Bad idea for church to become more liberal?

[BriansThoughtMirror]

This article is from a year ago:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... 41a6b00303

It suggests that in mainstream Christianity, liberal churches are declining, and conservative churches are growing. Here's my take on it. Conservative, literal, fundamentalist beliefs have a real visceral, emotional appeal. While such religions can be intolerant and exclusivist, they do provide clear certainty, meaning, and security. They create standards to rally around, and clear shared beliefs and goals. They can make your tribe very clear and defined. They remove uncomfortable ambiguity. All of these things generate strong community bonds and a powerful sense of identity. Think of what it feels like as a full, literally believing male Mormon, for example, to stand in the conference center in Priesthood session, wearing the white shirts and ties, singing "Ye Elders of Israel". This is the kind of shared identity, morality, belief, and experience can hold religions together. When you feel those emotions, you are willing to sacrifice for the cause of truth! When you sacrifice for something- when you do something hard for a cause you believe in- you'll be more committed. This kind of zealous commitment can overcome doubts and criticism from all angles, and it drives members convert and retain others. This perpetuates the religions.

Liberal religion, on the other hand, is open, tolerant, and accepting, which solves a lot of social problems faced by conservative religions. However, if you are accepting of many differing and nuanced views, your faith seems a lot more fuzzy. Maybe even a little wishy-washy. Without clearly defined shared moral goals and a clearly defined tribal identity, you can't create the same level of spiritual communal bonding. Maybe you can still feel some mystical connections with the universe and all of humanity, but that doesn't create the same kind of self perpetuating group. So, individuals may feel strongly about their beliefs, but that doesn't translate into converting and retaining others. It doesn't mean that others will join you in your beliefs. Also, if your beliefs are super open and accepting, I would bet that you may run into criticisms or other problems that cause your beliefs and associations to change. Liberal religion is just more individualistic, and requires less loyalty.

Because of this, I think liberal religions are not going to be as viable long term as conservative religions. They just can't have the same sort of visceral appeal. They may even be more intellectually responsible, but I don't think that matters to most people. People don't choose religion in a rational way (at least not most of us). Even if they do, a rational decision is not nearly as life altering as a mind blowing spiritual conversion.

I think the LDS church leadership knows this. Just look at the community of Christ. Those who are left are happy with it, but their liberalization cost them a ton of membership. So, I think that the LDS church will do it's best to maintain a strong conservative identity as much as possible, at least relative to the rest of the world. They need to see themselves as a beacon of uncompromising obedience to real truth, unswayed by public opinion. So, things like the November policy will alienate some, but for so many others, such an unpopular policy is just evidence that the church is true. They are holding onto their fundamental beliefs.

Long story short, NOMs will always be a distrusted minority in the LDS church.

Thoughts?

[alas]

I think when you put this in perspective of the cultural wars, it changes things up a bit. The conservative religious and political factions are upset about becoming a minority, so they cling to their churches with more enthusiasm and desperation than members of more liberal religions and thinking. It is like who turned out to vote in bigger numbers? The people who were pretty sure that if they didn't, some monsterous liberal would be president, and they still lost the popular vote. I see a lot more anger and desperation on the conservative side of things over the last twenty years. Liberals see the world going their way, so they are more relaxed (well if Rump was not president, but still we are confident that soon we will be rid of the idiots in the White House and congress) Sure, we got way over confidant and too sure that we were going to win, but see, that is part of being sure of the world. That is why "religious liberty" is a thing right now is because the very conservative are afraid they have lost power and are becoming a minority. No longer will government promote their version of reality by putting up religious symbols in public places and promoting their kind of prayer in schools. And government is no longer accepting "God said so," as a reason for passing laws. And conservatives are desperately holding onto their beliefs by attending church. Where the liberals are off shopping, hiking, boating, or playing golf on Sunday.

Over time, the conservative religions are also shrinking and they will continue to shrink because time and education are on the side of atheists and us heathen liberals.

[Jeffret]

This is an old attack from the conservative churches and their adherents on the more liberal churches. It's kind of out of date, though. Even Haskell's column in the Washington Post last year is more of a demonstration of trying to desperately hold onto that idea than it is an accurate depiction of reality. Lots of conservative churches and writers shared Haskell's article. Conservative churches have better withstood the decline in participation, but to say they are thriving is significant exaggeration.

I've commented about this in other threads a few times recently. See here for example, PRRI: America’s Changing Religious Identity.

