- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The balance between a faith of administrative officers vs. Charismatic outpourings of the spirit has been an either/or in the discussion of Christianity for years. For example Roman Christianity that later evolved into Roman Catholicism developed from the political model of the Roman empire as Rome was the political capital of the Roman Empire. Such a development would prove the longevity of Christianity as a religion. Some scholars would argue that Roman Christians took the offices of bishop and Presbytr (Elder) with deacons underneath as a necessary hierarchy to administer the faith. On the other hand it was the speaking in tongues, and the charismatic speeches, and songs that were more emblematic of the Christianity of Paul. At least Paul speaks of much of this. Scholars see this is another type of Christianity that was more loosely organized and more spontaneous.
The bottom line is: today the LDS faith is more administrative and less charismatic. What makes religion appeal to some isn’t for others. I miss the spontaneity, and spiritual outpourings of the spirit. I like strong Amens! after talks. A genuine hallelujah would be great here and there. I like a church meeting where there is spunk and a pulse in the congregation. The only charismatic speakers are Pres. Uctdorf and Elder Holland. Some may say Elder Scott is genuinely sincere in his calmness, which is fine especially when he gets sentimental or serious about repentance. I remember in my home Stake when we had the high councilman get very boisterous and lively. His personality was very vibrant, he had a great sense of humor and he could electrify a congregation. He put to shame the whole “dry council” concept. The sad thing was that a few months later he had a stroke and was soon released. How much is it the spirit, and how much is it the talent of the person sharing the message? Perhaps it is our pop culture and movie star aggrandizement that makes us want similar “acts” from the pulpit. I’m not entirely sure. What I do know is that when a new convert, or someone who isn’t the “cookie-cutter” type that speaks in sacrament meeting it totally breaks the ho-hum monotony and I come away with a better church experience than the yawn and close my eyes talks on Sunday. I was actually grateful to have my kids act up so I could take them out to get a break from the boredom of watching paint dry at church.
Yes — our religion has become one of monotonous habits. The same thing, over and over again. Occasionally you get an inspiring speaker or leader, but its more about enforcement of policy and doing things the Church’s way, which is often confused with the Lord’s way. Can they co-exist, I think so — as they exist in harder environments such as organizations that are for-profit. But it would mean sweeping changes in how we select leaders, the extent to which we standardize, and what we allow in our meetings.
Ain’t happening. Ain’t happening at all. Maybe in local pockets, but leaders who are truly charismatic and shift the balance away from administration will get knocked down — by high councilors who are the eyes and ears of the stake president, by long-standing members who value the old way of doing things, and by official leaders themselves.
Yes, they can – but not normally. Generally, individuals who are really good at one aren’t very good at the other. Having said that, I have seen charismatic Bishops and Stake Presidents who do very well – by choosing counselors who are less charismatic but good administrators. In the LDS Church, the concept and principle of councils is where co-existence can work and even flourish, but it takes a leader who gets it and is willing to create (consciously) councils that include people with different personalities and views. I’ve been a part of such councils, and they are wonderful.
In my growing up years, I guess I thought that our little mission field branch was the best of both. Yes, I too always thought my home ward was very good at both, but we had lots of converts, democrats, and zero people from Utah. The author Jeffrey Eugenides made an interesting point in the book The Marriage Plot. Something about how people who are popular, good at sports, successful don’t really need religion anyway or if so they need something different from the ones who are not those things. I think there’s something about the BOM pride cycle to that idea. If you’re a convert, religion improves your life situation from what it was before. Then you are more successful, happier. You become more popular, influential, well to do. Then you don’t need what you did in the first place; you become prideful and entitled. Then you are humbled and suddenly need religion again. So if the people in charge aren’t down on their luck, and as we all know, nobody in leadership is unsuccessful or struggling any more, what religion-making do they do? Not the kind that people whose lives need to be improved would do (Joseph Smith was more of the struggling type).
This post reminds me of “The Mystical Core of Organized Religion” by David Steindl-Rast Quote:Sad as it is, religion left to itself turns irreligious. Once, in Hawaii, after I had been walking on still-hot volcanic rock, another image for this process occurred to me; the image not of water but of fire. The beginnings of the great religions were like the eruptions of a volcano. There was fire, there was heat, there was light: the light of mystical insight freshly spelled out in a new teaching; the best of hearts aglow with commitment to a sharing community; and celebration, as fiery as new wine. The light of doctrine, the glow of ethical commitment, and the fire of ritual celebration were expressions that gushed forth red hot from the depths of mystical consciousness. But, as that stream of lava flowed down the sides of the mountain, it began to cool off. The farther it got from its origins, the less it looked like fire; it turned into rock. Dogmatism, moralism, ritualism: all are layers of ash deposits and volcanic rock that separate us from the fiery magma deep down below.
