look at the scriptures, and exploring the kind of meaning and spiritual life that can be found in that framework. This is the area where Christianity is evolving fastest, and not everyone is comfortable with it. 

 

 

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You make a good point, I think this is possible that there are some who are feeling their church has gotten too liberal.  

"Liberal" in what sense?  Sociopolitically?

In a theological sense, "liberal" takes on quite a different meaning from its sociopolitical counterpart.  Consider this article:

Quote

Mormons Have the Most Liberal Theology in the World

Depending on whether or not you are familiar with the LDS Church, you may have been shocked by the title of this blog entry. Mormons… liberal?! Except for Harry Reid, “liberal” is not usually a word that is used to describe Mormons or their theology. Many look at members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as ultra conservative, exclusive, and secretive. As a missionary, I had many people exhibit anger toward me saying that “Mormons believe that they are the only ones that will be saved”. In reality, that statement could not be farther from the truth. Let me explain…

With the exception of a few very evil people called the son’s of perdition, Mormons believe that every single human being will be saved. They espouse the words of Paul to the Corinthians when he said “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive.” 1Cor 15:22

...

Mormons don’t believe in the classic mainstream belief in one heaven and one hell. They have the most liberal theology on salvation of any religion. They don’t believe that if Johnny committed one more sin than Cyndi and both were on the dividing line between heaven and hell that Johnny is eternally cast off and Cyndi enjoys eternal bliss.  Mormons believe that even those that don’t confess the name of Christ will be saved. 

...

The LDS prophet Joseph Smith is quoted as saying, “Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive”.

This is actually one of the most exciting things about the religion and yet the most misunderstood. No other religion that I have ever studied (and I’ve studied a few) is as liberal with salvation as is the Mormon Church which seems really weird when you think about it. No one will probably believe this when they read it but it’s true…and cool.

I think Latter-day Saints tend to be sociopolitically "conservative," but theologically/doctrinally "liberal."  I would be interested in your thoughts on this.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My suspicion is that this would be a minority view.  I'm basing this on some of the human developmental work that has been done by people like James Fowler and his stages of faith.  Someone who's at a later stage of faith/development doesn't typically go backwards from my experience.  My assumption is that a more liberal Christian is someone who takes a more metaphorical/symbolic approach to religious beliefs and I have a hard time seeing that kind of perspective reverting to a more literal belief system.  

I think Latter-day Saints have a very nuanced view of their faith's teachings, one which embraces both a "metaphorical/symbolic" and "literal" approach.

For example, I understand that the "Eve was formed from one of Adam's rib" story is generally construed as figurative, but the eating of the fruit is generally construed as a literal event (see here, here, and here).  Adam and Even are also generally construed as being actual persons who actually lived on the earth, not fictional/metaphorical.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[The Nehor]

I think we should just tell the truth. Obviously we should focud on those principles and doctrines that meet their needs first but then put in the rest. 

[RevTestament]

Quote

Collectively, membership in these denominations decreases by about 1 million a year, resulting in hundreds of church closures annually.

Even if the church attracted only a fraction of these million people, that would be significant to a church with probably only 5-7 million active members.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think we should just tell the truth. Obviously we should focud on those principles and doctrines that meet their needs first but then put in the rest. 

I am certainly not advocating even stretching the truth. But what I am saying is WHAT should we say? Could the church's expensive "marketing" campaigns be more effective? Would it be effective for instance for other Christians to know there is a church which believes their non-church going parents or grandparents can be saved? That there is a church which is not "exclusive" when it comes to salvation? That there is a church which does not condemn non-members to hell? etc 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Well, let me unpack things a bit more. There are issues that affect political liberals and different issues that affect theological liberals.

I think that liberals, in the political sense, ARE leaving churches because going to church has become associated with conservative politics.

That is an interesting perspective.  Mine has been that liberals, in the political sense, are leaving churches because they (political liberals) are trying to import their political ideologies into these churches, and then leave if and when those efforts fail.

By way of example, consider Kate Kelly, who is plainly a "political liberal".  She tried really hard to import her politics into the LDS Church, even going so far as to deploy the rhetoric and pressure tactics favored by "political liberals" (public protests, garnering lots of coverage from pliant and sympathetic media outlets, etc.).

I have previously explained my thoughts on this phenomenon here:

Quote

A few thoughts:

1. Fusing Politics w/ Religious Belief is Dangerous: I think there is danger in fusing religious belief with political ideology.  The former can and should inform the latter, but there are always going to be some incompatibilities between them.  So the two need to be kept somewhat separate.

