- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came across this a couple days ago, but it does appear to be a fairly recent publication. Its full title is “Latter-day Saint Radical Orthodoxy A Manifesto.” Some here might identify with it. https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/https://latterdayorthodoxy.org/” class=”bbcode_url”> Definition from the manifesto:
Quote:Radical orthodoxy is orthodox because it promotes fierce fidelity to revealed truth, the institutional Church, and the Lord’s authorized representatives, and therefore rejects the excesses of progressivism. This includes meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles regarding chastity and morality, the divinity of Christ, and the foundational claims of the Restoration—even when doing so runs contrary to popular, worldly views. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy strive to be valiant in their witness of restored truth.
Radical orthodoxy is radical because it promotes bold exploration beyond what is familiar, and therefore rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism. It is willing to revisit many facets of our received paradigm in order to apply the revealed doctrines and principles of the Gospel to the unique challenges of today. That includes—under the tutelage of modern prophets—a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the Gospel inherited from prior generations.
If you click on the signatories tab you’ll see some recognizable names.
It is not without its detractors, but I think we should each be able to decide for ourselves how applicable it is to our own situations and beliefs.
It appears to be a group forming what they call a “movement” in one of their linked articles, and seems to me like an attempt at a “Religious Order” within the LDS Church. Actually, it kind of reminds me of the “Saturday Night Class” movement that started in 1981 in the RLDS Church in response to a lot of modernization going on, in what could be said to be similar to what the Manifesto calls, “the excesses of progressivism”. One noteworthy difference: in the Saturday Night Class movement, the concern was over direction of their Church leadership… in the case of the Radical Orthodoxy movement, concern seems to be focused on fellow Church members who are either too fundamentalist or too progressive. Although they have some openness to innovation and change based on the idea that specific doctrine is not as prolific as often assumed within the Church, I note that they present themselves as hyper-orthodox in belief. For example, one of the seven articles linked from the Manifesto site, which was written by one of the 48 “Signatories” who is also one of the three “Manifesto Authors”, states that the three Manifesto authors see LDS Proclamations of recent times as the three “tentpoles of radical orthodoxy”: 1) The Proclamation on the Family, 2) The Living Christ, and 3) The Proclamation on the Restoration.
Of course, I’m all for people finding what works for them. And I do applaud this particular group for addressing the issues as they see them. Beyond that, I will say that one of the key benefits of StayLDS hinges on not having any sort of orthodoxy or anti-orthodoxy. There is no belief test here, the way there is for the Radical Orthodoxy “Movement”. There is no collective manifesto of belief here, which is a good thing.
On a personal note… it’s kind of funny, but I have known two of the signatories personally, from different times of my life and thousands of miles apart. One of them was a young man in our ward that I worked directly with on occasion, and even house-sat him along with siblings when their parents went out of town when he was even younger. The other was one of the first people I reached out to during my faith crisis in the 90’s. He was a believer (and still seems to be), but was understanding of problems in the faith. I swear much of the text here could have come from him, or at least mirrors his views well… what a small world we can find ourselves in at times.
I think if you poke around the site a bit and read some of the stuff the writers and signatories say there, this is not a “movement” (I know that word is used) as much as it is more of a middle way kind of negotiating church dogmatism. A movement (or gathering a following) would be counter to their definition of orthodoxy in following the prophets. I agree there is a decided bias against church fundamentalism in the manifesto, but it is also opposed to unbridled progressivism. One of the main criticisms I have seen is the idea that the authors seem to believe something like “question all you want as long as you agree with and follow the prophets.” I get that, with some of the dogma it’s hard to question and at the same time agree with the Brethren whose viewpoints are very much counter to what you believe. I agree, OON, here there is no testimony requirement (I’m trying to think of Uchtdorf’s quip about that) and one of the beauties about this site is members are free to believe or not believe anything and discuss it – regardless of what the Brethren think or say. Of course we are mostly anonymous, where the signatories are out there and there are some big names.
Interestingly I have also had personal interactions with a couple of them. Of the one I know or know of I have some respect in that they are willing to seek outside the box and are unwilling to condemn others for their beliefs or questions – the kind of people you want to support you in a SS or PH discussion.
Interesting. This is mostly how I would have described myself through the decade or so prior to my disaffection, though I might have added an understanding of the fallibility of modern prophets and apostles, and the need to navigate the mire with personal revelation.
Could this be a theological rope to handle cognitive dissonance? A new paradigm for hope?
