Orson Scott Card: Churches grow not because of doctrine

I have long believed the conversion is a spiritual thing…people don’t need to know a lot about the doctrine to “feel” this is something that they should do or be a part of or that draws them to want to be a part of. Clearly, early in the organization of the restored church, the doctrine was still being crystallized and still being understood, but people were joining the movement. I think that is a witness of the spirit in the church.

However, doctrine plays a role. Once someone joins the church, the doctrine and further seeking doctrine keeps one growing in the church…as they are nourished by the good word of God. If the doctrine was faulty or scant or shallow…people would not stay, and the image of the church would be reduced to a wild splinter group of christianity, not a legitimate religion, and would likely fade out before others would have a chance to join and keep it growing.

I think the fact the church has become such a global religion and sustained growth (despite people falling away each year) is because of doctrine that was formalized and more developed by inspired men like Talmadge and others.

Initial conversion may not be based on doctrine, but sustained growth and legitimacy is definitely rooted in solid doctrine.

So I do not necessarily agree with Card.

“Zion” is an inter-personal concept, as is “charity”.

“Church” is an organizational concept that should but doesn’t always lead to a charitable Zion.

In this mortal world, BOTH the theology and the organization are necessary, imo, to provide real individual AND communal growth.

The key, imo, is to provide a theology that encourages the principles to permeate the organization – or, at least, to be widespread enough so that the roots are strong enough to survive regular and vigorous pruning. Balance is one of the most difficult aspects of mortality – which is why extremism on either end of any issue is so common and attractive.

Honestly, at the meta-level, I’ve not found any theology or organization that balances these competing forces as well as Mormonism and the LDS Church – despite its obviously existent, and sometimes egregious, flaws.

So, I agree with the title – while I disagree with it. Anyone surprised? 😆

Catholicism- Christ

I get your point, but just wanted to split hairs when I saw this.

I wouldn’t personally say that Catholicism was founded by Christ. I think it would be more like:

Catholicism- Emperor Constantine, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius … and perhaps as a stretch Paul of Damascus.

But I don’t want to throw us off topic.

I really appreciated this article, and it’s consistent with my view on the whole. We are followers of Christ, each of us having to eke out our own path on the way. We’re all just figuring it out. Somehow, it has gotten jumbled into a rigid hierarchical membership club with rules rather than a more flexible social organism that breathes and grows and changes naturally. But both of those elements are there. I think you can view it the second way and get what you need from it while obeying the rules set by those who see the organization as the first description. It’s a win-win.

hawkgrrrl wrote:I really appreciated this article, and it’s consistent with my view on the whole. We are followers of Christ, each of us having to eke out our own path on the way. We’re all just figuring it out. Somehow, it has gotten jumbled into a rigid hierarchical membership club with rules rather than a more flexible social organism that breathes and grows and changes naturally. But both of those elements are there. I think you can view it the second way and get what you need from it while obeying the rules set by those who see the organization as the first description. It’s a win-win.

Could you elaborate further on this, specifically: “I think you can view it the second way and get what you need from it while obeying the rules set by those who see the organization as the first description. It’s a win-win.” ?

The older I get, the more I view the church as a commonly held (socially supported) worldview, but that social structure is the power of the organization in many ways. A social organism is made for man, by man (even if made with inspiration). It changes as its members change. It has a natural existence and constantly reinvents itself. Its structure is flexible, not imposed, not restrictive to its members in significant ways. It provides a support structure for individual growth (e.g. lay clergy), but still retains flexibility. There are those within the church who are more interested in imposing order and structure than in allowing for flexibility or organic change. They tend to create rules like you have to wear one earring, a white shirt to pass sacrament, men shave their faces, etc. While I find those things irritating in their exactitude, complying carries little or no cost and smoothes relationships with those prickly types. Since the relationships are valuable, the compliance is a win for me. And since I can keep my knickers twist-free in the process, I can contribute to the organization because I get the flexibility I value.

Does that elaboration help or make it more difficult to see my view?

We are studying about the City of Enoch and this seemed to be an appropriate thread to use a starting point.

“Instead, Stark shows us the things that early Christians did to make the church more welcoming to strangers. We can’t give people the witness of the Holy Ghost, but we can encourage them to become part of our lives, we can serve them and allow them to serve alongside us.

I like this and can relate to it.

“Zion” is an inter-personal concept, as is “charity”.

“Church” is an organizational concept that should but doesn’t always lead to a charitable Zion.

To me, the problem that organizations and individuals face is one of expectations and individual needs.

Some of this plays out in different personality types (some people “need” rules or security, while others “need” innovation and meaningful risk), socio-economic factors (it is always easier and cheaper to treat everyone the same and get the mass discounts) vs spending the resources to get what each individual needs as well as keeping the organization alive.

Moses 7:18

““And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”

I think that the first definition of “poor” referenced in this scripture is “lacking physical items” – but I am not sure that that is the only interpretation that can be used here. I think that part of a solid definition of “poor” is “poor in support”. I think that additional connotations will come to my mind as I get older (and forget them).

In this mortal world, BOTH the theology and the organization are necessary, imo, to provide real individual AND communal growth.

The key, imo, is to provide a theology that encourages the principles to permeate the organization – or, at least, to be widespread enough so that the roots are strong enough to survive regular and vigorous pruning. Balance is one of the most difficult aspects of mortality – which is why extremism on either end of any issue is so common and attractive.

Honestly, at the meta-level, I’ve not found any theology or organization that balances these competing forces as well as Mormonism and the LDS Church – despite its obviously existent, and sometimes egregious, flaws.

How are you creating “Zion” in your area – both as an interpersonal concept and as an organizational concept?

At another church where we participate the Pastor said that they strive to create an environment where people would want to be even if they did not initially buy into all the doctrinal stances.

This struck me as the antithesis of the LDS approach where we expect people to endure the environment and all sorts of onerous duty requirements for the sake of their convictions in the rightness of the doctrine.

I agree.

It is also my observation that in society in general emphasis on dogma and “doing church” (the idea of hanging out with other people dressed in your Sunday best patting your self on the back for how righteous you are) are falling out of favor. Among the young people, the underlying assumption of the JS story that God would preserve a single church in doctrinal purity and truth seems to be less and less important/relevant.

I think the concept of “doing church” is crashing down for several reasons:

a) Conformity is not an end goal anymore in general social interactions. Due to the increase in transparency, authenticity, and accepting diversity, the “One size fits all” model fits less than it used to, so why bother.

b) Society is switching myths and/or parsing myths to death by deconstructing them into the component parts. We see this in the reports of less people going to church in general, increasing acceptance of other narratives, and the whole science/religion disconnect.

c) Splitting of spiritual from cultural/tribal/social support. When you have the power to choose members of your tribe independent of physical location constraints, you might not devote resources to “doing church”, and can afford this choice in terms of quality of life.