The Tumbleweed and the Log

There is an analogy frequently repeated in the church that drives me nuts. You may recognize it from when President Monson relayed it in a General Conference address back in the fall of 1997:

"...what I've called the 'hot coals' story. He described a warm fireplace where the pieces of wood had burned brightly, with the embers still glowing and giving off heat. He then observed that by taking in hand brass tongs, he could remove one of the hot embers. That ember would then slowly pale in light and turn black. No longer would it glow. No longer would it warm. He then pointed out that by returning the black, cold ember to the bed of living coals, the dark ember would begin to glow and brighten and warm. He concluded, 'People are somewhat like the coals of a fire. Should they absent themselves from the warmth and spirit of the active church membership, they will not contribute to the whole, but in their isolation will be changed. As with the embers removed from the heat of the fire, as they distance themselves from the intensity of the spirit generated by the active membership, they will lose that warmth and spirit.'"

I have heard it so many times and I still can not stand it. I think the thing that bothers me about it is it is opposite from the truth (at least for me). As I look back throughout my life, there have been times when, due to circumstances, I have been unable to attend church and would go long periods of time without any association with mormons. These were the times of the most spiritual growth and the solidification of my testimony. The times when I have been a weekly church goer / frequent temple attendee are the times I become lazy, complacent and more critical. However, leaving me (and those like me) out of it I ask: Is this what people really think? Do people see the church as a raging fire? I sure don't and here is one reason why (there are many);

A couple weeks ago, my family attended church with a co-worker of mine. I am familiar with the church, and admire the pastor. I have heard him preach on the radio and listened to some of his sermons online. I see him as a man of God and have a lot of respect for him. When we went, it was a refreshing experience. Everyone seemed excited to be there, I mean really excited. It was an hour and a half long service of which the first twenty minutes and last twenty minutes were spent standing and singing along with the rock band on stage. In between the music was an interesting sermon though it seemed somewhat shallow (unfortunately not from the normal Pastor - he had swine flu :( ). There were people sitting beside me, in back of me and in front of me with their Bibles out and note pads, taking notes. Not counting my wife, I can not remember the last time I saw anyone take notes in a Sacrament Meeting.

My kids enjoyed the standing and singing to the electric guitar, drums and keyboard. I did too, I must confess. The feeling of inclusion was very apparent. The place was packed. The converted school bus was out front after it had made its rounds picking up people from all over town. No one I saw was dressed up, everyone looked and felt comfortable. After the service everyone was hanging around talking enjoying each others company. We had to rush out to make it to our own service.

Upon arriving at our church there was a noticeable difference. Looking around, no one seemed excited to be there. Everyone was dressed up and there was a bit of stuffiness in the air. Sacrament Meeting was a bit of a different experience. The closing hymn was “The Spirit of God” – one of my favorites, but I wasn’t singing, it is hard for me to sing that slow.

I spent a lot of time that day, and since, thinking of the two churches. Comparing them. I have attended many different churches but this presented an interesting contrast rushing out of one to make it to the other. I decide to try and come up with three words to explain each of the two churches and here is what I came up with.

Other Church: Excitement, Enthusiasm, Sugar Rush

My Church: Dull, Duty, Depth

First my explanation of why I chose those words for the other church. There was no one there that I could find that did not seem excited to be there. From the youngest kids to the ushers to the old ladies, there was an air of excitement that permeated the entire space. Not just excitement but also enthusiasm. The people attending seemed genuinely enthused about the Lord Jesus and what he had done for them. But it also seemed a bit like a sugar rush, an inrush of current if you will, but not a lot of substance to hold onto that rush.

Now, the words for the mormon church. I can not remember the last time I have been to a church meeting that was not dull. Not to say the messages were not good, but they were dull. There is a sense of duty in the church, duty to show up, duty to sit quietly, duty to do what you’re told, and you just do it, all of it. But there is depth, the gospel of Jesus Christ as restored by Joseph Smith has no end. One can take it as far as they wish, which I might add, is a large part of the problem.

The Church of Jesus Christ has all the restored keys and proper authority to accomplish the purpose of life on this earth. Because of this they do not need enthusiasm or excitement. The other churches do not have all the answers. They have Jesus and they have the Bible. Arguably, that is enough, but there will always be questions and gaps. They fill these with their excitement and enthusiasm. The mormon church does not need excitement or enthusiasm, they have “the truth”.