I guess it depends on how you define ‘movement’. To me, it is a movement. To someone else, it isn’t. Nathaniel Givens does describe it as a movement. I imagine that others involved would not describe it that way. The website itself does not use the word ‘movement’; either for what they are or what they are not. What they say they are not is a faction or organization. Here’s their text describing what they are not and what they are: Quote:
Radical orthodoxy is not a faction, nor a label intended to set forth boundaries for any particular group or organization. It is rather a rallying point, and invitation to embrace conviction and fidelity. It is also an invitation to reject fundamentalism and embrace the possibility of change, innovation, and progress in how we understand the Gospel. It is an occasion to reinforce our loyalties to the Resurrected Christ and the Church that bears His name, and to strive to be “lower lights” burning as an example to others who are also navigating the treacherous waters of modern intellectual discourse.
In one of the seven linked articles (Radical Orthodoxy and Alternate Voices), Nathaniel Givens, who is the top-listed “Manifesto Author” refers to:Quote:those of us who are participating in the LDS Radical Orthodoxy movement
and concludes the article with:
Quote:Our hope for the LDS Radical Orthodoxy manifesto and the movement as a whole is that we will be able to help build a supportive, creative, proactive community of alternate voices.
I see this as more of a recognition that there is a dichotomy in the church among the more fundamentalist thinking “old guard” and those who want radical change beyond what will likely happen. I think the idea of radical orthodoxy espouses the concept that it’s not really that black and white and that there is at least a third way. At first glance it might appear as though radical orthodoxy might be part of a schism, given the signatories (and their orthodoxy) I believe their real aim is to try to bridge a schism. To a great extent the two schools of thought are nothing more than a generation gap between older traditionalists (some of who are stuck in very old ways) and younger progressives (espousing ideas that won’t fly in conservative Christianity no matter how hard they try). While I know many people who are stuck in the 1970s/80s church and some who want to ordain women and allow gay sealings, I am neither of those and I don’t believe most of us are (especially those who come here). I am much more centrist in my thinking and embrace the recent changes that have come about (which traditionalists dislike – some vehemently – and progressives don’t think is enough). I think the point of radical orthodoxy is that you don;t have to be in either of those camps – there is a middle and it’s OK to be there. While I would love for the idea of radical orthodoxy to gain traction among the mainstream membership (of either side) I honestly don’t think most members of either thought will notice it much. And that’s partly because many of those on the more progressive side are leaving in droves. That doesn’t mean I think the traditionalists or going to “win” in the end, but I think it does widen the gap in the present.
I hate to admit it but, this is way beyond me. I’ve tried to research on line what this is but, it reads like a doctoral thesis.
Minyan Man wrote:
I hate to admit it but, this is way beyond me.I’ve tried to research on line what this is but, it reads like a doctoral thesis.
I agree it is difficult to comprehend. It is written by academics using academic language. I’m not sure if that’s on purpose or just the nature of the beasts who wrote it. Plainer language might gain it more traction. And while I do consider myself to be well read and educated (master’s degree +) I had to read it more than once before I think I got what it meant – but I’m still not certain I do get it all.
That said, I think the “virtues” in the document are more plain than the introduction and definitions.
Quote:Truth. We love and defend the Truth. We reject philosophies that suggest that there is no truth. We recognize, however, that without divine assistance, truth is very difficult to discern. Humility. We recognize our own limitations and we are willing to question our cultural and religious presumptions in light of both sound scholarship and ongoing revelation from God. Integrity. We do not believe in compartmentalizing the Gospel from our professional pursuits, politics, scholarship, social interactions, or hobbies. Fidelity. We are loyal to Jesus Christ and His Restored Church and submit to His divine authority by sustaining and following the local and general leaders of the Church. Seeking. We consider curiosity a virtue and desire to plumb the depths of the Gospel as well as of God’s Creation. Like Abraham, we seek to become “greater follower(s) of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge” than we currently possess (Abraham 1:2). Revelation. We affirm that the Church is guided by continuing revelation. We strive to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us in all aspects of our lives, including our professional or scholarly endeavours. We recognize, however, that only those with the proper authority and stewardship can declare revelation for the Church and the world. Faith. We know that Christ has already won the essential victories. We trust the Lord and His power to save us from sin and death. We also trust His ability to guide His Church and communicate His will to His appointed spokesmen, even when they are fallible. Hope. We are deliberately optimistic about the Church and its role in the world. We reject negative, cynical attitudes towards the Church, its leaders, and its teachings. We avoid nitpicking and murmuring. Charity. We love all of God’s children and we cultivate a soft-hearted temperament that rejects the spirit of contention towards those with different views, even while we vigorously defend the truth. And in fairness while I do generally agree with the premise of the document I can’t say I completely agree and I’m not sure I could be a signatory.
I have varying levels of experience / interaction with seven of the signatories, with extensive interaction with one in particular (whom I like and admire very much). I can sympathize with much of what they have written, but I could not sign it.
I’m going to need some help. How is this different than the existing culture of the church? Fierce fidelity to revealed truth, the institutional church, and the Lord’s authorized representatives – We already do this… to a fault.
- Rejects the excesses of progressivism – We’ve already perfected this. Well… maybe some progressive members are too stubborn to have been run off. No worries, they’re still in the crosshairs.
