Jonathan Rauch, "Civic Theology" and the Church

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, manol said:

@SeekingUnderstanding, if I understand Rauch correctly, there theoretically exists a yet-to-be-articulated place of harmony between you and @smac97 where neither is required to make concessions on core values. 

I agree.  And a big part of finding that "place of harmony" involves the parties doing this:

Quote

Rauch said he consulted with theologians to determine three principal teachings of Christianity. He settled on these:

• First, don’t be afraid. “It’s the most frequent injunction in the Bible,” Rauch said.
• Second, be like Jesus, imitate him.
• Third, forgive each other.

Rauch said that as he boiled down those principals, a light went on for him.

“Where have I seen those kinds of virtues talked about before?” he said. “And here’s where: Those three virtues — don’t be afraid, imitate Jesus and forgive each other — map quite neatly on three of the core tenets of Madisonian constitutional liberalism, the things the Founders told us we need to do to defend the system that they gave us.”

Here’s how Rauch boiled down his comparison:

Where Christ taught his followers not to be afraid, Madison wrote that Americans should share power. Where Christ taught people to follow his example of radical egalitarianism, Madison called for equality and civility. Where Christ taught people to forgive each other, Madison pleaded for pluralism and toleration.

A slide from Jonathan Rauch's presentation at BYU showing the similarities he found in the teachings of Jesus Christ and the writings of James Madison, Father of the Constitution.

“Madison was, in my opinion, a space alien or was directly sent from heaven,” Rauch said, “because he pops up at just the right time with this unprecedented political insight about how you can build a large Republic, not by suppressing conflict but by harnessing conflict, by forcing compromise. And if you had to boil down the Constitution to one phrase, that’s what it does. It’s a compromise-forcing device, and it understands compromise.”

Rauch said the compromise the Constitution anticipated was not just splitting the difference and getting a result no one likes.

“It’s a dynamic creative process where, when I sit down with (someone) and I have one idea which he doesn’t accept and he has one that I doesn’t don’t accept, we then say, what if we try this third thing?

“What we leave with is better than what we entered with. This is a dynamic creative process.”

Live like Jesus and James

BYU students asked Rauch how they could most meaningfully participate in democracy. He gave two answers:

One, model Madisonian values.

“That is to approach the people you disagree with and ask them this question — this is scientifically proven, no kidding, folks, this is the question to ask,” said Rauch, co-founder of Braver Angels, a group that is cultivating civil discussions between regular Democrats and Republicans:

What is it about your life experience that led you to this opinion that you have?

“Once you come at people not with ‘I disagree,’ but with ‘Tell me a story about yourself,’ you’ve translated the axis from arguing about facts to narrative, to storytelling. That’s our natural home as humans. And you’ve shown care and curiosity about the other person. You will be amazed at how that can break down barriers.”

Two, imitate Jesus. For this, Rauch used the terms exilic, which means in exile or related to a period of exile, and orthogonal, which means being at right angles from each other.

“Christianity is at its best when it is an exilic faith,” he said. “Now you all know something about an exilic faith, and my people, the Jews, do as well. Christianity is not at its best when it holds or seeks power. It’s at its best when it’s orthogonal to the whole rest of the universe, when it’s radically countercultural, setting a shining example of a different way to live.

“And you (BYU students) can do that.”

I think BYU graduates, such as myself, and even all Latter-day Saints, can do that, too.

My positions on sociopolitical issues are not based on who is or is not in political power.  My positions are, instead, based on my own research and assessments, guidance from scripture and from modern prophets and apostles, my legal training and experience, and so on.  

34 minutes ago, manol said:

I doubt that an internet discussion board offers a sufficiently non-polarizing environment for the required nuance of articulation informed by Christ-like (I think Ruach would approve of the term) regard-for-the-other to occur, but my point is that, at least theoretically, that place exists.   

Yep.  I'm willing to make compromises.  But hard feelings and personal antipathy, such as how I think SU feels about me, can obscure that reality.  Oh, well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17, 2025 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, manol said:

@SeekingUnderstanding, if I understand Rauch correctly, there theoretically exists a yet-to-be-articulated place of harmony between you and @smac97 where neither is required to make concessions on core values. 

I doubt that an internet discussion board offers a sufficiently non-polarizing environment for the required nuance of articulation informed by Christ-like (I think Ruach would approve of the term) regard-for-the-other to occur, but my point is that, at least theoretically, that place of harmony exists.   

That's my take away as well. The issue stance is at best secondary to the primary concern of exemplifying characteristics that allow for pluralism. 