So to go back to the lame analogy and expand it to this example; the other church is like a dry tumbleweed. When lit it creates a large fierce flame which has no substance. The mormon church is like a nice hardwood log. Once it is lit, it is not going out, it will put out lots of heat, and will burn a long, long time, but will never give you the excited, enthusiastic flame of a dry tumbleweed.

As I was contemplating this, I began to wonder, was it always like this? That is easy to answer: no! Then I began to wonder, if Joseph Smith had been born in our time, say 1980, what would the church be like, would it be the same? The first vision would have been in 1994 and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would have been founded in 2005. Also in 2005, Emma would have been called to collect hymns for the new hymnbook. Hmm, now I have a question. Would Emma have picked the same hymns? Or would she have picked some of the newer (upbeat) songs? Honestly, I can not see a twenty six year old woman nowadays putting together a collection of songs like what we use. But I digress, that is not my point.

I have had many discussions with my wife since this experience and I have not been able to figure out, how could excitement be brought back into the church? The church is not growing near as well as claimed. Even though we frequently sing "All is Well, All is Well", I think there is a strong argument to the contrary. I cringe everytime I read 2 Nephi 28, is that not what I hear from the pulpit of the church? The church does not need to compromise any of its core beliefs or underpinnings to do this, but it needs excited members, enthusiastic members. I can not get it out of my head...if the members of my church had the excitement and enthusiasm the members of the other church had, oh, imagine...

Does Jesus come to Your Sacrament Meeting

In honor of the one year anniversary of my post about whether or not mormons know too much, I figured I would give an update. For those who missed the last post, here is a brief rundown. I postulated that mormons knew too much and tended to loose sight of what matters most. In delving into various gospel topics, they tend to forget about the saving mission of Jesus Christ and can leave him out of their talks entirely. It is shocking, at least to me, that I can sit through talks without a single mention of the Savior until they close their remarks in His name.

I have been keeping track since the last post and kept a running total. Below are the results. It has been somewhat surprising. The averages have never dropped below 3 and only briefly gone above 5 once (That was the Youth and it lasted less than a month). After over 18 months of tracking, it seems like right around 4 is where they will stay.

Youth:
Mentions of Christ in an average talk:
1.00 – Times Christ was mentioned as a Formalities
0.68 – Times Christ was mentioned while quoting from Scripture
0.42 – Times Christ was mentioned while quoting from General Authorities (and other spiritual literature)
0.32– Times Christ was mentioned indirectly
0.37– Times Christ was mentioned in the context of a Testimony
0.63– Times Christ was mention for Other reasons
3.42 – Total mentions of Christ in a talk


Adult:
Mentions of Christ in an average talk:
0.96 – Times Christ was mentioned as a Formalities
0.59 – Times Christ was mentioned while quoting from Scripture
0.56 – Times Christ was mentioned while quoting from General Authorities (and other spiritual literature)
0.39 – Times Christ was mentioned indirectly
0.44 – Times Christ was mentioned in the context of a Testimony
1.06 – Times Christ was mention for Other reasons
4.01 – Total mentions of Christ in a talk.

So, I do not know about your Sacrament Meetings, but these are the results from the Sacrament Meetings I have attended, most were my home ward, but I travel a fair amount on business and kept track in wards I visited as well.

Is lay ministry hindering the church?

I have been thinking a lot lately about the lay ministry in the church. As I was growing up I was taught this was good. I have also heard it touted as one of the good things that make the church stand apart from other Christian denominations. I have begun to wonder, however, just how good it is for the church.

The best sermons I have ever heard came from a Baptist Minister in an isolated town in Northern Ontario. On my mission I served in his town, I tracted into many people who told me they would never miss a sermon preached by "Pastor Pat". So much so I became intrigued and went to one myself. I was amazed, I began going every Sunday, his services ended shortly before mine started, making for a great start to my Sunday. He also did a service every Sunday night where all they did was sing songs. Anyone could suggest a song, he would give a 30-45 second sermon on it, then all would sing it and someone else would suggest another one. Him and I became friends and would meet occasionally at a coffee shop and chat. I found out he had a triple combination and had read it cover to cover. (That made a lot of his sermons make more sense as many of them had a noticeable "mormon" slant). He told me many times his main goal was to bring souls to Christ, he only had a Baptist church because the Pastors before him paid an annual fee to call themselves Baptist and he continued to pay it, he said he has never used Baptist in a sermon and never would, it wasn't important. What was important was helping distracted people remember why they were here and what their goals should be.

