- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
These surveys help me to feel a close connection with those who have gone through similar “faith crises”, but as always, the majority of Church leaders are only going to bend the results to fit their current narrative. I don’t have much hope any real change will happen. We will still get labelled as sinful, lazy, and easily offended. Knowledge is power, only if you are willing to act on it.
Quote:Can you imagine a doctor not trying to understand a patient’s symptoms before treating? So too, when leaders understand better why people have differences of faith, they can be more effective ministers.
You can’t take an x-ray of faith changes in a person…perhaps the better analogy is to ask if a therapist can help a client, than a doctor helping a patient. Different worlds. More complex range of factors. Also…no professionals but volunteers…can you imaging a volunteer doctor program in the ER treating someone in crisis? Or a therapist in the ER treating a crisis…but, that’s the therapists volunteer time after a 40 hour work week. It’s not gonna go well.
The point in the article is still good…listen and validate. But the expectation that perhaps our leaders can figure this out may be a stretch. I think it is why it feels that at some point you have to let go of wanting the care from the bishop you need…but…it becomes a personal journey…or actually…one with professional therapists to actually help the real issues (many of which are life issues, independent and sometimes conflated with faith).
And even with professional therapists…the goal for therapists at some point is to give the person tools to help them help themselves…not diagnose and fix them. So…the limitations with church leaders will be the realm in which they believe their counsel will help…pray, have faith, read the scriptures, obey the commandments, etc.
To that spiritual therapist, those are methods that have helped them and many others in their congregations. And…not very fulfilling to the stage 4 person. Not an acute situation.
Do leaders understand? No. Can we expect them to? Ever?
Those who have gone to therapy know (like me), know…you don’t always hit it off with every therapist. So…you have to shop around to find one that helps you and connects with you.
That is difficult in a geographically assigned church boundary program. You just get the one that is in your network. And there is roulette involved.
Heber13 wrote:
Quote:Can you imagine a doctor not trying to understand a patient’s symptoms before treating? So too, when leaders understand better why people have differences of faith, they can be more effective ministers.
You can’t take an x-ray of faith changes in a person…perhaps the better analogy is to ask if a therapist can help a client, than a doctor helping a patient. Different worlds. More complex range of factors. Also…no professionals but volunteers…can you imaging a volunteer doctor program in the ER treating someone in crisis? Or a therapist in the ER treating a crisis…but, that’s the therapists volunteer time after a 40 hour work week. It’s not gonna go well.
I’ll take it a step further. Can you imagine someone that feels as though they don’t have anything wrong with them feeling at peace in a community that is constantly trying to schedule an appointment for surgery so the community can fix their problem? You might feel like you have to sleep with one eye open, lest you wake up one morning on a slab to the sight of a bishop in scrubs asking your assigned minister for the forceps.
Framing the relationship in terms of a doctor:patient inserts a lot of bias into the discussion. Before we even begin the discussion we bring the bias that the doctor is a domain expert and knows what’s best for the patient. We also bring the bias that the patient has some problem that needs to be fixed.
To be clear, I’m not trying to nitpick the author, I’m really glad they put in the work and wrong the article, I’m just thinking out loud.
One of the intended audiences of the article appears to be orthodox leaders and perhaps an orthodox believer will always see themselves in the role of doctor, always see a deficiency in people that do not believe as they believe, always feel the need to save people from being different. In that context, perhaps it is a good idea to frame things in terms of a doctor:patient relationship. Suggesting that someone who has left the church may be on equal footing, or even be the doctor, may cause an orthodox member to recoil and miss the message. Perhaps continuing to cast people that have had a faith crisis, faith transition, or people that have left the church into submissive roles is one thing that helps the orthodox engage in these types of discussions.
But so much of the journey is framed in these terms:
I believe, you doubt vs. I believe, you believe differently
You have questions about church history vs. You have drawn different conclusions about church history (another way of saying I have truth, you doubt my truth)
I am doctor, you are patient vs. We are all patients of Christ
Enforced social imbalances. Neutering people’s voices. Were those among the reasons on the survey for why people leave?
I don’t know whether how we frame things is a problem that will ever truly leave us. We all frame things from our perspectives. A group that believes they have all the answers will usually view people outside the group as lesser, dissenters even worse. It’s just a fruit of knowing you’re right.
nibbler wrote:
Framing the relationship in terms of a doctor:patient inserts a lot of bias into the discussion. Before we even begin the discussion we bring the bias that the doctor is a domain expert and knows what’s best for the patient. We also bring the bias that the patient has some problem that needs to be fixed.
There is also the fact that a doctor is of necessity associated with and/or is a product of an organization, while a patient rarely is. The title of “Doctor” includes (at least in America) understanding that specific oaths were taken and specific training received (sometimes ongoing for credentials). Patients have no such luck
nibbler wrote:
One of the intended audiences of the article appears to be orthodox leaders and perhaps an orthodox believer will always see themselves in the role of doctor, always see a deficiency in people that do not believe as they believe, always feel the need to save people from being different. In that context, perhaps it is a good idea to frame things in terms of a doctor:patient relationship. Suggesting that someone who has left the church may be on equal footing, or even be the doctor, may cause an orthodox member to recoil and miss the message. Perhaps continuing to cast people that have had a faith crisis, faith transition, or people that have left the church into submissive roles is one thing that helps the orthodox engage in these types of discussions.But so much of the journey is framed in these terms:
I believe, you doubt vs. I believe, you believe differently
You have questions about church history vs. You have drawn different conclusions about church history (another way of saying I have truth, you doubt my truth)
I am doctor, you are patient vs. We are all patients of Christ
Enforced social imbalances. Neutering people’s voices. Were those among the reasons on the survey for why people leave?
I don’t know whether how we frame things is a problem that will ever truly leave us. We all frame things from our perspectives. A group that believes they have all the answers will usually view people outside the group as lesser, dissenters even worse. It’s just a fruit of knowing you’re right.
My husband and I struggle with those framing statements. I have spent the last 8-9 months learning to frame everything internally more or less by the second example, while my husband has spent the last month or two with the first example as his standby – and is moving towards the second example conceptually. I smile, because I expected nothing less. If anything, we may be ahead schedule wise, because I expected it to take longer for him to learn to re-frame things (if I had a tentative expectation).
I like how Uchtdorf frames things…( It Works Wonderfully!Quote:I wonder if we as Church members might also benefit from asking ourselves from time to time: “Is my experience in the Church working for me? Is it bringing me closer to Christ? Is it blessing me and my family with peace and joy as promised in the gospel?”
…Many members will answer with great warmth that their experience as a member of the Church is working exceptionally well for them. …
But I also recognize that there are some who have a less-than-fulfilling experience—who feel that their membership in the Church sometimes isn’t quite what they had hoped for.
…But why does it seem to work better for some than for others? What is the difference between those whose experience in the Church fills their souls with songs of redeeming love and those who feel that something is lacking?
He does not just frame it as “true” or “false” or even “believing” vs “non-believing”…but that it works better for some than others, and gives some advice.
Framing it in shades and various degrees of effectiveness can help avoid the defensive posture of some who are faithful and don’t want their truths attacked…but they cannot argue with someone who is meekly expressing…”I’m not finding it is working well for me, even though I’m trying.”
Framing can be important to have the discussions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.