I don't really want to get in the middle of smac and @SeekingUnderstandingper se. My guess is that I probably agree more with seeking politically, but don't necesarily like the current execution of how he's presenting that. I know I have far less agreement with smac, but do want smac to be able to have voice and space within our socio-political climate as I believe that necessary for a truly pluralistic society. I would be curious from @smac97 about how he squares the values we apparently both like in Rauch with the political stance of the current movement that tends to put me and most anyone who in some way openly disagrees with said movement as an enemy or potential enemy to the US. From my perspective it does feel like a blindspot. But I want to respect smac's desires to not go super political and I don't know where the limit lies. Plus I would worry that the thread wouldn't stay within the spirit of what Rauch is advocating for. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited February 17, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

As a side note, I like this comment on narratives.  I think it reflects the success of using narratives to spread ideas, including the Gospel because it’s our “natural home”.

Quote

“Once you come at people not with ‘I disagree,’ but with ‘Tell me a story about yourself,’ you’ve translated the axis from arguing about facts to narrative, to storytelling. That’s our natural home as humans. And you’ve shown care and curiosity about the other person. You will be amazed at how that can break down barriers.”

 

[Chum]

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

For one, the manner of the church isn't exactly reactionary. Messages that are more direct to a specific concern are usually rare or repeated from things already said.

I would modify this a little. They have used not-conference messaging channels to share messages that are generally applicable to the challenges. Sometimes just to say that they are aware of our concerns and our uncertainty. We had lots of these during covid.

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

to some degree there's only so much one can do to shift a cultural moment.

This is always in the back of my mind. I have repeatedly seen how over-direction has taken other churches/orgs to bad places. And I can trace how a lighter hand avoids traps, bad roads and other worse outcomes.

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

There may be more things said in April or October conference,

Hopefully in April. During the last conference, we were gutting flooded houses. Between sessions another storm popped up. Octobers are often tough now, so April please.

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

As Rauch mentioned we have a "thick" theology that calls on us to act humbly, civil, patiently, and kindly. 

This is hard for me. Not to diminish the clear wisdom here, I have also seen this as a rallying cry for stagnation (again, these are personal experiences).

Wards that are active in their membership and their community might find it difficult to understand wards that go a decade or two w/o a functioning youth program or any interaction with the community. Nearly lifeless auxiliaries are what peace looks like. Patience and humility maintain that peace.

(An earlier version of this:  The God's In Control mindset that led to believers never engaging. In response to that, we got 500 recitations of the truck/boat/helicopter parable.)

So anyway, being dominated by sedentarians left me in a weird place. I'm trying to embrace humility, civility, patience, and kindness while I'm also being triggered by them. Today I'm trying to rescue civility and kindness from that.

18 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I try to have humility in my convictions, recognizing that they're only built in my experiences and the experiences I have easy contact with. I try not to demonize another side, even when I believe their posture or position is deeply wrong.

This was easier during things like mistreatment of migrants or non-binary loved ones. It's a lot harder as I watch paths unfold that point to close+older family (with health issues) becoming unhoused - as new harms run up against existing fragility.  I struggle to love folks while they defend, embrace and even celebrate that. And my concerns are a speck among many scores of millions.

So I am mindful of what the Church can and can not do. Truly. I absolutely get there are limitations because that's how it is.  And here's the But.  Given the unprecedented scope and nature of the growing harms, I'm hoping the Church will stretch a little here. Even if only to say "We are sensitive to the distress and are praying for you". Because the distress is real, massive, growing and ruinous.

Edited February 17, 2025 by Chum

[Calm]

Rauch mentions right at the beginning of one of the videos I took a glimpse at (plan to sit through them when I can concentrate) that he was anticipating back in the early 2000’s that secular America would be like secular Scandinavia.  Does he limit his discussion to how secularism and Christianity work in the US or does he make general assumptions?  It sounded to me like it was the interaction of the two in the context of American culture, which is very different from many other countries that might have social networks in place that could substitute for what we tend to get through church involvement in the US.

Iow, I am wondering if he limits “it just hasn’t worked out” to the US or he applies it globally because of the second half of the below dealing with fundamental questions.

Quote

Why don’t you think secularism is the solution?

One thing is, it just hasn’t worked out. …But there’s a second, deeper reason, which is that I think a purely secular worldview cannot really answer to the satisfaction of most people a couple of fundamental questions:

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

I would be curious from @smac97 about how he squares the values we apparently both like in Rauch with the political stance of the current movement that tends to put me and most anyone who in some way openly disagrees with said movement as an enemy or potential enemy to the US. From my perspective it does feel like a blindspot. But I want to respect smac's desires to not go super political and I don't know where the limit lies. Plus I would worry that the thread wouldn't stay within the spirit of what Rauch is advocating for. 

I square my appreciation for Rauch's sentiments this way: Absent a particular endorsement or ratification, I am not beholden or responsible for broad rhetorical excesses and recriminations from people toward my end of the political spectrum, and I would extend the same courtesy and exculpatory expectation to folks like you.  If you can point me to instances where I have endorsed or ratified characterizations of people as "an enemy or potential enemy to the US," then I would retract such endorsements and apologize.  As it is, though, I don't think I've done that.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited February 17, 2025 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, Chum said:

I would modify this a little. They have used not-conference messaging channels to to share messages that are generally applicable to the challenges. Sometimes just to say that are aware of our concerns and uncertainty. We had lots of these during covid.