2. The Church is Not a Political Construct: I think there is danger in Latter-day Saints treating the LDS Church as a political construct.  That is, that the leaders are somehow elected by the membership of the Church, that they are "answerable" to us in the sense of developing and promulgating teachings and practices that should conform to the expectations of self-selected agitators within the Church.  There is also quite a bit of encouragement of "factionalization," with agitators working to divvy up the body of the Church, and then pitting the subgroupings against each other (gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, socioeconomic condition, etc.).  Consequently, some members feel at liberty to seize upon these tactics and rhetoric, which are normally used to pressure / coerce political leaders into taking a particular course of action, and deploy them against the Church and its leaders.  This tendency is destructive, divisive, and inappropriate.  See, e.g., Elder Oaks' remarks here.

3. Some "ProgMormons" Treat the Church as a Political Construct: I think the foregoing tendency - deploying politically-derived tactics and rhetoric in and against the Church and its leaders and members - is very off-putting to most active Latter-day Saints - including some (many?) "progressive" ones.  Kate Kelly is a good example of someone who views the Church in this way.  So is Julienna Viegas-Haws.  And more recently, Carol Lynn Pearson.  

I am open to correction on this, but my general sense is that so-called "Progressive Mormons" are more susceptible to this sort of thing.  (NOTE: I should note here that Latter-day Saints with other-than-"progressive" ideologies also create problems in the Church when they inject their politics into Church settings.)

4. Political Ideology Should Not Predominate Over Religious Principles: I think there is danger in letting the political ideology predominate over religious principles and beliefs.  As noted above, there is no political party or platform or ideology that perfectly meshes with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  This has never happened, and it never will, not until "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess {at Judgment Day that Jesus Christ is our Lord}."  (Mosiah 27:31).  So we all make compromises and accommodations.  We look for political candidates, parties, and ideologies that hew most closely to those principles we deem important.  The Church reminds us every election cycle that all political parties have principles consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and that we each should use prayer and research to study each individual candidate and issue and reach decisions relating thereto.

Nevertheless, political ideology should not dictate our religious views and decisions.  That is, some of us look at what trends are politically (and socially) popular with our peers, and then let that popularity have greater influence over us than the scriptures, the counsel of modern prophets and apostles, and the Spirit.  I think this is a mistake, as our moral code will be better when it is based on principles revealed to us from God through prophets and through personal revelation.  This will keep us well-grounded amidst the storms of varied opinions and ideologies.  In other words, faith should predominate.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4).

In contrast, letting popular social/political trends and ideologies determine our moral code will, I think, not work well for us.  There are too many conflicting and contradictory ideas being thrown into the mix.  Too many secret combinations.  Too many notions which sound nice superficially, but which in reality are corruptions and perversions.  So a person whose moral code is determined by the prevailing sociopolitical trends of the day is going to have a hard time, perhaps even to the point of abandoning the Restored Gospel.  "But now, behold, they are led about by Satan, even as chaff is driven before the wind, or as a vessel is tossed about upon the waves, without sail or anchor, or without anything wherewith to steer her; and even as she is, so are they."  (Mormon 5:18).

5. Some "ProgMormons" Let Political Ideologies Dictate Their Moral Code (and So Do Some Conservatives):  I think the foregoing tendency (letting political/popular ideologies and trends predominate over prophetic/apostolic counsel and the Spirit) is a problem for some "Progressive" Latter-day Saints.  I also think this is not a problem restricted to the "Progressives" among us, as I see plenty of politically "conservative" Latter-day Saints (and members with other political inclinations as well) doing the same thing.

6. We All Need Wiggle Room: At the end of the day, in terms of holding religious and political points of view, there will always be issues about which reasonable minds can disagree as to both spheres.  We need to give each other some substantial elbow room to allow for principled and respectful disagreement, while remaining brothers and sisters in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ

Thoughts?

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's an identity thing, and has nothing to do with church doctrine or theology per se. Political conservatives face no such identity crisis.

Are you sure?  The article indicates that "liberal" churches are losing members.  I would think that some (many?  most?) of these are people whose sociopolitical and moral preferences are "conservative," and who feel that the changing religious teachings in their churches are incompatible with continued fellowship.

If that is happening, then "political conservatives" would seem to be facing this "identity crisis" and responding to it by . . . leaving the liberal churches.

