- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I find there is a subset of people who always balk when I make a statement about “The Church”. There seems to be an underlying stream of thought that the Church really isn’t an real entity. Perhaps a legal entity, but has no personality. Do organizations have personalities? Is it OK to refer to “The Church”? SilentDawning wrote:I find there is a subset of people who always balk when I make a statement about “The Church”.
There seems to be an underlying stream of thought that the Church really isn’t an real entity.Perhaps a legal entity, but has no personality. Do organizations have personalities?Is it OK to refer to “The Church”? When I act like “the Church” is saying something as if it was a person with independent thoughts and feelings I basically mean the Church Presidency and Apostles, the Correlation Committee, and whoever else is directly or indirectly responsible for what ends up in the temple interview questions, missionary discussions, lesson manuals and other official publications, and instructions passed down to stake presidents and bishops, etc. In other cases it could be taken to simply mean the majority of active members such as ideas regarding what “the Church” believes for practical purposes. Personally, I think the Church almost has a mind of its own to the point that some of the established traditions, culture, and expectations end up controlling the top leaders more than they probably feel like they can really control the Church at this point.
The church is as true as the gospel…I’ve always liked that quote. What about that building down the street where we meet on Sunday? Is that “the Church”? Does it say and believe stuff? Or, should that always be referred to as “the Chapel”?
“The Church” is many things, depending on the application and what is meant by the person using the term. I know that’s incredibly vauge, but it has to be – since it’s such a subjective term.
When I use the term, I usually try to differentiate by using “The Church” to mean the entire LDS Church – or the global church leadership – or the prevailing doctrinal viewpoint – or something like that vs. “the church” to mean the local church unit or simply the meetinghouse. However, just like I did in the last sentence, I almost always have to use disclaimers or modifiers or descriptors when I make such distinctions – since they generally aren’t going to be understood on their own as isolated terms. (“The Church” vs. “the church”) Therefore, my most common shorthand is “The global Church” (or “THE CHURCH”) or “the local church”.
Those two entitities are radically different organizations. For example, cwald and I share membership in the same Church, but our churches are very, very different. I have found that most members can overlook a lot of things that bother them about “The Church” to which they “belong” as long as “the church” they “attend” is a welcoming, accommodating place. I also have found that many members can overlook a lot of things that bother them about “the church” as long as they have had an experience (or experiences) with “The Church” that is transcendant in some way. When the two are aligned positively, it’s Nirvana; when the two are in conflict, it’s manageable (and even can be uplifting and growth-inducing); when the two are aligned negatively, it’s very hard (if not impossible) to continue. There is a baseline “tipping point” in this balance that varies for each individual – and those who leave generally do so (imo) when NEITHER “The Church” nor “the church” provides enough growth and empowerment and peace to make the required sacrifices worthwhile to them personally.
Therefore, the initial pursuit for many who feel that leaving simply isn’t an option is the search for a paradigm that will allow them to find balance in the force, so to speak – something positive about their interaction with “The Church” and/or their involvement in “the church” that will counteract the negative in one or both of those organizations. That is a good and necessary endeavor, imo – but it isn’t the foundational pursuit I believe is the best endeavor for those who feel they can’t or don’t want to leave. Fundamentally, I believe the ultimate endeavor is to figure out one’s view of God and “true religion” and then to pursue THAT objective within “The Church” and/or “the church” (and it really can be one or both, depending on which one works best for each person).
So, to reiterate, “The Church” can be whatever we individually make of it – understanding that it isn’t just one thing, even though it really is “something” or “some things”. We really can become agents unto ourselves – and that truth really can make us free.
It’s an abstract noun, which makes definition and blanket statements hard to justify. Interesting thread… Paul speaks of “the church” as the body of Christ.
D&C 10, verse 67 says: “Behold, this is my doctrine-whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church”.
This seems more inclusive to me than what we normally would refer to as “the church”.
Mainstream church members pay tithing to the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I believe. Thomas Monson is currently the head of that corporation. It’s in the charter….but I would venture to say that most folks view themselves as paying tithing to……you guessed it…….”the church”.
It would seem that we are refering to at least two entities here. IMHO Jesus Christ is not the head of any corporations
Thomas Marsh was told by the Lord that He would establish a “church by your hand”. We would call that a congregation today, I suppose.
Confusing enough for us….can you imagine being an investigator?
It depends on the context for me. When I am talking about doctrines or beliefs, I say “The Church teaches..” but generally I believe the Church refers to the body of believers as a whole.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.