True. I definitely don't want it sounding like conference is the only place they messaged stuff. They often used actions and announcements out of conference, particularly during covid. But either version is still fairly uncommon. 

2 hours ago, Chum said:

This is always in the back of my mind. I have repeatedly seen how over-direction has taken other churches/orgs to bad places. And I can trace how a lighter hand avoids traps, bad roads and other worse outcomes.

Personally, covid for me was a big realization of just how much messages might not sink in. Having alll the prophets and apostles did help. I had a cousin it helped reduce her hesitancy. But I also saw it not shift people who were convinced of a specific narrative. I personally knew a woman who was so convinced of her "intuition" this probably added another nail in her growing faith coffin. (TBF not even the severe illness of her husband and the death of her father in law from covid could convince her that maybe just maybe she was just wrong to any degree). 

For me it's not just avoiding traps, it's honestly wondering what if anything really works to bridge gaps in our sever polarization

2 hours ago, Chum said:

Hopefully in April. During the last conference, we were gutting flooded houses. Between sessions another storm popped up. Octobers are often tough now, so April please.

This is hard for me. Not to diminish the clear wisdom here, I have also seen this as a rallying cry for stagnation (again, these are personal experiences).

Wards that are active in their membership and their community might find it difficult to understand wards that go a decade or two w/o a functioning youth program or any interaction with the community. Nearly lifeless auxiliaries are what peace looks like. Patience and humility maintain that peace.

(An earlier version of this:  The God's In Control mindset that led to believers never engaging. In response to that, we got 500 recitations of the truck/boat/helicopter parable.)

So anyway, being dominated by sedentarians left me in a weird place. I'm trying to embrace humility, civility, patience, and kindness while I'm also being triggered by them. Today I'm trying to rescue civility and kindness from that.

I've been curious about the movement away from organizations in general to our hyper individualistic culture. The issue with engagement even in a church culture that's built in volunteerism to me is more an indication of this larger cultural trend. We suck at getting out of our own navels. 

Although, I have to recognize that if a person saw my life right now, they may pin it as non-engaged as well. I don't do much. I feel validated in why I'm not doing much. I don't plan to always do little. But for now little is all I've got in me. I'm sure i'm not the only one who fits that and the amount that do would likely vary from ward to ward. 

2 hours ago, Chum said:

This was easier during things like mistreatment of migrants or non-binary loved ones. It's a lot harder as I watch paths unfold that point to close+older family (with health issues) becoming unhoused - as new harms run up against existing fragility.  I struggle to love folks while they defend, embrace and even celebrate that. And my concerns are a speck among many scores of millions.

I do too. Honestly I really really do. Over the last several years I've gone through phases. Early on, I assumed that if I just explained well a concern or my perspective it would make sense and would lead to changes at least within my circles. It mostly didn't. I sought understanding of concerns, mostly hoping to assuage my growing anger and incredulity at parts of the US. It helped and ran into limitations. It really began falling apart as a leading model during Covid. No matter what I understood the formula came up as an anthology in being convinced in one's wrongness...a wrongness that was directly effecting my family and my own mental health. I had to develop new skills, particularly forgiveness, to fill in the gaps in my old ones. And now, here we are again and not again. Again in the sense that we've been here before-ish. Not, in that the stakes feel higher and the corrosion in our social fabrics are getting deeper. 

When I look at this I honestly don't know what to do to help improve our social situation. Which maybe makes it easier for me to be okay that there isn't an immediate message confronting concerns be the presidency or 12 etc. 

I know how to feel validated. I know how to "win" an argument. I know how to communicate what I see as wrong. I know how to pause and introspect on my own actions (not perfect on that one). But I don't know how to really engage the "other side." Not in a way that's truly persuasive. Not in a way that reduces unhealthy underlying assumptions I see in it. Not in a way that really includes being heard. 

So right now I'm in this space of pause. And gathering voices/information and weighing them as options. Options in the near future. And options in the far. 

2 hours ago, Chum said:

So I am mindful of what the Church can and can not do. Truly. I absolutely get there are limitations because that's how it is.  And here's the But.  Given the unprecedented scope and nature of the growing harms, I'm hoping the Church will stretch a little here. Even if only to say "We are sensitive to the distress and are praying for you". Because the distress is real, massive, growing and ruinous.

I hope so too. Earnestly I hope it would make a difference. I question how much it will till people are ready to hear. Some are. Many aren't 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited February 18, 2025 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I square my appreciation for Rauch's sentiments this way: Absent a particular endorsement or ratification, I am not beholden or responsible for broad rhetorical excesses and recriminations from people toward my end of the political spectrum, and I would extend the same courtesy and exculpatory expectation to folks like you.