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

Theologically conservative Christian orthodoxy is not supported by critical scholarship - that is to say, a scientific approach to history of the Bible.

Again, I am not persuaded that "critical scholarship" plays a significant role in the religious lives of most people.  Religion is predominantly a matter of faith (and heritage, and tradition).

Moreover, "a scientific approach to history of the Bible" has some very real and very significant limitations.  It also has some substantive flaws within itself.

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are theologically liberal churches that acknowledge this and are seeking to reconstruct a Christianity that is in harmony with the history.

I question that.  I think the forces driving theological changes in "liberal churches" are more sociopolitical than "scientific."  

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think that's one factor that is going to send theological conservatives packing.

Yep.  I guess we differ as to how big of a factor it is.

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

They want a Jesus who was born of a virgin in Bethlehem, who declared himself as God, who rose from the empty tomb on the third day, and so forth.

This is interesting.  How is it that "critical scholarship - that is to say, a scientific approach to history of the Bible" plays a part in a person's acceptance or rejection of these things?  Has science disproven the virgin birth?  The divinity of Jesus?  His resurrection?  Nope, cubed.  These things remain plainly within the province of "faith."

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

They don't want to engage with the history. Which is fine, and the Evangelical churches are a great "safe space" for people like that. 

I don't think theological conservatives are uniformly closed-minded (some are, but then so are some theological liberals).

I think the problem stems from a generalized distrust of "critical {biblical} scholarship" A) being equated with "science", B) having an ulterior agenda (to undermine faith, to commingle sociopolitical preferences of a self-selected in with doctrines, then distributed to the general membership), C) being presented as an alternative and superior basis for acceptance (or rejection) of religious claims, or D) some combination of A, B and C.

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would contrast that with the theological liberals (nothing to do with politics) who are more comfortable engaging with a more realistic look at the scriptures, and exploring the kind of meaning and spiritual life that can be found in that framework.

I am curious: Would you characterize Mormons as "theological liberals"?

Also, what do you mean by "a more realistic look"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Liberal" in what sense?  Sociopolitically?

In a theological sense, "liberal" takes on quite a different meaning from its sociopolitical counterpart.  Consider this article:

Good question, I'm defining liberal similar to what Gray also commented on.  Someone who doesn't believe the historicity of all scriptures, someone who isn't fundamental in interpretations of biblical events or in the bible containing direct quotes from God.  These would be Christians who might also align more liberally sociopolitically as well because when you don't believe every word in the bible is direct from the mouth of God, a person may consider that some of the ideas in scripture are flawed and a product of the times and culture rather than the direct will of God.  

I agree that Mormon salvation is quite liberal by comparison to some, but I don't think that makes Mormons liberal theologically.  They are very conservative, authoritarian and secretive on the whole.  While exaltation is potentially available to all, Mormons also believe that everyone has to accept Mormonism to be saved, so one hand this looks liberal and open and even universal, on the other hand, if you don't accept Mormonism in this life or the next, then you will never be exalted.  So is salvation theology really all that liberal?  

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think Latter-day Saints have a very nuanced view of their faith's teachings, one which embraces both a "metaphorical/symbolic" and "literal" approach.

For example, I understand that the "Eve was formed from one of Adam's rib" story is generally construed as figurative, but the eating of the fruit is generally construed as a literal event (see here, here, and here).  Adam and Even are also generally construed as being actual persons who actually lived on the earth, not fictional/metaphorical.  

This is typical of even fundamentalist Christians.  They don't literally think the earth has 4 corners anymore because no-one believes in a flat earth.  Virtually no-one can take all of the elements in scripture as literal, but in general I don't see Mormons as that much more metaphorical thinkers than most conservative Christian groups. Consider the theories that some church leaders came up with to explain dinosaur bones being moved from other planets.  That kind of creative speculation fits in really well with the creation museum crowd.  https://creationmuseum.org/about-the-museum/

[Gray]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That is an interesting perspective.  Mine has been that liberals, in the political sense, are leaving churches because they (political liberals) are trying to import their political ideologies into these churches, and then leave if and when those efforts fail.

By way of example, consider Kate Kelly, who is plainly a "political liberal".  She tried really hard to import her politics into the LDS Church, even going so far as to deploy the rhetoric and pressure tactics favored by "political liberals" (public protests, garnering lots of coverage from pliant and sympathetic media outlets, etc.).

I have previously explained my thoughts on this phenomenon here:

Thoughts?