I think the LDS church leadership knows this. Just look at the community of Christ. Those who are left are happy with it, but their liberalization cost them a ton of membership. So, I think that the LDS church will do it's best to maintain a strong conservative identity as much as possible, at least relative to the rest of the world. They need to see themselves as a beacon of uncompromising obedience to real truth, unswayed by public opinion. So, things like the November policy will alienate some, but for so many others, such an unpopular policy is just evidence that the church is true. They are holding onto their fundamental beliefs.

I'm very confident that Mormon leaders believe that. I'm pretty skeptical that they're right.

Long story short, NOMs will always be a distrusted minority in the LDS church.

True, but I'm quite surprised at how many members have started taking an openly NOMish approach within the Church. Sam Young, of the petition against sexually interviewing kids, is a prime example. The Church excommunicated Dehlin, but that doesn't seem to have diminished his impact. There are a number of people around that landscape that have staked out a pretty NOMish approach. Bill Reel is another excellent example, along with others that are connected to him. There are a number of different individuals, groups, associations, and loose connections of people that have maintained a connection to the Church and yet publicly share a decidedly NOMish approach.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

Jeffret, thanks for the link! I will check out that thread.

So, do you all think that becoming more liberal would help the church? Obviously, it would help retain the NOMs who still want to be Mormon, but I think NOMs are a very small percent of the LDS church. Maybe it would help retain Millennials? I somehow doubt it, though. I think the more liberal Millennials will just find the church to be utterly irrelevant.

My hypothesis is that conversion comes from conservative, literal belief, and that liberal/nuanced/non-literal believers probably were already believers before they came to their liberal views. If your experience is different, I'd love to hear about it!

Where does liberal religion come from, anyway? Is it the result of strong believers facing major problems in their faith? For example, a group of Christians believes the Bible to be the literal, inerrant word of God, but then sees problems in it with history, science, and morality. But they love their faith. Rather than throwing it out entirely, they adapt it. They reinterpret it as allegorical, or accept only parts that don't directly conflict with secular knowledge. They want to be honest and seek truth, so they throw out things that seem untrue, but they want to keep the beliefs and community that has meant so much to them, so they remain part of their faith. They come to a liberal believing point of view.

But the initial reason for belief came from the simple, literal view. They start throwing things out, making more complicated explanations, and seeing shades of grey in all sorts of things. I just don't think that a religion full of shades of grey is going to produce zeal, conversions, and lifelong commitment. A lot of liberal believers are committed to their religion simply because they were already committed before they became liberal believers. Would they have developed belief at all if it were presented in the fuzzy shades of grey that they now see?

Questions for any liberal believers: Were you always a liberal believer, or did you start as a conservative, literal believer, and move toward a more liberal nuanced view after a crisis of faith?

[slavereeno]

Yeah,

Long story short, NOMs will always be a distrusted minority in the LDS church.

The problem is they retain such tight control through the requirement of literal belief. The get members to surrender their own free will to the church, don't want to serve as the Hymnbook coordinator, tough turkey! I wonder if liberal churches that aren't totalitarian can maintain a membership, but another question might be can totalitarian churches built on a tissue of lies maintain their membership?

[BriansThoughtMirror]

I wonder if liberal churches that aren't totalitarian can maintain a membership, but another question might be can totalitarian churches built on a tissue of lies maintain their membership?

It seems like church activity as a whole is declining, so, maybe not. But it looks like the conservative churches are doing better than the liberal ones. I think people really want something that feels solid to believe in.

[moksha]

The world's fastest-growing conservative religion, Islam, can be said to have many advantages to their conservatism, such as:

1. Having adherents bomb public gatherings in the name of Allah.
2. Keeping their women from adopting the ways of the Infidel.
3. Eliminating Journalists who disparage Allah or show his image.
4. Jihads.

All of these benefits would be lessened if Muslims were to become liberalized and adopted the secular mores of Western Civilization. This would also apply to Mormons.

[Jeffret]

So, do you all think that becoming more liberal would help the church?

Help...? What would constitute helping the church? How might we measure it or determine it?

If we measure it by membership numbers or number of converts / new members, then I suspect staying the course will give them the best results. Their growth is dropping dramatically (though not yet as dramatically as the evangelicals experienced) but I really don't know what they could do to improve that. Keeping constant is probably the safest course. Change introduce turmoil. If they become more liberal, they'll cause concerns for conservative members. If they become more conservative, they'll cause concerns for more liberal members. Besides, if they change anything in a noticeable fashion, that calls into question all that has gone before them, upon which all their authority and power rest.