Just days ago you were suggesting the whole pro-choice movement was behind some inflammatory t-shirt slogans you saw.

[manol]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

For me it's not just avoiding traps, it's honestly wondering what if anything really works to bridge gaps in our severe polarization...

When I look at this I honestly don't know what to do to help improve our social situation.

In my opinion...

It is as if humanity (individually and collectively) stands on the cusp of great change.  Maybe this is what we are here for. 

Speaking now in general terms, what we have been doing (battle, figuratively or literally, with others over disagreements) hasn't worked.  And honing our skills at doing what hasn't worked probably isn't going to work much better.

I don't think we can get "there" from "here".  We need a new "here".  We need to start from a new "here".  In other words, imo a new core paradigm is needed.  I haven't arrived at this new paradigm yet so I'm still fumbling in the dark, but it may go something like this:

Love and treasure each and every person as if they actually are your self.

I believe it is our privilege to do so. 

Edited February 18, 2025 by manol

[Calm]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

would like to hear responses from our resident crop of secularists who, like Mr. Rauch did in 2003, think that secularism is the answer to most/all of humanity's woes.

I would like to hear your response to his pointing to 2016 and the alignment of white Evangelicals with the Republican Party, including the shift from being the most likely to say character matters to being the most likely to not care and the increase of nonchurchgoing but identifying Evangelical and the implications of the Religion of Fear as he labels it.

sincere question, does this analysis align with your perception or contradict or something else? 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

would like to hear responses from our resident crop of secularists who, like Mr. Rauch did in 2003, think that secularism is the answer to most/all of humanity's woes.

I would like to hear your response to his pointing to 2016 and the alignment of white Evangelicals with the Republican Party, including the shift from being the most likely to say character matters to being the most likely to not care and the increase of nonchurchgoing but identifying Evangelical and the implications of the Religion of Fear as he labels it.

sincere question, does this analysis align with your perception or contradict or something else? 

I'll do my best without getting pulled back into political arguments.

First, I have previously said this: 

Quote

My positions on sociopolitical issues are not based on who is or is not in political power.  My positions are, instead, based on my own research and assessments, guidance from scripture and from modern prophets and apostles, my legal training and experience, and so on.  

And this:

Quote

My assessment of legal principles, and preferred legal/political policies, is not based on political parties, platforms or individuals.  I have never read a political party's platform, nor have I sought to align myself with one.  Rather, my assessment is based on my own training and experience as an attorney, my own research and analysis, my own sense of ethics and morality, and guidance from the leaders of the Church.  My political preferences and decisions are downstream from this.

IOW, for me religious/moral/ethical scruples come first, then I go looking for political candidates, parties, platforms that most closely hew toward my scruples.  Scruples are "upstream" from and inform my political choices.  The candidates, parties, platforms, etc. are "downstream."

Second, I found the following graph from Mr. Rauch's presentation informative:

As I understand it, the above graph shows poll results where people were asked to plot themselves on an "ideological spectrum" (gray data points) and then plot the two main political parties on that spectrum (Red = Republican, Blue = Democrat).

Mr. Rauch states that the above data indicate that white evangelicals "are exactly, precisely in line with the Republican Party," and that this is "not true of any other Christian group."

Put another way, Mr. Rauch seems to be saying that white evangelicals are taking their marching orders from political platforms/ideologies (hence the near-exact overlap between them in the above graph).

He may well have a point.  And if this is so, I am not comfortable with it, as I think religious/moral/ethical scruples are, or should be, "upstream" from political ideology/affiliation.

Third, I am not sure Mr. Rauch as a point here.  The above data came from religious demographer Ryan Burge, whom Rauch describes as "the best in the business."  Last year Mr. Burge made some interesting observations about religious observance and political ideology/affiliation:

Quote

All credit to the tremendous Landon Schnabel for a great paper that was published at the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The title tells the story, “A Search for Liberalizing Religion: Political Asymmetry in the American Religious Landscape.” The conceit is pretty simple - there are lots of examples of highly religious people being really conservative. Schnabel wants to conduct a search for any evidence that being highly engaged in a certain religion pushes someone to the left side of the political spectrum.
...

What is really stunning is the fact that even among Democrats, going to church more makes them more likely to believe that individual morality is more important to God than societal problems. In other words, the more Democrats go to church, the more they look like Republicans. I wanted to pull on that thread just a bit more.

This is the political ideology of the sample but it’s broken down by frequency of religious attendance.

You can see that trademark cascade pattern. The top row (which is never attenders) has a whole lot of blue and not much red. Just 21% of never attenders are conservative, while 46% identify as liberal. As church attendance goes up, those ratios begin to shift from left to right.

...

Among yearly attenders, the conservatives start to take over compared to liberals (36% vs 25%). Among weekly attenders, 52% are conservative, while just 16% are liberal. It’s even more extreme among the most frequent attenders. For folks who are attending religious services multiple times a week, about 60% are conservative and 10% are liberal.

