Good, Bad, and Ugly in the News
A few items from last week’s news:
The Good
First off, one of the students in Sister Mansfield’s seminary class was selected by the Washington Post as their All-Met girls’ volleyball player of the year. The Post wrote of Kailee:
After winning a state title in Utah as a junior, May moved to the area and instantly transformed a team that won one postseason match last year into a Maryland 4A state finalist this year. She registered 403 kills, 375 digs and 73 aces for the Swarmin’ Hornets (21-4) and will play for Fordham.
You dazzling New Yorkers can watch her play in the Bronx next fall at Fordham’s Rosehill Gym, which opened in 1925 and where Kareem Abdul Jabbar played his last high school game.
The Bad
Second, the Washington Post, like many others carried the story on the current status of the nation’s fornication. I read about it at lunch on page 2. It isn’t clear to me what this new restatement of previous studies added that was newsworthy, but it doesn’t take much for this topic to draw attention. One of the studies from the National Center for Health Statistics was Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 15-44 Years of Age, United States, 2002. From that report: “Males 30-44 years of age reported an average (median) of 6-8 female sexual partners in their lifetimes. Among women 30-44 years of age, the median number of male sexual partners in their lifetimes was about four.” So very sad. “The whole world lies in sin, and groans under darkness and under the bondage of sin.” “Pre-marital” isn’t really an accurate description of this type of activity. Maybe amarital would be a better adjective.
The Ugly
Finally, nine Episcopal churches voted this month to break off from the Diocese of Virginia, joining four other churches that have already done so. The part that held my attention was the article’s last sentence: “The 13 churches represent about 7 percent of the diocese’s congregations and about 17 percent of its average Sunday attendance.” These Episcopalians who are departing their diocese were its most devoted members.
When an institution changes, those who liked the institution best will find the changes hardest to take, changes that may make the institution more appealing to a broader set of people. A couple years ago, the administration of the initiatory ordinances was changed. One of our temple presidency said that many had praised the added comfort and ease that the changes produced. On the other hand, I mourned at what the changes had taken away from me and from my children.
In 1989, an article from Elder Oaks appeared in the Ensign, “Family History: In Wisdom and In Order”. To get across the idea that the work of providing temple ordinances for our dead isn’t just a task for a few obsessed freaks, Oaks wrote, “In this Church we are not hobbyists in genealogy work.” Well, except for that handful of hobbyists in each ward who do more genealogy research than the rest of the ward combined, who guide the rest of us in our meager, occassional research, and who think their hobby is a sacred duty. They were an image problem, though, that kept normal people from becoming involved, so “Genealogical” was removed from the wall of their library, and “Family History” went up.
It’s a tricky balance to expand your appeal without alienating your core. The core is loyal, though; they have to be kicked pretty hard before they’ll defect. Where else is there to go? It seems the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia managed to kick hard enough.
How can 7% of departing Virginia Episcopalians possibly be considered “the core” ? Neither those who split off nor those who remain view it that way. The ones who left believe the core is rotten, and those who remain view these schismatics as a fundamentalist fringe. Both views are probably somewhat distorted, imo.
Also, why describe those who left the as “most devoted” ? Do they contribute a greater percentage of their income or attend services more frequently? Apparently their “devotion” to their Episcopal brethen was not sufficient for them to stay and continue to argue their more conservative views. It all smacks of sour-grapes, a childlike “If you let the girls play then I’m going to take my toys and go home!”
Do these kinds of divisions occur among the Mormon population today? For example, did any members leave for splinter groups when the priesthood ban was dropped or when the temple ceremony changed? I didn’t hear about anything like that, but was reading a list of contemporary Mormon splinter groups recently and was struck by the sheer number of these little sects.
Once the initiatory portion of the Endowment was effectively removed, I never again stepped foot in an LDS temple. I find it amazing that some LDS will point out that Catholic “sprinkling” is not a proper mode of baptism, yet they seem perfectly fine with temple ordinance changes that VERY MUCH parallel the difference between sprinkling vs. immersion.
Of course, this is the part where I get all the flames, telling me that while it was wrong for Catholics to change ordinances, the LDS have a “prophet” that makes it okay for LDS to do the same thing.
MikeInWeHo, I called them the most devoted because they are seven percent of the diocese’s congregations, yet they account for seventeen percent of its Sunday attendance. It sounds to me like they are people far more likely to show up for services than those in the other congregations. It is possible that I’m reading that wrong; it may mean that the departing congregations are just larger than average.
Nick Literski, I agree that the change in the initiatory takes away any basis for complaining about baptism without immersion.
Except that the current ceremonies in the temple aren’t the “real thing.” That is unlike baptism which is baptism the rituals in the temple are a prepratory anointing. One isn’t anointed a king and priest there. That takes place during ones second anointings (which has always seemed a bit of a misnomer in my mind). I’d lay good odds those haven’t changed (although clearly I don’t know).
Likewise I’ve always found the debate about the content of the endowment to be a bit funny since that too seems a preparatory ordinance rather than “the real thing.” As such I’m not sure the actual important content matters as much as some do.