Not only were Pastor Pat's sermons the best I have ever heard, there was not a single one that was not Spirit filled. This man had a vested interest, his entire life was wrapped up in learning the gospel and sharing it with others. When he took over the First Baptist Church, it had forty people a week that regularly attended and may get as many as double that on Christmas and Easter. When I met him (less than five years later) he had an average weekly attendance of 400.

I have met many people of whom I loved to hear them preach. A few (very few) of these people were mormons. I was conversing with my wife about this and bemoaning the fact that if I want to hear a good sermon, it is a better bet to go to one of the many other churches surrounding my own than to show up at a Sacrament Meeting. I remember the looks of disbelief my wife and I shared when we went to a Know Your Religion lecture and the conductor stated that it was the last season of KYR because 1) very few KYR circuits were making money and 2) we should be learning this stuff in Sacrament Meeting anyway. I had to stop myself from laughing out loud and we said almost simultaneously: That'll never happen.

I have begun to think lay ministry is more of a hindrance than a help, at least in our time. Here is my new view on lay ministry:

When you call someone to lead a ward (or stake) you have a couple things that happen;

1) They are distracted, they are most likely already juggling career and family responsibilities, no matter how hard they try, those two plus their new church responsibilities will all suffer.

2) It is very possible they will bring some secular (worldly) training into the day to day operations of the church. Business men will run it like a business, lawyers will run it like a practice, etc.

Not only do we have lay ministry leading the church, but the missionaries in charge of teaching people and helping them in their journey into the church are lay workers with little more than a couple weeks training.

We invited the missionaries over one Monday night not to long ago to teach a neighbor of ours whom we had been talking with. We were to have dinner then a lesson. The missionaries who serve our ward are zone leaders, so I expected much from them. Since it was Monday (their p-day) they had traveled to a neighboring town to play basketball with other elders, arriving 45 minutes late for our appointment. We had all eaten and were in the other room when they showed up. We gave them a few minutes to eat, then they commenced with the lesson. It was terrible. It did not flow at all, very choppy with tangents that took way to long and that they could not figure out how to tie back into the lesson. A couple times they had to ask me if I knew where a scripture was they wanted to read. They seemed to have no endgame in mind and did not know where to go next with what they were teaching or when to stop. It was hard for me to follow, and I knew what they were trying to say.

You may say I should not hold this one time against all missionaries in general...well, what about the time we invited the missionaries over for a Family Home Evening where we had some other ward members and some non-member family in attendance? Again they showed up late (after the whole FHE was over) grabbed some of the refreshments, then left apologizing but explaining they were very "busy" - even though we had set up the appointment over two weeks in advance...or what about the time we had a birthday party for my son at the park, again with many non-members and the missionaries showed up (late), ate cake, briefly talked to one non-member, then left. It would be pointless to go on, you get my point. With lay volunteers doing the work there is no vested interest. We like to tell ourselves they are vested, their testimonies make them so, but that is a pipe dream, not reality.

Not only is lay servicemen ineffective but it creates expectations among the ranks of the church. Again, back on my mission, I was tracting one day with an Assistant to the President who had come to work with me for the day. We rounded the corner and began walking up a long driveway to see a sprawling estate with a huge house in the center of large lawns and manicured gardens. The AP made the comment "these are the houses where stake presidents are found". Whether or not that is true, it proves the point that there are thoughts among rank and file church members that in order to have positions of prominence in the church you must be wealthy. Just like a bad credit score can prevent you from getting a good job, it can also stop you from moving up the ranks in the church.

My opinion has evolved to one where I think it is better for the congregation to support a minister. This makes him vested. It is in his best interest to make church enjoyable. In many churches if people don't like what they hear, they leave and go to another one. A minister who relies on his congregation for support cannot lose too many before he starts going hungry. The mormon church teaches you it is the one true church, the only way to get to heaven, then, since they've got you, they bore you to tears because they know you won't go anywhere else. How many stories have I read about people who left the church due to leadership? It is sad but I do not blame the leaders, they have lives at least as busy as mine, how are they suppose to dedicate the needed time to their congregations?

I met a minister once who was explaining to me the "Shepherds" he had assigned in his church. Basically, he had mimicked the home teaching program without knowing it. He explained there was too much going on for him to handle it all so he had picked out some of the best of the adult men and assigned them families to watch over, be their "shepherd" if you will. I followed up with him a couple times and early reports showed promising results. Showing that a good mixture of paid and lay ministry can benefit all.

I say leave the structure the same, just train, and support bishops and stake presidents in the same way as seminary teachers, general authorities, etc. Make them vested in making church enjoyable, we do not have to compromise any doctrines or any of the traditions that members seem to hold so dear.