But, race has to play a role here, right? This probably only holds for white respondents and breaks down for people of color. Nope. The finding is consistent for every racial group.

Among white respondents, 45% of never attenders are liberals. It’s just about 12% of white weekly attenders. A Black person who never attends religious services is twice as likely to identify as a liberal compared to one who attends multiple times per week (48% vs 23%). The Hispanic trend line isn’t so smooth compared to the previous two, but the trajectory is the same - there aren’t many Hispanic liberals in the pews each Sunday.

There’s just no two ways about it - people who are more religiously active are significantly less likely to describe themselves as liberals. That’s the case for every racial group as well - this transcends these categories.

Let me put a finer point on this by showing you how this relationship works for the twenty largest Protestant denominations included in the data. Same basic analysis - calculating the share who identify as liberal at each level of church attendance.

 

That’s a whole lot of trend lines pointing downward - meaning those who attend the most frequently are the least likely to identify as liberal. That’s true for Southern Baptists and a lot of non-denominational folks, too. Which tracks - those are evangelical denominations. There are several where the line is pretty flat like the Assemblies of God and Church of Christ. In both cases, there’s no relationship between religious attendance and political ideology.

However, what may be most striking is that even folks who are members of what are perceived to be left leaning or moderate denominations like the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church USA are showing a similar pattern to Southern Baptists - higher attendance means less liberalism.

There are only two denominations that are clearly pointing upward - the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (and that’s likely because of the weekly+ group being so liberal) and members of the Episcopal Church.
...
But what about non-Protestant groups? I tested that, too. I had to expand my sample to include the last four years of data to make sure that my N size was large enough.

...
Looked at in totality, it’s hard to look at this data and say that there are significant pockets of liberalizing religion in the United States. The more people go to church, the less liberal they are. That’s true across racial lines. That’s also true in a lot of major Protestant traditions including a few mainline stalwarts like the United Methodist Church and the PCUSA.

• "Just 21% of never attenders are conservative, while 46% identify as liberal. As church attendance goes up, those ratios begin to shift from left to right."
• "{P}eople who are more religiously active are significantly less likely to describe themselves as liberals."
• "{T}hose who attend the most frequently are the least likely to identify as liberal."
• "The more people go to church, the less liberal they are. That’s true across racial lines."

In other words, I am wondering about the cause-and-effect trends here.  Does being "upstream" or "downstream" determine which - political ideology or religious ideology/observance is the "cause" and which is the "effect"?  I don't quite know.

And does any of this data affect Mr. Rauch's seemingly harsh assessment of White Evangelicals?  Maybe.

Fourth, this article, in The Cougar Chronicle (an independent paper written by BYU students), writer Kimball Call broadly approved of Mr. Rauch's comments (as do I), but he did take some exception to his (Mr. Rauch's) treatment of white evangelicals:

Quote

As Rauch put forth his claims and evidence, the message resonated deeply with me, and I found myself in complete agreement for the majority of the lecture. My main moment of dissatisfaction with Rauch was when he was identifying the results of widespread secularization. First, progressive wokeism, which has emerged as a pseudo-religious substitute for Christianity, and second, politicized right-wing evangelicalism. He briefly and pointedly rebuked the first but then spent much more time condemning the second, going after “white evangelicals” with a larger amount of fervor than I think they deserved in the context of his remarks.

On a personal note, I generally find myself being among the last in a room to come to the defense of evangelicals. There are many valid criticisms to be made of their religious tendencies and culture, particularly their treatment of our faith. However, it felt that their absence became an excuse to pile negativity on them, and Rauch seemed to attribute an outsized amount of the blame for the state of our modern politics.

In my opinion, Rauch made a good argument that evangelicals are extremely politicized and overwhelmingly in favor of the conservative right. He reasoned that a wave of secularization has impacted churches, leading to increased politicization. But to argue that saying you’re evangelical just means “I am a conservative Republican” seems, to me, a hazardous over-simplification of a very complex religious demographic.
...
Instead of engaging in nuance to strengthen his case, Rauch damaged his own credibility by showing only a few brief clips and extracting the worst possible interpretation. This weakened his main claim that evangelicals have overly politicized Christianity – a claim I believe may have merit but should have been articulated without indulging in condescension. There is much to be debated on this topic, but I feel it important to say that if we continue to berate evangelicals or talk to them from atop our high horses, I doubt progress will ever be made in solving the issues that Jonathan Rauch wishes to solve. This is my biggest critique of what, to me, was overall a very persuasive and well-reasoned lecture.

• "{T}o argue that saying you’re evangelical just means 'I am a conservative Republican' seems, to me, a hazardous over-simplification of a very complex religious demographic."
• "This weakened his main claim that evangelicals have overly politicized Christianity – a claim I believe may have merit but should have been articulated without indulging in condescension."
• "{I}f we continue to berate evangelicals or talk to them from atop our high horses, I doubt progress will ever be made in solving the issues that Jonathan Rauch wishes to solve."

