The middle way revisited

[Anonymous]

From John Dehlin, Post Mormon forum 5/23/2011

Quote:

For the record, I no longer advocate for “the middle way.” I realize that some are going to choose that path, but my position is that (for most people) that path is unsustainable.

I know that I’ve changed a lot over the years…and part of me feels badly about that. But I just wanted to go on record: I no longer see the “middle way” as sustainable for most thinking, honest members — and I’ve said this several times over the past year on my podcast.

I’ve invested a little over a year with this and as a lurker and occasional poster on Staylds. I know we’ve been over this with Cwald but I’d be interested in others opinions given this quote. My sense is he’s right.

[Anonymous]

I am finding it more and more difficult to find/ live the “middle way”. I am not sure I even understand the middle way. While enjoy the discussion I have at church it is becoming increasingly more exhausting to attend. I find myself spending most of the time trying to decide if I agree with what is being said and more often lately I don’t. I just asked to be released as GD teacher because I am tired of teaching lessons that don’t match what is in the scriptures. Last week I had a woman say that the Holocaust happened because the Jews killed Jesus and no one batted an eye.

We have tried over the last two years to find a middle way that works for our family. I am starting to feel like we are in search of Utopia. We either put on a face and keep our mouths closed or open our mouths and expose our beliefs to the world. Not a lot of good options here. Ultimately, it comes down to do you like the product the church is selling? If you do great who cares how it was made. If you don’t like the product, well no sense it choking it down every week. The world is a beautiful place and there is no sense in beating myself over the head with a club. Right Bro. Packer?

[Anonymous]

GBSmith wrote:

From John Dehlin, Post Mormon forum 5/23/2011

Quote:

For the record, I no longer advocate for “the middle way.” I realize that some are going to choose that path, but my position is that (for most people) that path is unsustainable.

I know that I’ve changed a lot over the years…and part of me feels badly about that. But I just wanted to go on record: I no longer see the “middle way” as sustainable for most thinking, honest members — and I’ve said this several times over the past year on my podcast.

I’ve invested a little over a year with this and as a lurker and occasional poster on Staylds. I know we’ve been over this with Cwald but I’d be interested in others opinions given this quote. My sense is he’s right.

Personally, I think it’s definitely possible to maintain a “middle way” approach but sometimes it will take a significant amount of patience and conscious effort because the Church is just not very friendly toward any members like this with some of the rigid doctrines, expectations, TR interview questions, etc. we see at this point. It seems like members that want to try to make it work will typically have to keep quiet about any disagreements and/or not care that much about what other members think which is easier said than done.

[Anonymous]

I love John as a brother, but he tends to equate what works for him in the moment with what works for others who struggle. He also tends to look for “a solution” that works for everyone (especially everyone who stuggles) – which is why he has moved from one project to another to another to another over time. He has abondoned things in the past that worked temporarily but stopped working in pursuit of something else that will work – and the cycle has repeated. That is ironic, but it’s how he tends to think and see the world. He’s a natural “fixer” – and “fixers” tend to try to find “A WAY”.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t believe in “A MIDDLE WAY”. I really don’t – mostly because of the “singular” nature of trying to find “one solution”. I believe in “individual faith” – and that’s radically different than “A WAY”. “Middle way” implies, at least, that the ultimate objective is “compromise”, while I believe “the Church” is made up of all kinds of people with all kinds of nuanced views that all are walking in the same general field in the same overall direction. MUCH of their walking is similar to others, but much of it isn’t – so there is no “A WAY”.

So, in that sense, I also don’t think “THE MIDDLE WAY” works. I think, at best, it’s an intermediate orienation that allows someone to work out their own “I AM” and find the way that works for them – hopefully, within the broad spectrum of Mormonism.