That certainly happens within Mormonism. But, consider the Episcopalian church. They have openly gay bishops and female bishops. The church is already in harmony with the things political liberals care about, so that's not going to drive them away. I think it's more a sense that going to church (any church) is something Republicans do. It's branded as a right wing thing to do, even though there are very liberal churches out there. 

 

Quote

Are you sure?  The article indicates that "liberal" churches are losing members.  I would think that some (many?  most?) of these are people whose sociopolitical and moral preferences are "conservative," and who feel that the changing religious teachings in their churches are incompatible with continued fellowship.

If that is happening, then "political conservatives" would seem to be facing this "identity crisis" and responding to it by . . . leaving the liberal churches.

Yes, what I mean is political conservatives don't have an identity crisis about going to church in general. They might leave the Methodist Church, but I think they're more likely to go attend another more fundamentalist congregation. It isn't going to church that is the problem, it's just finding the church that is in harmony with their beliefs. 

 

 

Quote

Again, I am not persuaded that "critical scholarship" plays a significant role in the religious lives of most people.  Religion is predominantly a matter of faith (and heritage, and tradition).

It doesn't play a big role in the lives of most people period. But it does play a big role in some congregations. 

 

Quote

Moreover, "a scientific approach to history of the Bible" has some very real and very significant limitations.  It also has some substantive flaws within itself.

Yes, history is all about probability, not about certainty. 

 

Quote

I question that.  I think the forces driving theological changes in "liberal churches" are more sociopolitical than "scientific."  

Depends on which changes. I think sociopolitical forces drive acceptance of minorities in church. Historical concerns drive theological changes - for example, whether or not one believes that the resurrection is to be taken literally or figuratively. 

 

Quote

Yep.  I guess we differ as to how big of a factor it is.

This is interesting.  How is it that "critical scholarship - that is to say, a scientific approach to history of the Bible" plays a part in a person's acceptance or rejection of these things?  Has science disproven the virgin birth?  The divinity of Jesus?  His resurrection?  Nope, cubed.  These things remain plainly within the province of "faith."

Here's an example. From a historical perspective, neither of the nativity stories in the NT (which have almost no elements in common with each other) have any historical basis. That's using the scientific approach to history. Those stories are rejected as having any historical basis, and were invented narratives. Is it possible that Jesus really was born of a virgin in Bethlehem anyway? Sure, anything's possible. But there is no historical reason for thinking that happened. For many people there is a strong theological reason to think it happened. If it's not important to you that theology harmonize with history, then you've got a conservative and probably orthodox/fundamentalist theology.

 

Quote

I don't think theological conservatives are uniformly closed-minded (some are, but then so are some theological liberals).

I think the problem stems from a generalized distrust of "critical {biblical} scholarship" A) being equated with "science", B) having an ulterior agenda (to undermine faith, to commingle sociopolitical preferences of a self-selected in with doctrines, then distributed to the general membership), C) being presented as an alternative and superior basis for acceptance (or rejection) of religious claims, or D) some combination of A, B and C.

I don't know, that kind of distrust sounds closed-minded to me. It's common for conservatives to reject critical scholarship because they reject any approach that is based purely on "naturalism". That is to say, history has nothing to say about the supernatural. It's an area that is closed off to historians, and so conservatives tend to gravitate toward apologetics rather that critical scholarship. 

 

Quote

I am curious: Would you characterize Mormons as "theological liberals"?

Also, what do you mean by "a more realistic look"?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think mainstream Mormonism is moderately conservative, given the entire spectrum of Christian theology that exists. That is to say, it's more liberal than the fundamentalist Evangelicals, who affirm an innerant Bible and an eternal hell for everyone who rejects their message. Mormonism is conservative in that there is an assumption that scripture is generally to be interpreted literally, that scripture is more or less  accurate as history, and that God gives direct, propositional revelation to prophets. It's also conservative in its insistence that there is one true church, but there are other Christian traditions out there that are much more hard line about that kind of thing. 

On the liberal end, you have Christians who don't think the Bible contains direct, propositional revelation (that is to say, God does not speak in words and the Bible is not literally the word of God), who are more concerned with universal principles from the Bible and reject literalism (or the "letter of the law), who don't take the Bible as a history of the ancient world, and who reject the idea of "one true church" or religious authority. 