Yeah.  This is particularly so given the broader trends throughout Christian America that Mr. Burge has noted (see above "Third...").

Fifth, I have also previously said this:

Quote

Meanwhile, the other candidates were pretty terrible.  ... {W}e faced something of a Sophie's Choice as far as having to choose between candidates who all have substantial moral failings.

I think there is very disproportionate attention being paid to just one of the two parts of the Sophie's Choice.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I would be curious from @smac97 about how he squares the values we apparently both like in Rauch with the political stance of the current movement that tends to put me and most anyone who in some way openly disagrees with said movement as an enemy or potential enemy to the US.

I dislike this either/or characterization as much as I dislike the "you're either an ally or a bigot" one that gets thrown the other way.

We need to avoid hazardous over-simplifications of very complex issues, particularly when doing so involves passing moral judgments on individuals.

19 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

From my perspective it does feel like a blindspot. But I want to respect smac's desires to not go super political and I don't know where the limit lies. Plus I would worry that the thread wouldn't stay within the spirit of what Rauch is advocating for. 

Please see my response to Calm, as it may include information responsive to your query.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

I have yet to read all of this material, but this sort of thing is what we need absolutely.

We can do this - without changing doctrines in the church- but understanding doctrine FULLY and symbolically.   Even our history "problems" can be undone for those who are total skeptics about the historical events regarding the beginnings of the church.

Many times in LDS theology it is mentioned that living humans can be "angels".   

So could Moroni have been a living human?

Could "Peter James and John" also be living humans who Joseph "saw AS" angels?

Pragmatically it is irrelevant about the source of the foundational stories- what is important is what we learn from them!

Are "all men created equal"??   In the real world??   Obviously not -yet SYMBOLICALLY we ought to REGARD THEM AS IF we are all brothers and sisters.

Seeing that as a paradigm for beliefs, about human equality- it doesn't matter if the ARE or ARE NOT "equal" in all ways- it is the BELIEF that we should treat all of "God's Children" as brothers and sisters.

So the stories could have "actually happened" for literalists, or for those who find literalism rather childish, there are many ways to see these issues symbolically.

AND if these ideas were presented by a faithful member of the church, everyone would see him/her as apostates.

We NEED a Jewish atheist to show us what COULD be - of course this guy was apparently BORN an "apostate"!! 

In the story of Adam and Eve it took Satan himself to allow us to learn that God wanted us to have AGENCY! 

 

If God is a Human, then Humanism becomes theology!

 

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

I have yet to read all of this material, but this sort of thing is what we need absolutely.

We can do this - without changing doctrines in the church - but understanding doctrine FULLY and symbolically.   Even our history "problems" can be undone for those who are total skeptics about the historical events regarding the beginnings of the church.

Many times in LDS theology it is mentioned that living humans can be "angels".

Yes, that word has a variety of usages.

3 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

So could Moroni have been a living human?

As in a living and having a perfected and glorified resurrected body, and having come from the presence of God human?

Or do you mean a living but still mortal, still living on earth in the 18th century, and would eventually die human?

3 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Could "Peter James and John" also be living humans who Joseph "saw AS" angels?

"Could" encompasses a lot.  I don't see how we could posit this "without changing doctrines in the church."

Could Jesus have just been an itinerant rabbi with some thoughtful things to day?  Sure, but that would utterly negate His role in our lives.

3 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Pragmatically it is irrelevant about the source of the foundational stories- what is important is what we learn from them!

I think what is most important is whether "the foundational stories" are true.  If Jesus Christ is not the Son of God, then "stories" about him are nice, but not salvific.

3 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

So the stories could have "actually happened" for literalists, or for those who find literalism rather childish, there are many ways to see these issues symbolically.

AND if these ideas were presented by a faithful member of the church, everyone would see him/her as apostates.

We NEED a Jewish atheist to show us what COULD be - of course this guy was apparently BORN an "apostate"!! 

In the story of Adam and Eve it took Satan himself to allow us to learn that God wanted us to have AGENCY! 

If God is a Human, then Humanism becomes theology!

"If."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 1/27/2025 at 1:03 PM, smac97 said:

Jonathan Rauch, "a self-described atheistic Jewish gay man" would seem to be an unlikely advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Yet here we are.

In 2023, I started a thread about comments he made at the University of Virginia about what the Church is doing to advance "Civic Theology":

Perspective: Jonathan Rauch underscores ‘civic theology’ of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the University of Virginia

An excerpt:

Fast forward to January 23, 2025:  The remarkable message a Brookings senior fellow gave to BYU students about the civic theology America needs

Great stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Interesting. I think he is spot on about what is happening in America and how conservative Christianity has had a role in the decline in the values of liberal democracy. Whether the Church has the answers as he proposes I am less sure. I see Latter-day Saints following a similar pattern when it comes to politics and battling secularism as well.  They are a lot like Evangelical Christians in this regard.