As far as I'm concerned, though, it would help the Church dramatically to become more liberal. I don't consider membership numbers and growth the primary concern. I'm more interested in compassion, fairness, kindness -- basically Christ-like characteristics. I think it would help the Church a lot to put their focus on pursuing those things and abandoning their stifling efforts to adhere to outdated and unsupportable ideas and practices. Those are costly in a number of ways.

I'm also convinced it would help a lot of Mormons individually for that to happen.

My hypothesis is that conversion comes from conservative, literal belief, and that liberal/nuanced/non-literal believers probably were already believers before they came to their liberal views. If your experience is different, I'd love to hear about it!

I would guess that's fairly common but certainly not exclusive. I think the best-known conversion in Christendom stands as stark example. Saul pursued a literal, conservative belief but after his conversion, as Paul, his approach is significantly nuanced and non-literal.

Where does liberal religion come from, anyway? Is it the result of strong believers facing major problems in their faith?

That's a very complex question. I think you're looking at it from far too much of a conservative perspective, though. It feels like your perspective of where liberal religion comes from results from your biases of your own perspective.

Some religious traditions are quite non-literal. Others are very literal. Buddhism tends to be quite non-literal. The more visible, noticeable parts of Christianity tend to be more literalist but there are many significant segments within it that are not.

If you look at it from a Mormon perspective, which is quite conservative, and becoming more so over the past few decades, it appears that liberal or non-literal approaches are born out of responses to conservative religion. That's the way it appears, because Mormonism is so conservatively dominated. If we grew up in a non-literal community, we would likely look at it differently.

This stuff can also get into a Stages of Faith consideration. In some fashion, young kids are more literal thinkers who develop abstract thinking capabilities as they mature into adulthood. But, it's more complicated than that and a lot of it depends upon the family and community they grow up in.

You're also mixing up a couple of different axes: literal vs. non-literal and conservative vs. liberal. There are some connections between these axes but they're definitely not the same thing.

Questions for any liberal believers: Were you always a liberal believer, or did you start as a conservative, literal believer, and move toward a more liberal nuanced view after a crisis of faith?

Well, I grew up in the heart of Mormondom as a devout believer, so it should be no surprise that I started as a more conservative, liberal believer and graduated to a more nuanced, non-literal, liberal approach as part of a faith transition. However, even back then I had a strong streak of interest in justice and fairness and individual responsibility.

[1smartdodog]

I think when you put this in perspective of the cultural wars, it changes things up a bit. The conservative religious and political factions are upset about becoming a minority, so they cling to their churches with more enthusiasm and desperation than members of more liberal religions and thinking. It is like who turned out to vote in bigger numbers? The people who were pretty sure that if they didn't, some monsterous liberal would be president, and they still lost the popular vote. I see a lot more anger and desperation on the conservative side of things over the last twenty years. Liberals see the world going their way, so they are more relaxed (well if Rump was not president, but still we are confident that soon we will be rid of the idiots in the White House and congress) Sure, we got way over confidant and too sure that we were going to win, but see, that is part of being sure of the world. That is why "religious liberty" is a thing right now is because the very conservative are afraid they have lost power and are becoming a minority. No longer will government promote their version of reality by putting up religious symbols in public places and promoting their kind of prayer in schools. And government is no longer accepting "God said so," as a reason for passing laws. And conservatives are desperately holding onto their beliefs by attending church. Where the liberals are off shopping, hiking, boating, or playing golf on Sunday.

Over time, the conservative religions are also shrinking and they will continue to shrink because time and education are on the side of atheists and us heathen liberals.

You make the mistake of so many NOMish people. You equate liberal religious beliefs with liberal political opinions. Not every one who rejects the church as it is runs to some kind of liberal political stance. Anger and desperation on the conservative side you have got to be joking. Its not a bunch of conservatives protesting every little thing and marching in the streets.

[Mad Jax]

Anger and desperation on the conservative side you have got to be joking. Its not a bunch of conservatives protesting every little thing and marching in the streets

That does appear to be the case but I think in general, it's a universal trait. Although I admit that right this moment, I can't think of a conservative mass rant that wasn't tied to religion. Maybe some 2nd amendment advocates get a little too stressed out about threats to it? I count myself among them, BTW.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I follow Hamer's Toronto congregation and watch their live streams. It was standing room only for John's presentation on the history of Satan tonight, but on other nights and during the regular services it is pretty sparse. Their room is also pretty small. Literal belief is the human secret sauce for keeping a religion thriving it seems.