[Anonymous]

Ray- I agree with you that faith is an individual pursuit and that we should all find our own way. But you can’t ignore what DA said in regards to the Church not being very open to those that do not fit the mold. We talk about having a large tent in Mormonism but in truth we are not open to those with different beliefs or more importantly behaviors than the prescribed believes and behaviors set forth by the GA’s. I think it is easier to be a participating non traditional believer if you still feel strongly about the “clean living” or find some special meaning in the temple or some other strong connection. If you cannot find that strong connection then John is right the “middle way” or “Staying” will not work long term. Like I said earlier if you like what they are selling regardless of how you feel about it’s origin great you can nuance the heck out of it, stay and find a lot of meaning. Like you said most members of the church do this in one way or another. If nothing resonated with you no amount of nuance is going to work.

[Anonymous]

I’ve had some thoughts since listening to some of these podcasts, and also recently with cwald’s situation, and have thought about “middle way” and what that means to me, and what it may mean to others. I’m not sure I have it all thought out yet, but I’ll share where I’m at right now.

First of all:

Quote:

I no longer see the “middle way” as sustainable for most thinking, honest members.

I understand where John is coming from with this, and his experience with many people about it. But my thinking is that the middle way has worked for Buddhists for thousands of years. So I disagree that it is unsustainable for most thinking, honest, and genuine people. In fact, I’d argue it is the opposite. It can’t work for those who don’t want to think deeply about it.

However, I’m not sure we know how to apply this mindset to mormonism, or western cultures in general. So perhaps the middle way is not what is sustainable, but how we define and implement the middle way. I often hear people on podcasts saying that they just felt they were lying to themselves, and indeed, that is one of John’s points, that most people cannot do it with a clear conscience and sustain it. I think that says something about how they approach it, rather than if there is a middle way that works. It needs to be done in a way that allows for a clear conscience, for peace inwardly and with others, that allows for paradox and deeper meaning to truths. It needs to be in harmony with experience and with life. And that goes way, way beyond just yes or no scientific answers on if the church is true or if the Book of Mormon descendants are native Americans. (no judgment intended towards anyone on a podcast who has stated their experience).

I am searching to find out how to make this work within the church and the gospel, not outside of the church or to try to change the church. But I don’t think it requires being slippery when approaching church issues…but truly being honest and filled with integrity when wrestling with the issues. My assumption so far is that multiple people have already done this for many generations inside the church, they just haven’t blogged and labeled it “middle way”, they just call it WISDOM. Wisdom takes more than a year or two to get…and I’m not sure the pursuit of it ever ends. It takes patience.

I don’t think it needs to be framed as a movement. But I think it is a journey (an individual one, which is why the church can’t push you on it or give you a manual about it). It is one that I’m currently on. I think the middle way can be found.

[Anonymous]

behappy wrote:

Like you said most members of the church do this in one way or another. If nothing resonated with you no amount of nuance is going to work.

Good post, and I see what you are saying. However, I feel like you are suggesting nuance is the way to deal or cope with it. I am trying to find a way not to do that. Not to compromise what does resonate with me with the stuff that doesn’t resonate with me. I don’t want to nuance it to make it work, I want to make it work, honestly.

Quote:

The Middle Way or Middle Path is the descriptive term that Siddhattha Gotama used to describe the character of the path that he discovered led to liberation. It was coined in the very first teaching that he delivered after his enlightenment. In this sutta – known in English as The Setting in Motion of the Wheel of Dharma – the Buddha describes the middle way as a path of moderation between the extremes of sensual indulgence and self-mortification. This, according to him, was the path of wisdom. The middle path does not mean a mid point in a straight line joining two extremes represented by points. The middle path represents a high middle point, like the apex of a triangle. Thus the high middle point is more value filled than a mere compromise.

I’m not looking to compromise. I’m looking to elevate my faith and my wisdom.

[Anonymous]

There’s couple of things. As I think about Dehlin’s quote, he seems to be saying what he’s preached against in the past, all or none, binary thinking. The other has to do with Ray’s comment.