[manol]

25 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

AND if these ideas were presented by a faithful member of the church, everyone would see him/her as apostates.

We NEED a Jewish atheist to show us what COULD be - of course this guy was apparently BORN an "apostate"!! 

I hadn't thought of that!  Jonathan Rauch is a bit of a Samuel the Lamanite character, isn't he?

It would be kinda funny if Christ tells them to go back and put the teachings of Jonathan the Gay Jewish Atheist into the D&C. 

(One of the things Jonathan demonstrates is that the teachings and example of Christ stand on their own merits, no dogma needed.) 

Edited February 18, 2025 by manol

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Interesting. I think he is spot on about what is happening in America and how conservative Christianity has had a role in the decline in the values of liberal democracy. Whether the Church has the answers as he proposes I am less sure. I see Latter-day Saints following a similar pattern when it comes to politics and battling secularism as well.  They are a lot like Evangelical Christians in this regard.

I appreciate your input.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In other words, I am wondering about the cause-and-effect trends here.  Does being "upstream" or "downstream" determine which - political ideology or religious ideology/observance is the "cause" and which is the "effect"?  I don't quite know.

Thanks for answering in detail, it was interesting.

Removed paragraph as I got interrupted and thought I had finished reading the quote and hadn’t…I would like to know margin of error for the non Protestant groups because some graphs may look more ‘more attending, more conservative’ than the data is.  LDS especially where there is only a 4% difference between never attending and weekly+.

I agree the comments about white evangelicals could have been phrased better, but I also want to point out that ”conservative” doesn’t automatically equate to Republican and if someone maps perfectly in line with Republican, they may not be in line with certain conservative viewpoints.  There is also the issue that MAGA doesn’t map identically with Republican if we consider the entire party and using them interchangeably can be problematic.   I would have to watch the presentation again, but my impression was Rauch used MAGA as almost interchangeably with Republican when speaking of Evangelicals and I wonder if that is accurate.***

I would really like to look closer at those who identify as Evangelical but do not attend church and see if that is truly a political identification and not a theological one (survey their religious beliefs in depth as well as political).  Are their religious beliefs developed sufficiently to map to an established denomination or are they more vague.

He only had so much time.  Be interesting to see if his book has more nuances or discussion about Evangelical theology.

***I am flashing back to Navidad who might be protesting as well using “Evangelical” is wrong, they really mean “Fundamentalist” as they are not the same thing.  While I respect his view, I think typical usage is not leaning his way.

Edited February 18, 2025 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 1/27/2025 at 1:03 PM, smac97 said:

Jonathan Rauch, "a self-described atheistic Jewish gay man" would seem to be an unlikely advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  

Yet here we are.

In 2023, I started a thread about comments he made at the University of Virginia about what the Church is doing to advance "Civic Theology":

Perspective: Jonathan Rauch underscores ‘civic theology’ of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the University of Virginia

An excerpt:

Fast forward to January 23, 2025:  The remarkable message a Brookings senior fellow gave to BYU students about the civic theology America needs

Great stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Further I am not convinced that Rauch's theory that without religious morals and values liberal democracies fail. I am watching the Rauch/Givens video and am open to it. However, Europe's liberal democracies have done quite well in the secular world at least till recently where they do appear to be under attack by right wing authoritarians similar Victor Orban and Hungry. We see this in Germany with AFD and France and even the UK where it seems they send the conservative right wing packing recently.  And then we have the US VP cheering on right wing authoritarian movements like AFD whom he disgracefully met with in snubbed the German Chancellor. Maybe people are to weak morally to maintain moral values and ethics without the stick of religion to beat them up. It is interesting that Rauch mentions MAGA is a replacement for the failure of Protestant Christianity.

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate your input.

Thanks,

-Smac

I read what you provided. I am listening to the Givens/Rauch lecture and will comment more later.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate your input.

Thanks,

-Smac

I should note that I am rather interested in this topic and intrigues with his thoughts on Mormonism. As a skeptic I still believe he may be on to  something here in regards to Mormonism so I will listen and read to understand his ideas.  But as noted, I am concerned that I see many Latter-day Saints going down the road Evangelical Protestants have trodden.  It is hard to know to what extent but Latter-day Saints have supported Trump and MAGA, perhaps, more than other politicians and movements it seems. And I see it from the Latter-day Saints I know fairly extensively. But that is just anecdotal. 

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Further I am not convinced that Rauch's theory that without religious morals and values liberal democracies fail. I am watching the Rauch/Givens video and am open to it. However, Europe's liberal democracies have done quite well in the secular world at least till recently

It sounds more like what he sees is the value of forced compromise as seen by Madison and the presence of both secularism and the religious viewpoints creates the need for compromise in our country, so it’s mostly/all? about the American dynamic.  