[2bizE]

I find the Mormon theology to be quite liberal. (Visions, magic rocks, polygamy, open cannon, prophets who speak with God).
It is the church culture that has drifted in conservatism.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

The world's fastest-growing conservative religion, Islam, can be said to have many advantages to their conservatism, such as:

1. Having adherents bomb public gatherings in the name of Allah.
2. Keeping their women from adopting the ways of the Infidel.
3. Eliminating Journalists who disparage Allah or show his image.
4. Jihads.

I realize you are being tongue in cheek here, but seriously- those kinds of things really do create a strong sense of community, identity, morality, and spirituality that help perpetuate the religion. Also, I think having a common enemy (Satan? Secularity? The West?) can also help create identity and community, as well as a shared emotional zeal. I'm not saying these things are good for the world at large, or even individuals, but they do help keep a faith community going!

[BriansThoughtMirror]

If we measure it by membership numbers or number of converts / new members, then I suspect staying the course will give them the best results.

Yes, this is how I was thinking about it. It's helpful in perpetuating the religion and community. It's not necessarily good for individuals, though.

As far as I'm concerned, though, it would help the Church dramatically to become more liberal. I don't consider membership numbers and growth the primary concern. I'm more interested in compassion, fairness, kindness -- basically Christ-like characteristics. I think it would help the Church a lot to put their focus on pursuing those things and abandoning their stifling efforts to adhere to outdated and unsupportable ideas and practices. Those are costly in a number of ways.

I'm also convinced it would help a lot of Mormons individually for that to happen.

You might be right! I think individuals would benefit greatly from the things you describe. It might slow down church growth, though, and if the shifts were major and obvious, it would certainly cause some faith struggles among the more conservative/traditional/literal believers.

I think you're looking at it from far too much of a conservative perspective, though. It feels like your perspective of where liberal religion comes from results from your biases of your own perspective.

Quite possibly. I only have my own perspective to look out of. I wonder what conversions look like in a non-literal Buddhist community? Do conversions directly from non-belief (never having believed) to non-literal/nuanced/liberal belief happen in any religion? Does initial conversion require literal belief?

You're also mixing up a couple of different axes: literal vs. non-literal and conservative vs. liberal. There are some connections between these axes but they're definitely not the same thing.

OK, this is a very valid criticism. I need to be more careful in my definitions. I am thinking of liberal religion as freely interpreted religion- that is, open to non-literal belief, open to higher criticism, open to reinterpretation in ways that make the religion more humane and practical. I'm not necessarily thinking of it as politically liberal, though sometimes those ideas coincide. Maybe I'm still not clear enough. Will you please tell me how you'd define those ideas?

Thanks for these thoughts!

[BriansThoughtMirror]

I find the Mormon theology to be quite liberal. (Visions, magic rocks, polygamy, open cannon, prophets who speak with God).
It is the church culture that has drifted in conservatism.

Me, too. It's biggest liberal point, to me, is the idea of almost universal salvation. It has ecumenicism built into it. (And it's least liberal point is treatment of apostates, secularists, women, and gays.)

[Thoughtful]

I think when you put this in perspective of the cultural wars, it changes things up a bit. The conservative religious and political factions are upset about becoming a minority, so they cling to their churches with more enthusiasm and desperation than members of more liberal religions and thinking. It is like who turned out to vote in bigger numbers? The people who were pretty sure that if they didn't, some monsterous liberal would be president, and they still lost the popular vote. I see a lot more anger and desperation on the conservative side of things over the last twenty years. Liberals see the world going their way, so they are more relaxed (well if Rump was not president, but still we are confident that soon we will be rid of the idiots in the White House and congress) Sure, we got way over confidant and too sure that we were going to win, but see, that is part of being sure of the world. That is why "religious liberty" is a thing right now is because the very conservative are afraid they have lost power and are becoming a minority. No longer will government promote their version of reality by putting up religious symbols in public places and promoting their kind of prayer in schools. And government is no longer accepting "God said so," as a reason for passing laws. And conservatives are desperately holding onto their beliefs by attending church. Where the liberals are off shopping, hiking, boating, or playing golf on Sunday.

Over time, the conservative religions are also shrinking and they will continue to shrink because time and education are on the side of atheists and us heathen liberals.