Old-Timer wrote:

“Middle way” implies, at least, that the ultimate objective is “compromise”, while I believe “the Church” is made up of all kinds of people with all kinds of nuanced views that all are walking in the same general field in the same overall direction. MUCH of their walking is similar to others, but much of it isn’t – so there is no “A WAY”.

There’s usually some compromise in dealing with people given their personalities and points of view. But there’s always compromise when the canon of belief is such that you either believe it or not and if not have to decide if it can be ignored or finessed. And that is when I think participation can become unsustainable.

[Anonymous]

I understand what everyone is saying and really appreciate the input – but, in the end, I am not a “fixer” in the sense that John is, and that has a huge impact on how we see things differently.

Let me clarify:

I look for solutions, and I want change. I’m not into the status quo – in any way, shape or form. However, I have some serious philosophical problems with how the term “the middle way” gets applied and some of the meanings that get attached to it.

If I personally was looking for a definition of that term which I could accept as applicable to all within some category, it would be much more the Buddhist version that Heber references with a decidedly Christian twist. It would be a definition that admits ALL are “in the middle of their ideal and their reality” and that ALL are trying to “work out how to eliminate or lessen the gap between the two”.

I’ve talked in the past about what I call “the muddle in the middle” – that area between black and white in which I’ve lived all my life that represents the path I see, darkly. If that is a middle way, I’m fine with that – but if it’s more of a systematic, specific “solution” . . . I just don’t lean that way.

[Anonymous]

Heber- I love the definition of middle way you gave.

Ray I agree that the correct ” middle way “would be a definition that admits ALL are “in the middle of their ideal and their reality” and that ALL are trying to “work out how to eliminate or lessen the gap between the two”. This seems to me to be an aspect of the pure love of Christ. How can I accept all and find common ground between us.

Question for All

The problem is we are dealing with an organization that does not “admit ALL in the middle of their ideal and their reality”.

I can work towards my own enlightenment and follow the spirit in all that I do. But what happens when my spirit tells me that beer is okay or that I don’t like the Churches teaching on several topics? Then what? Do I continue to try and force a square peg in a round hole?

I enjoy the philosophical discussion of what the “middle way” is or is not but I don’t think it gets to the crux of the problem. If I remember correctly there was a thread a while back about what it means to be a “stayer” or the difference between being a “stayer” or NOM or something to that effect. In it someone mentioned that a “stayer” was someone who found value in the Church and makes the conscience decision to stay. Value is what I see is the key ingredient in staying involved in any organization. Without finding some value in the church, that really works of you, staying involved will not last for any significant period of time.

I don’t see value as the only factor in “staying” As Ray mentioned everyone in the tent has to be willing to “admit ALL”, I don’t see this willingness in the church today. I wish it were different but I don’t see it changing anytime soon. I think this is where people feel like they are being less than honest with themselves. Sometimes you have to compromise so much to stay that might not be worth it. Some might have better luck with their spiritual paths outside organized religion. John maybe should have said “the middle way (staying involved in the church) is not right for everyone. And I no longer see it as the ideal path for everyone”

[Anonymous]

Quote:

As Ray mentioned, everyone in the tent has to be willing to “admit ALL” . . .

Sorry for the length of this comment, but . . .

Not really. I’m not sure there is an organization on earth that has any core “values” (of any kind) wherein everyone is willing to admit “all”. I do believe in the concept of excommunication and other disciplinary actions in some cases, and I do believe in entrance requirements of some sort. (This really isn’t a thread to discuss specifics related to things like that, so I won’t go there.)

All I’m saying is that if I personally am going to talk about some kind of “middle way”, it’s not going to be about some organized movement that draws lines defining who is in that “way” and who isn’t. I’m OK with the concept of “A(n individual) way that is in the middle of a journey / identifiable extremes” – but I’m not comfortable with the concept of “THE middle way”. I think John has looked for “THE WAY” for those who struggle – and I just don’t think there is one that is anything more than “patience, love, faith, hope, charity and more patience” (“The Pure Gospel of Jesus”, for lack of a better way to say it).