- Bold exploration beyond what is familiar – restating article of faith #9.
- Rejects the obstinateness of fundamentalism – don’t hold on to old ways of doing things after the prophet makes a change.
A too long didn’t read of the manifesto: the church will change, but only as fast and as far as the prophet is willing to change it.
Even shorter: follow the prophet.
fierce fidelity… to the institutional church and its leaders
meticulously heeding and unabashedly embracing… the counsel and teachings of prophets and apostles
Sounds kinda nuts and ironically forms its own kind of obstinate fundamentalism… but ultimately it’s the prophet’s club and he’s in charge, so it makes sense.
I don’t think your assessment is incorrect Nibbler but it does leave out a major facet of the manifesto. From the document: Quote:…a revolutionary reconsideration of traditions, paradigms, and applications of the Gospel inherited from prior generations.
Radical orthodoxy cultivates humility and a recognition that far less is certain about many doctrinal matters than we often presume. Those who embrace radical orthodoxy are not afraid to ask questions…
You know very well how the traditionalists view AoF 9 – you don’t ask any questions yourself (doing so might even be sinful according to some), you wait until it’s revealed to the prophets. I think the most telling thing about the whole document is who the signatories are – Maxwell Institute/FAIR/Sunstone types. These types of people believe (as do I) that it’s OK to question as long as it’s faithful and/or truth seeking questioning.
We all know that some (many?) traditions of the church are not actual doctrine and many of the “faith promoting” stories we’ve been taught are more folklore than truth. Yet, many in the “old guard” hold these things as if they came from God Himself (believing they did). Likewise, we are also aware of the radical progressives that want change for the sake of change without consideration that some of it actually might be doctrine. That’s why I maintain that radical orthodoxy is not a movement, rather navigation “between two spiritual monsters: unbridled progressivism and obstinate fundamentalism” that prevails in the mainstream church.
I’d translate that quoted section as, “we’ll nuance things.” DarkJedi wrote:
Maxwell Institute/FAIR/Sunstone types. These types of people believe (as do I) that it’s OK to question as long as it’s faithful and/or truth seeking questioning.Apologist groups can have a very hard time accepting questions as being made in good faith. Apologists and most groups that self identify as orthodox often interpret all questioning as veiled attacks. I believe this is at the heart of some of the mean spirited, hateful things that FAIR has recently released under their banner. They don’t believe the questions were ever made in good faith, the questions are seen as some sort of backhanded attack.
Maybe it’s a defense mechanism, I’m not sure, but the way we treat questions and questioners is a major hurdle.
Quote:…as long as it’s faithful and/or truth seeking questions.
Qualifiers. Who makes the determination of what is and what is not an acceptable question? The determination of what is and what isn’t a faith promoting question often has more to do with the unstated answer than it does with the intent of the person asking the question.
Often, with time, what starts out as an honest inquiry
becomesa backhanded attack. It’s not imagined by apologists. When one group feels the answers to questions are found outside church narratives, questions can transition from honest inquiry to inducing others to see things their way. Maybe FAIR really isn’t included with the types of people who would embrace radical orthodoxy. On the other hand, I do see Bushman (not a signatory) and Givens as apologists (apologist meaning “defender of the faith”) but I don’t see them as ever saying something like questioning is a veiled attack. As to who makes the determination on what’s a faithful or valid question, that’s easy – we do that for ourselves. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. The day Bushman and the Givenses are excommunicated I will retract that statement.
That said, I do believe the CSE letter is an example something that started as an inquiry becoming an attack. I do believe Rennels was sincere in the beginning (although I’m not positive it was 100% sincere) but evolved into an anti attack.
I agree, the way questioners and doubters are treated is at best mostly deplorable and at worst unChristlike. I also think that’s exactly what the manifesto is attempting to address. The premise of the whole thing is that there are more that two sides – it’s not all about traditionalism or progressivism, there is a third way.
DarkJedi wrote:
As to who makes the determination on what’s a faithful or valid question, that’s easy – we do that for ourselves. It doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks.
I think that’s true but not for all phases of a faith transition.
Here I’m specifically thinking of members that are just starting to have questions. At that stage they still believe their faith community has answers. They bring genuine questions to their faith community and are sometimes met with accusations of being anti or attacking.
At this stage it does matter what others think because members are in a vulnerable state and have retreated to the people that they trust. It’s hard on people when they determined that their questions are valid but their entire community invalidates their questions. It erodes trust and can make people leave communities, it could even be one of the factors behind why honest questions become ‘”I will humble you” questions.
Now there are other communities that will validate those sort of questions, making it that much harder to stay in the community that wont.
Not to overly focus on the questions, what of the answers? If someone can’t unabashedly embrace the foundational claims of the restoration, would the radical orthodox make room for them?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.