- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The following is the largest reason why I am uncomfortable with a focus on spirituality rather than righteousness: When the ideal we identify is tied up in how we feel, it is easy to alter “spiritual” into “emotional” – and from there to assume that those who appear to be more emotional (can cry more easily, can empathize more readily, are more prone to share their emotions, are more prone to bear their testimonies, etc.) are more spiritual. I know I am speaking in very general terms with myriad exceptions, but I think almost everyone who reads what I just wrote would have a hard time not picturing women instead of men. It also is much easier to manipulate feelings than to address a state of being.
Personally, I think we tend to believe that women are more spiritual than men specifically because we have altered the original meaning of “spiritual” to mean “emotional”. (and that is not a Mormon thing; it is a human / religious thing) To me, spirituality is not the end;
it really is just half of the necessary balance with proper physicality that constitutes righteousness of an entire soul. I’m not sure how to say that properly, since I don’t mean to denigrate spiritual things at all, but I just don’t see spirituality as an end result of its own – and I am wary of the results that occur when it becomes such. I believe righteousness (being right with God) should be our ultimate goal – not spirituality. If I had to choose between one or the other (a false dichotomy for many people, imo – but a necessary one for some people who simply can’t “feel” as intensely as others), I would choose practical righteousness over spirituality personally and for most people. (realizing that there are lots of people who feel intensely, value those feelings and need to base their decisions on what they feel) Iow, I would choose to be orthoprax over orthodox without hesitation. I believe the ideal is a combination of the two, constructed according to the dictates of our own individual consciences and personal inclinations, but if I had to choose between one or the other, I would encourage action over feelings as a rule.
Ray, Old-Timer wrote:I know I am speaking in very general terms with myriad exceptions, but I think almost everyone who reads what I just wrote would have a hard time not picturing women instead of men.
Of the many important points you’ve made, this is one I choose to engage you on or build upon. I think many people in the Church are fed up with what seems to be a trend by some to cry on cue during a testimony, as if it somehow validates the witness. I think this trend is becoming more common among men in the Church. This thought led me to one that you don’t actually address, but which I think is implicit in your post here.
John Eldredge is the Author of
Wild at Heart, which has sold well over 1,000,000 copies. It’s written mainly for the Evangelical audience, broadly defined to included Catholics as well. His writing is VERY accessible, and repels the more academic-minded folk. Furthermore, he hasn’t the slightest idea of how to perform faithful exegesis (how to remain true to the historical, cultural, and textual contexts of the Bible). That being said, it is my estimation that in his thesis he grasps a fundamental problem with worship and church today. If you can stomach the fluff and sloppy scholarship that is 80% of his work, I (and over a million other readers) believe the remaining 20% is brilliant and will more than make up for your effort/investment. From the back cover of the hardback version, I provide the following glimpse: “Walk into most churches, have a look around, and ask yourself: What is a Christian man? Without listening to what is said, look at what you find there. Most Christian men are . . . bored.” “In
Wild at Heart, John Eldredge invites men to recover their masculine heart, defined in the image of a passionate God. And he invites women to discover the secret of a man’s soul and to delight in the strength and wildness men were created to offer.” Nathan
Old-Timer wrote:I believe righteousness (being right with God) should be our ultimate goal – not spirituality.
I agree with that if what you mean by righteousness (being right with God) is morality (being good toward your neighbor). For me, righteousness has a scary ring to it, since it can apply to the righteous suicide bombers, the righteous Mountain Meadows Massacre perpetrators, as well as my righteousness as a hurtful young father and husband. I hope my definition is simply wrong.
I do say that morality always trumps spirituality, or that spirituality is always the servant of morality.
Yeah, I know how dicey using any term is – since “morality” also is highly subjective and generally culture-based. I just believe what we do trumps what we feel when it comes right down to it – and what we become is even more important. “Righteous” to me isn’t an attitude but a condition, even though I realize how subjective it is. Old-Timer wrote:I just believe what we do trumps what we feel
Absolutely love this Ray!
Charity trumps Certainty….
I’m not sure you would agree but that’s how I see it…
Ray, I totally agree with you on this point. A few months ago, I finally told my wife about my blog, MM, and the StayLDS forums. She seemed receptive at first, but I know she isn’t comfortable with my self-proclaimed heretic status. My wife told me a few weeks that she wanted someone who was a “spiritual leader” in the home.
I nearly fell off the chair when she said that. I told her that I read the scriptures more than she, I bear testimony in church more than she, and I literally talk about religion every single day. She responded that she knew I used the moniker “mormon heretic”, and she said, “do you understand what a heretic is? It’s someone against the church.” I felt like a villian instantly.