My view….Forced compromise may work differently in other countries that don’t have a two party system and who frequently use coalitions in government.  My guess is Rauch see Madison Democracy as the best version of democracy, but haven’t a clue how he would address non American democratic political systems.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I should note that I am rather interested in this topic and intrigues with his thoughts on Mormonism. As a skeptic I still believe he may be on to  something here in regards to Mormonism so I will listen and read to understand his ideas.  But as noted, I am concerned that I see many Latter-day Saints going down the road Evangelical Protestants have trodden.  It is hard to know to what extent but Latter-day Saints have supported Trump and MAGA, perhaps, more than other politicians and movements it seems. And I see it from the Latter-day Saints I know fairly extensively. But that is just anecdotal. 

Be sure and watch the Faith Matters podcast as that gets into how our beliefs influence this civic approach, such as our emphasis on agency vs free will and our view of Eve and ‘the Fall’.  There is also discussion on behaviour vs teachings.

Added:  see you are listening to it.

Edited February 18, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is hard to know to what extent but Latter-day Saints have supported Trump and MAGA, perhaps, more than other politicians and movements it seems.

I know LDS who held their nose and voted for Trump and others who at least the first time around (haven’t had the chance or the desire really to discuss politics with them or anyone else offline the second time around) saw it as a duty to wholeheartedly support Trump once he got the nomination, any criticism of him was wrong.  In my experience the “hold the nose” were significantly more numerous, but that could be because of my social circle, which is pretty small compared to most people, I am guessing these days, so the fact that it includes higher numbers of academics could skew my experience significantly.  They were typically not in depth conversations either except for a few.

My guess though is if there was a strong alternative moderate conservative candidate, the majority would vote for them rather than Trump as I just don’t see the fear of being overwhelmed by ‘others’ as strong in LDS.  The large numbers of missionaries who went outside the US helps there, imo.

Edited February 18, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Further I am not convinced that Rauch's theory that without religious morals and values liberal democracies fail. I am watching the Rauch/Givens video and am open to it. However, Europe's liberal democracies have done quite well in the secular world at least till recently where they do appear to be under attack by right wing authoritarians similar Victor Orban and Hungry.

I guess "have done quite well" is a matter of perspective and time.

Nearly all of Europe has a native birth rate below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, the rate needed to maintain a stable population without immigration.  And while immigrants initially have higher birth rates, their rates tend to fall to native levels within one or two generations.

Europe is dying because they are not having enough children.  And I think that cratering birth rates are strongly correlated to secularization:

Quote

Abstract

This study proposes and explores a new fertility determinant: societal secularism. Using country-level data from multiple sources (n = 181) and multilevel data from 58 countries in the World Values Survey (n = 83,301), the author documents a strong negative relationship between societal secularism and both country-level fertility rates and individual-level fertility behavior. Secularism, even in small amounts, is associated with population stagnation or even decline absent substantial immigration, whereas highly religious countries have higher fertility rates that promote population growth. This country-level pattern is driven by more than aggregate lower fertility of secular individuals. In fact, societal secularism is a better predictor of highly religious individuals’ fertility behavior than that of secular individuals, and this pattern is largely a function of cultural values related to gender, reproduction, and autonomy in secular societies. Beyond their importance for the religious composition of the world population, the patterns presented in this study are relevant to key fertility theories and could help account for below-replacement fertility.

More:

Secularization and Low Fertility: How Declining Church Membership Changes Couples and Their Childbearing

Quote

The impact of religion on family formation pattern and fertility is widely assumed to be of modest relevance in contemporary Western contexts. We argue that religious affiliation continues to play a significant role in social processes, and that secularization remains a driver of demographic trends. We examine the relationship between secularization and fertility decline in Finland from an individual and a couple perspective, amid a broader trend of declining birth rates in Western countries. We show that secularization can exert a self-reinforcing negative effect on fertility through an interplay of declining church membership, changing couple dynamics, and childbearing of religiously mixed and homogeneous couples. Using data from the Finnish administrative registers covering the period from 1995 to 2019, we are able to identify religious affiliation, as indicated by church tax payment in the secularized context of Finland. The analysis unfolds in two parts: first, we perform a demographic examination of the fertility trends of the religiously affiliated and unaffiliated groups; and, second, we use a dyadic perspective to explore the relationships between religious affiliation, couple composition, and the probability of having a first child. We conclude that the accelerated decline in church membership has contributed to the recent fertility decline. 

A few more:

Religious have fewer children in secular countries

Declining birth rates linked to secularization, growing hostility toward religion

How fertility rates and religious adherence are connected

America’s Growing Religious-Secular Fertility Divide

Religion and Fertility: A Longitudinal Register Study Examining Differences by Sex, Parity, Partner’s Religion, and Religious Conversion in Finland

Again, Europe qua Europe is a pastiche of dead countries walking.  Same goes for many countries in Asia (South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, etc.).  The countries are also increasingly secularized.

Thanks,

-Smac