My path is going to be my path regardless of what path others are walking, simply because there isn’t any other way I can walk. I choose to walk it in a way that is not dangerous or a threat to the institution of the Church and, in fact, helpful to it – because that is what I desire. That is the key – and if someone else’s “middle way” falls outside the Church, that is their call. It’s not mine.

I can’t be involved in something solely because others want me to be involved in it; I have to be involved, at least partially, because I really do want to be involved in it. I understand social and family elements play a large role for many in that desire to be involved – and that’s fine.

As Paul says, if you are in the company of those who abstain from meat (and if you want to remain in their company), abstain with them. Perhaps that is the essence of a middle way for some – and it is an aspect of my middle way in some areas. In the end, however, my path (my “way”) is mine – and I personally need to craft it myself according to the dictates of my own conscience. For me, part of those dictates are how I affect others; hence, my path, while mine to craft and own individually, is not an individual path.

I choose to see a middle way (if I am using that term) in that form – but I don’t insist that “all” see it that way. I can participate in an organization where some people would prefer I not be there – and even where some people try to influence me to leave. It’s not nearly as enjoyable, and sometimes it’s downright frustrating and hurtful (as I know from personal experience in an employment situation, for example) – but I can do it if it’s what I want.

The key, as SD has said in a few threads, is figuring out what I really want – looking at as full a picture as I can and not acting reflexively, emotionally and quickly. It’s MUCH easier to do than to undo.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s better terms a “personal way” within Mormonism. It stems from the issues that interfere with your activity. For Brian, he has leaned on the idea of looking at many of our literal claims as symbols of a higher ideal. I personally have cut out the drugerous service in our religion. BLC has distanced himself from the hurt and let time heal the wound with a view to returning, without repudiating his testimony. M&G has used the challenges to focus on her grand and beautiful ideal of perfecting her character, and tends to approach the challenges along the way from that perspective — as a refining influence that produces profound spirituality. Cadence has embraced his doubts, but apparently, relied on feelings he should stay, in spite of not believing the literal clams, thus basing “testimony” (I hope that word doesn’t rub Cadence the wrong way) based on a feeling he should stay, rather than assimilating the claims most take as the foundation of a testimony.

These are my personal understandings from reading your posts, so correct me if I’m wrong.

So, the Personal Way within Mormonism is different for each person, and the Middle Way is only one such coping mechanism. I think the Middle Way was aimed primarily at people who lost faith in the foundation of Mormonism primarily, and doesn’t individualize enough.

[Anonymous]

move over “the middle way” and make way for “the personal way”. Amen to both Ray and “Silent” Dawn’s (not so “Silent” 😆 ) for your comments. And SD you have made great observations about how we’ve found our personal way in Mormonism as Ray has said “according to the dictates of our own consciences”.

[Anonymous]

What John said, parsed literally, may very well be true. Except that as you all have said, it’s really hard to define Middle Way. Assuming he’s saying less than 50% are able to maintain their membership, their temple recommend, and their activity, that may well be accurate. Less than 50% of faith changed Mormons is still a large number who may end up staying.

As for me, nobody has to admit me for me to stay. I simply have to decide to stay, whatever that means. I am a Mormon Boy.

[Anonymous]

I agree that you really can’t define what the “middle way” is and you really can’t devise a plan or solution that is going to work for everyone. When it comes down to it, it has to be a “my way” approach. I don’t think everyone was meant to be at the same level of faith, of commitment, as everyone else. As the scriptures say, “line upon line, precept upon precept.” While I do believe there are some things that we need to do, and some things that we should believe, it is my opinion that as long as we are true to the first principles of the gospel, we will find what works for us and get where we need to go.

[Author]

Posts