I explained that Joseph Smith was a heretic. Martin Luther was a heretic, and Jesus was a heretic. She responded, “Oh, so you mean it in a good way???” Yes, but Jesus, Joseph, and Martin certainly upset the established order didn’t they?
My wife is much more comfortable with touchy-feely sugary “inspirational” stories. It’s hard for some to embrace non-emotionalism as an appropriate form of spirituality. And frankly she doesn’t read StayLDS, so Ray, I do feel like you’re preaching to the choir on this issue.
I absolutely adore variant translations! -Righteousness trumps spirituality
-What we do trumps what we feel
-Morality trumps spirituality
-Charity trumps Certainty
Awesome!
-Righteousness trumps spirituality -What we do trumps what we feel
-Morality trumps spirituality
-Charity trumps Certainty
Excellent….can’t add anything to that one.
Quote:Charity trumps Certainty….
Abso-freaking-lutely, swim. The list isn’t faith, hope and certainty – since that would be a contradiction of terms.
My New Year’s Resolution this year is focused exclusively on trying to understand charity and be more charitable – not be more certain. Being more certain of some things happens naturally in life, whether that certainty is correct or incorrect from an objective standpoint. Being more charitable takes conscious effort, imo – and simply never is incorrect or wrong.
This is simply awesome Ray. My wife and I were talking just this week about much of the media that is produced by the church does more to yank us around emotionally than it does to be ‘spiritual’. I think we confuse spirituality and emotion all the time. I first became aware of this on my mission where emotions were used as a manipulation tool. The trick is that there is an element of the emotional in spirituality – at least, I believe there is. I’m not saying that God cannot or does not speak to us through our emotions. I believe that is a valid avenue in some cases. It’s just so tricky – and the two can’t be equated fully without terrible consequences, imo.
I also believe “manipulation” isn’t totally negative when viewed in totality. Of course, it can be and is in many instances, but it’s not a bad thing in all cases when viewed by its fullest meaning. If you are interested, read the following post:
“Not Everything is Manipulation” (
http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/02/not-everything-is-manipulation.html The heart of the Church’s conversion strategy does seem to lend itself to emotionalism. In the MTC, we’re taught to use certain methods to “bring the Spirit into the room”, such as spiritual experiences, prayer, music, expressions of love etcetera…..I think the effects of these things can be labelled as spiritual or emotional/sentimental. People tell me I have a gift for teaching with the spirit. You’ve got me wondering if I simply have a knack for keying in on those aspects of a topic that are touching and sentimental….
Quote:“Walk into most churches, have a look around, and ask yourself: What is a Christian man? Without listening to what is said, look at what you find there. Most Christian men are . . . bored.” “In
Wild at Heart, John Eldredge invites men to recover their masculine heart, defined in the image of a passionate God. And he invites women to discover the secret of a man’s soul and to delight in the strength and wildness men were created to offer.” Nathan
That’s me — bored to death unless I have something meaningful to do. And now, I feel no desire to do much that is meaningful!!!
I have trouble getting myself to Church every week because it’s just plain boring. I think I need to read that book about how to get that passion back. I had it once — when I was younger because I thought that passionate service would bring me deep self-respect and self-esteem as it did when I was a teenager. That didn’t come except for brief flashes. So then, my life at Church turned into a quest for achievement and application of management/leadership principles I studied in school, but had little opportunity to practice in real life. Also, a quest to “bring the Spirit” into the room to help motivate the people I was leading.
All that’s gone now…worn out from the frustrations of leadership and overwork for several years.
silentstruggle wrote:My wife and I were talking just this week about much of the media that is produced by the church does more to yank us around emotionally than it does to be ‘spiritual’. I think we confuse spirituality and emotion all the time.
I remember thinking on my mission how effective many of those videos really were…even if they were emotional, they got people thinking of families and love and service and the afterlife and life’s questions…all put to a nice music set (arguable for sure).But I do remember having a mini-crisis when I learned those were really all paid actors. It is interesting how emotional you can get when believing the stories are “true”, even if they are just stories to make you feel a certain way (but that’s another thread on literalism).
Such techniques are better than using baseball to get people baptized, but perhaps have been proven to be something not sustainable for converts, and is probably why the church no longer makes those.
Is it possible emotionalism can be a tool to motivate people to move in the right direction, and then eventually have to replace that lesser practice with true spirituality or righteousness through “doing”? Or is using emotionalism just flat our wrong?
I think emotionalism is wonderful as a strengthener and a sedative. It’s rude to use it as a convincer, though. Bring the people in, give them a great emotional experience, then send them back out to work in their families and communities. Just don’t bring them in, give them an emotional experience, and ask them to sign away all their loyalties to your cause. Major difference in intent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.