Posted by:
MarkJ
(
)
Date: February 19, 2012 01:43AM
I was recently reading about the theologian Thomas Merton in Wikipedia and ran across this:
"In January 1938 Merton graduated from Columbia with a B.A. in English. After graduation he continued at Columbia, doing graduate work in English. In June, a friend, Seymour Freedgood, arranged a meeting with Mahanambrata Brahmachari, a Hindu monk in New York visiting from the University of Chicago. Merton was very impressed by the man, seeing that he was profoundly centered in God, and expected him to recommend his beliefs and religion to them in some manner. Instead, Brahmachari recommended that they reconnect with their own spiritual roots and traditions. He suggested Merton read The Confessions of Augustine and The Imitation of Christ. Although Merton was surprised to hear the monk recommending Catholic books, he read them both. He also started to pray again regularly."
I found this remarkable for a couple reasons. One, imagine a Mormon GA telling a Hindu thinking about converting to Mormonism that he should reconnect with his own roots. This man was confident in his own spiritual experience and recognized that other beliefs were not a threat. The validity and value of his religion did not depend on converting others. And doesn't this also display true faith in the ultimate goodness of God? That the result is what matters, not the process?
Secondly, this made immediate sense to me. Isn’t it better to save what is good, and move on from there, rather than ditch everything and start over with something completely different?
For those of us who grew up in the church, our personal histories, memories, and experiences are forever tied to the church. It is and will be part of us. For some, parting from that and never referencing it again is possible, perhaps desirable. For others however, the church figured in defining their lives and is integrated into their beings. That should serve as a starting point, not an ending point. Afterall, I own my history and tradition.
TBMs often ask why ExMos cannot leave the church alone. Like high school, whether the experiences were good or bad, church life is something that for many people is a life-long reference and context for many other life experiences. Why should we abandon that? The church claimed a special role, and a special role it had. If TBMs think we should leave the church alone, they would have to admit that the church is inconsequential. The fact that many don’t want to leave the church alone is proof of how active and committed they were to the church, and what an important role it had in their lives.
This raises the question about who owns the church. Obviously, the church is a corporation, a legal and tangible entity. But as a social construction, the church is the members. For those who wish to remain active for the good they find in the church, why should they be ones to change, rather than church?
Traditionally, the church has always quickly acted to excommunicate any who threaten the central leadership and their control of the church. But as that model fails and the church struggles to maintain itself, perhaps the leaders should consider letting the members decide what the church will be and what it believes. GAs have observed that “the church is not a democracy.” But that equation works in the other direction too - Without democracy, the church is not.
Should the members take charge of the church? It is our heritage as much as anyone else's.
Another good opinion piece on this subject:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/3781/why_i_won%E2%80%99t_leave_the_mormon_church_alone_/