Edited December 16, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

That certainly happens within Mormonism. But, consider the Episcopalian church. They have openly gay bishops and female bishops. The church is already in harmony with the things political liberals care about, so that's not going to drive them away. I think it's more a sense that going to church (any church) is something Republicans do. It's branded as a right wing thing to do, even though there are very liberal churches out there. 

 

Can you share your references for the bolded statement?  I'm not questioning they exist, i just want to read them for myself.  

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you share your references for the bolded statement?  I'm not questioning they exist, i just want to read them for myself.  

It's from here:

 

https://www.hks.harvard.edu/research-publications/vbt/index/putnam-american-grace

Quote

America has experienced three seismic shocks, say Robert Putnam and David Campbell. In the 1960s religious observance plummeted. Then, in the 1970s and 1980s a conservative reaction produced the rise of evangelicalism and the Religious Right. Since the 1990s, however, young people, turned off by that linkage between faith and conservative politics, have abandoned organized religion entirely. The result: growing polarization. The ranks of religious conservatives and secular liberals have swelled, leaving a dwindling group of religious moderates in between. At the same time, personal interfaith ties are strengthening. Interfaith marriage has increased, while religious identities are increasingly fluid. Putnam and Campbell show how this denser web of personal ties brings surprising interfaith tolerance, notwithstanding the so-called "culture wars."

American Grace is based on two of the most comprehensive surveys ever conducted on religion and public life in America. It includes a dozen in-depth profiles of diverse congregations across the country, which illuminate the trends described by Putnam and Campbell in the lives of real Americans. Nearly every chapter of American Grace contains a surprise about American religious life.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hey I have an idea!

Let's start a church which is NOT a recycled Protestant church, but a RESTORATION of Christianity as it once was!
 

You know, like maybe a whole different way of seeing Christianity- that is LIKE what they are used to thinking in terms of but not at all like the old churches with their outmoded ideas!

Like let's tell them that OUR church is materialist - an idea they are familiar with due to science, but then explain that even SPIRIT is matter but more refined!

Since they are used to humanism- let's tell then we support and emphasize that we want humanity to become the best humans they can be!   Even tell them that we actually WORSHIP Humanity in the form of a God who is HUMAN- the Ideal Human who is actually our Father!

Maybe we could celebrate Christ as a HUMAN who was perfected- none of this two nature stuff- but that HUMAN NATURE can actually be perfected and has divinity in itself!

Maybe we could say that we look forward to a time when the government makes everyone equal under God with the ideals of allowing everyone freedom to make choices and show them the proper way to live in peace- with a Human God at the head of the government!

Maybe we could even tell them that there are wise men who lead us and have actually given us more "scripture" and speak every 6 months to give us advice on how to live today- not infallible men but very wise captains of industry and successful individuals who actually LIVE the principles they espouse and have found them to work in their lives!!  We get to listen to them and take their very practical advice on how to be better humans!  It's kind of like our own TED lectures but based on spiritual principles!!

We could even say that the Bible is OK- but a lot of it is messed up and old fashioned so we accept it insofar as we get the message of the authors correctly, and that ain't easy, SO our leaders get to change doctrine as meets the needs of the times- and we all have to agree with the changes in our own hearts, or we can walk at any time!  And we have other modern scriptures which were written just a couple of hundred years ago under inspiration too!   They tell stories which cannot be proven particularly as history- but hey- what CAN BE?  The importance is that we verify their spiritual importance within ourselves.  On the other hand, we require a lot and expect them to follow a strict code of conduct which we believe will keep them safe in this world and actually living these principles gives them peace of mind and safety.   And if you don't live them, you can leave any time!

Maybe we tell them to meditate and look into their own hearts to find the direction they are being led by their inner voice and then manifest what that voice inside them tells them to do!   And that they should always test principles to see if they are "sweet" to that inner voice or not do them!   We don't want them to feel pushed around- that is not "modern"!

If we really want to get radical we can tell them that even after we pass on, we will be able to continue becoming better as spirits until some day after eons of time we could almost be as good as Christ himself was!   And if all of humanity has not heard this message here, that they can learn this after they have passed on, so there are no worries about all those who did not get the message burning in hell for things which were no fault of their own!!

And that they should get to know their ancestors so they can look them up on the other side to help them learn this new spirituality!!

 

Whadoya think of that???

 

Nah, it'd never work.....

Edited December 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Bernard Gui]

Here's an easy and inexpensive way that has worked very well for many.....