But there are fissures and clefts in the igneous rock of the old lava flows; there are hot springs, fumaroles, and geysers; there are even occasional earthquakes and minor eruptions. These represent the great men and women who reformed and renewed religious tradition from within. In one way or another, this is our task, too. Every religion has a mystical core. The challenge is to find access to it and to live in its power. In this sense, every generation of believers is challenged anew to make its religion truly religious.….
http://csp.org/experience/docs/steindl-mystical.html http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4213&p=56759&hilit=lava#p56759 I’m not sure I want to belong to a church that is charismatic. Maybe I’m not defining “charismatic” the same as some of you, but speaking in tongues, electric guitar & drums doesn’t do it for me. I’ve attended churches that call themselves charistmatic but to me it just feels that they lack decorum. Frankly sometimes I wonder if speaking in tongues was made up or just gibberish. That’s not to say I want boring LDS church meetings. I think a thoughtful, well prepared speaker or teacher can be inspiring. Youth activities can be tons of fun with the right young men or young women leaders. My EQ has done some non traditional activities that were unorthodox for mormons and very successful in getting people to relax and enjoy each others company. I’m looking for uplifing and inspirational which is not mutually exclusive with an administrative church.
Personally I am rather lethargic to both are rather very lethargic to either. I’m church or just in general. Administration people tend to be black and white thinkers. That’s a personality trait practically needed for such an important but abysmal poor construct. Charismatic is just relying on to much emotion. Both are at opposites and represent extremes to me. I prefer a approach that doesn’t rely in emotions or simplistic thinking, is open ended and freely to move in thought and direction. Perhaps a church without any dogma, indoctrination, charisma and little administration. Something that flames the creative and expansive minds in hope , faith and love with super serious arguments or tenants.
I have yet to find such a religion but have found such people and communities so I stay around them more.
I hope one day such a religion exist, I could actually feel like a belong to one. Instead of feeling like a outsider the whole time.
I recently read an article about a church that’s not actually a church and I can’t remember anything about it … no names, places, dates, not where I saw it. Shoot. It was started by two comedians in England. Anybody know what I’m talking about? Sunday Assembly? Woman’s name is Pippa something. I think they’re getting congregations started world-wide, and. . . . . raising money. I think it will be interesting to see it play out. I don’t mean that in a snarky way. Somehow I missed this reply. Yes, that’s exactly what I was talking about. The founders are Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans. Here’s where I first heard about it: http://www.npr.org/2014/01/07/260184473/sunday-assembly-a-church-for-the-godless-picks-up-steam I think it goes back to the early days when I wanted to be at church and got a lot out of it. Feeling the Spirit was an electrifying experience. I would even be motivated to attend more meetings than the Sunday block and would even be motivated to do good in the world and community. Now, I just feel I exist at Church and everything is matter-of fact an ho hum-watching the paint dry. This is exactly how I feel. I’m trying hard to find a way to change this post FC, but nothing as worked so far. I just really don’t care about any of it anymore, but I have to staylds for the sake of my family. It means I have to force myself to do the bare minimum to avoid arousing suspicion. It’s exhausting sometimes. I should add that some of the most difficult times in the history of the LDS Church were when it was led by more charismatic people. For example, the days of Joseph and Brigham (charismatic in different ways, but extremely charismatic) and the days of Elder McConkie (charismatic speaker) are not the ideal I want. I love a charismatic speaker – except when I disagree with him or her. When I disagree, I would prefer a boring person – and some charismatic people scare me badly. I’m a history teacher by training and inclination. Charisma is a very sharp two-edged sword.
Old-Timer wrote:I should add that some of the most difficult times in the history of the LDS Church were when it was led by more charismatic people. For example, the days of Joseph and Brigham (charismatic in different ways, but extremely charismatic) and the days of Elder McConkie (charismatic speaker) are not the ideal I want. I love a charismatic speaker – except when I disagree with him or her. When I disagree, I would prefer a boring person – and some charismatic people scare me badly.
I’m a history teacher by training and inclination. Charisma is a very sharp two-edged sword.
Paul Dunn is a good example. I’m personally a little uncomfortable with the pedestal that Pres. Uchtdorf is being put on. The Givens come to mind as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.