The catch is that conservative religions are the ones reproducing above replacement rate. For this to come true, we must convince conservatives and conservative extremists to see the value in education, and in particular, in educating women and girls. Uneducated masses are much easier to control though so these factions are unlikely to agree to such a plan.

[Jeffret]

The catch is that conservative religions are the ones reproducing above replacement rate.

Are they? Are we talking about any particular denominations or churches?

It doesn't seem to be the case for Catholics, evangelicals, or Baptists. Catholics have serious concern about their falling membership and commitment. Their priest shortage is becoming increasingly significant. In the PRRI study, evangelicals posted a a decline from 23% of American population to 17% over a ten year period. Southern Baptists have considered their declines a crisis for well over a decade, maybe two.

In the Mormon church, it doesn't seem that Mormons are reproducing over the replacement rate. A graph on this page, http://roundelmike.com/2015/04/lds-morm ... tics-2015/, shows reported numbers of children of record baptized. This shows a noticeable decline since 2008. As Mike states there,

In the United States, in 2012, the birth rate was 12.6 per 1,000 people. Using this very rough estimate for the Mormon church as a whole, which admittedly has members outside the United States, we would expect Mormons to have about 193,000 children in 2015. But they had fewer children of record, only 115,000, so either Mormons are having fewer kids than the American population as a whole, which doesn’t seem likely, or not all children born to Mormons are being added as children of record.

It's hard to tell just what the Mormon replacement rate is. It would be a combination of those who die, those who choose to leave, and those who were never really in to begin with. It appears that Mormons are not reproducing enough to keep up, though. Without their massive investment in missionary activities, they likely wouldn't be growing. And they really don't get a good return for their investment. The Next Mormons survey found that Millennial Mormons grew up with fewer siblings, on average. Surveys show that Millennial Mormons are having fewer children.

[Jeffret]

OK, this is a very valid criticism. I need to be more careful in my definitions. I am thinking of liberal religion as freely interpreted religion- that is, open to non-literal belief, open to higher criticism, open to reinterpretation in ways that make the religion more humane and practical. I'm not necessarily thinking of it as politically liberal, though sometimes those ideas coincide. Maybe I'm still not clear enough. Will you please tell me how you'd define those ideas?

The term "liberal" has lots of different connotations and gets really caught up in the political stuff. Not to mention that the American usage of the term doesn't align with the UK or other places.

As to how I'd define it, that's a tough one. I imagine it's an area of academic study, but I don't know what terms they would use or how to start looking for it. It's not an easy thing to describe or get a handle on.

[Thoughtful]

The catch is that conservative religions are the ones reproducing above replacement rate.

Are they? Are we talking about any particular denominations or churches?

It doesn't seem to be the case for Catholics, evangelicals, or Baptists. Catholics have serious concern about their falling membership and commitment. Their priest shortage is becoming increasingly significant. In the PRRI study, evangelicals posted a a decline from 23% of American population to 17% over a ten year period. Southern Baptists have considered their declines a crisis for well over a decade, maybe two.

In the Mormon church, it doesn't seem that Mormons are reproducing over the replacement rate. A graph on this page, http://roundelmike.com/2015/04/lds-morm ... tics-2015/, shows reported numbers of children of record baptized. This shows a noticeable decline since 2008. As Mike states there,

In the United States, in 2012, the birth rate was 12.6 per 1,000 people. Using this very rough estimate for the Mormon church as a whole, which admittedly has members outside the United States, we would expect Mormons to have about 193,000 children in 2015. But they had fewer children of record, only 115,000, so either Mormons are having fewer kids than the American population as a whole, which doesn’t seem likely, or not all children born to Mormons are being added as children of record.

It's hard to tell just what the Mormon replacement rate is. It would be a combination of those who die, those who choose to leave, and those who were never really in to begin with. It appears that Mormons are not reproducing enough to keep up, though. Without their massive investment in missionary activities, they likely wouldn't be growing. And they really don't get a good return for their investment. The Next Mormons survey found that Millennial Mormons grew up with fewer siblings, on average. Surveys show that Millennial Mormons are having fewer children.

I was referring to Islam in particular, 3.1 births per woman globally and as high as 6 in Africa. Mormon births per woman average at 3 last I heard. The United States is at 1.84, Utah at 2.6. Protestants are at 2.2. Atheists are at 1.6 and agnostics 1.3.

Replacement rate is 2.33.

[deacon blues]

This is significant. Do any surveys say anything about Republicans having more kids than Democrats?

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/R ... 488626.php