Quote

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

 4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

 7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

It's not our job to convince people. That's the calling of the Holy Ghost.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Realistically I don't think Mormonism is a good fit for these people in more liberal churches as I don't believe they are not looking for a more conservative authoritarian church.  In general I'm thinking these people are migrating away from organized religion altogether, not looking for a more literal conservative religion like Mormonism offers.  

I am a Mormon and I think YOU are still a Mormon?

Do we fit that description?  It's a new world!

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Here's an easy and inexpensive way that has worked very well for many.....

It's not our job to convince people. That's the calling of the Holy Ghost.

That's exactly it.

What we are fighting is not Mormonism but outmoded ways of understanding what Mormonism is- which it never WAS!!  We are so used to the anti's we actually believe what they tell us we believe.

The doctrine is perfect- people's interpretation of the doctrine is not "restored" yet- that is the problem.   Sorry to say these words but the Utah former Protestant farmers saved the church and brought it to Utah- hallelujah !

But with it, from the beginning, we still have the same Protestant culture with weird beliefs grafted into a mish-mash of Protestantism.  Those ideas now have to go or we will lose the church itself.

Prophets are not the Pope, never were never will be, never were meant to be.  They are wise and inspired ministers who give wise and inspired advice but - thank God- they are humans.   They are not Regal Kings who have a daily face-to face chat with the Father and bring back the Stone Tablets of the day- (I am not saying that kind of thing never happens) but they are humans who make mistakes.  Joseph made mistakes.

God does not live in "yonder heavens" he is right here interacting with us every day.

God is not transcendent and barely notices us- I hate it when someone says "God knows my name"- DUH!  MY God knows my every thought and is with me 24-7- he dang well BETTER know my name!   That's like saying "my wife knows my name" or "I know my name".   If he doesn't know me better than I know me- we are in serious trouble!

God is not transcendent but immanent and is the "God who cries".   He is our Father.  Somewhere in the days of 40 wives and a hundred children it might have been nice to know that your father knows your name- but that is pure Utah culture!

OK enough ranting!

[Hamba Tuhan]

I think we already do a pretty good job with the message; overwhelmingly people just don't hear it.

Yesterday morning I attended the funeral for a dear brother in my ward. Afterwards I spoke to one of the non-member couples that had attended. The wife had a million questions for me, beginning with the role of Jesus Christ in our faith. I explained that to her simply, and she said, with enthusiasm, 'Yes! Why does nobody know this?' She's known of Latter-day Saints for much of her life but never understood what we have to offer. She's an older, retired woman, and she explained that she's believed things since her earliest memories but had never been able to find a church that taught them. She and her husband now attend a Presbyterian church, but they said it was more out of convenience and loyalty than any close theological connection. As we talked further, she was excited that everything her heart has always believed and hoped for was being said by me and the other members. They left with a copy of the Book of Mormon, and she said she'll ring after the holidays to set up a time for the Elders and me to come round to teach them more. Good stuff!

So how do we get the message out better? I think that's where we come in.

Edited December 17, 2016 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I hate it when someone says "God knows my name"- DUH!  MY God knows my every thought and is with me 24-7- he dang well BETTER know my name!  

What I find significant is not that He knows my name but rather how He uses it when He addresses me.

[Five Solas]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Realistically I don't think Mormonism is a good fit for these people in more liberal churches as I don't believe they are not looking for a more conservative authoritarian church.  In general I'm thinking these people are migrating away from organized religion altogether, not looking for a more literal conservative religion like Mormonism offers.  

I would disagree with this.  In my experience, LDS who have converted from mainline denominations have come from "liberal churches" where there wasn't a high view of the Bible and where sin, repentance, and the person & work of Christ weren't much discussed.  I'll pick on my last bishop to make illustration, a convert and former Methodist.  We didn't have a lot of conversation, but I did once ask him about his former faith, how its teachings were different from that of the LDS Church.  And while he certainly knew what LDS believed (or at least what they believed 10+ years ago), he really couldn't say anything at all about the beliefs of Methodists.  Perhaps he didn't go much and/or passed his time sleeping while he was there.  But I think it more likely he went to a Church where Christian doctrine wasn't much articulated and where the Bible wasn't taught (and we're not short on churches in the Pacific Northwest more interested in topics like nuclear disarmament than the person & work of Christ).  And when he came across a religion that was "conservative" (socially, not theologically) and authoritarian--he found it compelling.  One example, but I can think of several more.

--Erik

Edited December 17, 2016 by Five Solas
eliminating ambiguity