OK, I get what you mean John. I had assumed you meant something like that and am sure you’re right. Just the same, I’m pretty familiar with the Episcopal church, having found a certain amount of spiritual sanctuary there since I left LDS activity a long time ago. There are some conservative parishes here and there (suburbs, red states, etc), but clearly they do not represent anything more than a distinct minority. The leaders are not that far left of the bulk of the membership, not at all. My sense is that at this point people just want to get through the ecclesiastic divorce and move on. They’ll be fighting in the courts over the real-estate for years. I’d call it The Sad more than The Ugly, though.
Nick, “baptism” comes from the Greek word “baptizdo”, which means to immerse, envelope, engulf entirely, usually in water. Ergo “baptism by immersion” is actually somewhat repetitive (not unnecessarily, unfortunately). Nowhere is there to be found a reference to an enveloping, all-encompassing, “baptistic” washing. I don’t know how the ordinance changed (however, I have a guess), but I do know that in the new testament Jesus washed only the feet of His disciples, and that was sufficient to make them clean. Yet in baptism, we are required to be entirely “washed” to be clean. Apparently the symbolism can vary from ordinance to ordinance. We don’t need to be baptized for our sins again; the sacrament ordinance does that for us (which many faithful adult members highly depreciate, imo). Perhaps the temple ordinance is getting at another point of symbolism, to which the change had no effect. I would hazard to guess that this is the answer, as it was instituted by a servant of God, so it would seem if God wished to change it it would be done by the same method.
I would certainly give the Episcopalian branch-offs more credit than children pouting “If you let the girls play then I’m going to take my toys and go home!” Their opposition to women in the preisthood has a more solid foundation in scripture than the mainline Episcopalians feel-goody acceptance. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that women in the priesthood is not their only turn-off. As to better church attendance, 7% membership and 17% attendance throughout the diocese are pretty good numbers. In all likelihood, they probably have better attendance ratios then any of the other parishes in the diocese. So yes, they are more ‘devoted’. A noteworthy article, that was cited here at Millenial Star not too long ago, is an LA Times article titled “Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins” [ http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-allen9jul09,0,2668973.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions ]. Among other things, it points out that the more a religion requires from a person, the more devoted its followers are. Thus we see rising numbers of more conservative, evangelical church attendance, and rapidly declining numbers of mainline, liberal, protestant churches. The article ends with the following:
This, I believe, is what these thirteen churches are trying to dissociate themselves from.
Reports of the death of the Episcopal Church have been greatly exaggerated. The smaller, more unified denomination that is emerging may do quite well in the religious marketplace. Or maybe it will be a small church that remains true to its understanding of what God’s love means. The ones who are leaving are basically just Evangelicals with incense. That’s not an LA Times “article,” btw, it’s an Op-Ed piece.
Such division here. It’s interesting how conservatives see the other side as a bunch of feel-gooders who must not be thinking about the basis for their opinions or the implications thereof. It’s hard to imagine anything further from the truth (or more ironic!).
This seems exactly wrong to me. Who mourned when the LDS Church changed its policy respecting racial limitations on priesthood? Those who liked the institution best? How should that be measured? In that instance, I’d suggest that if folk went into mourning, it is because the basis of their attachment (racism) was immoral, and its loss was nothing to be regretted. Fortunately, by this measure, the leaders of the LDS Church were not among those who liked the institution best.
MikeInWeHo, I admit the term “feel-gooders” was a tad bit harsh, I must also point out that I definately do not identify myself as a ‘conservative’; neither doctrinally nor politically. Nor am I liberal, in either area. Both sides peg me as their opposite because I manifest certain symptoms of their opponent, but in verity I am neither.
As to what I was getting at, I am talking about a somewhat prevailing attitude that is especially present among “new age” folk. The idea that all you need is love and acceptance, and everything else is irrelevant. Whoever desires the priesthood may have it. Whoever you desire to marry, you may marry, or don’t if you don’t want to. Believe in Christ? Sure! Don’t? That’s fine too. These are undoctrinally sound, especially for Christians. Insofar as one’s doctrines are derived from the scripture there is ground to stand on. To those who believe in what the Bible teaches them probably will not place love and acceptance above other critical doctrines found therein. I would imagine, and hope, that those severing themselves from the fold of the Episcopal Church in the USA are doing so because of such a mindset.
This, in so many words, is what I am getting at.
Dear kindofmaybeanonymous:
You assume I’m ignorant of the meaning of the word “baptism,” so I’ll assume you’re ignorant of Mormon history. Well, actually, I don’t have to assume. You’ve demonstrated it. When the Endowment was first practiced, and well into the Utah period, the initiatory washing was, in fact, performed in a washtub, wherein the candidate was entirely washed–head to foot. Furthermore, the washing of the feet (after the pattern you mention by Jesus) is an entirely different ordinance in Mormonism, preparatory to either (a) initiation in the no-longer-existing School of the Prophets, or (b) the Second Anointing.
Nowhere did I claim that the initiatory washing was the same as baptism. Rather, I pointed out that just as LDS criticize the Catholic transformation of baptism (from immersion to sprinkling), the LDS have now transformed the initiatory washing of various body parts to a “merely symbolic” “washing.” My comparison involved the magnitude of change in each situation, which is quite equivalent. In other words, LDS now have nothing to criticize about Catholics sprinkling for baptism, since LDS now have a “merely symbolic” washing of one touch of water.
The remainder of your answer is phrased kindly, but is the equivalent of the arguments I predicted. LDS will claim that while it was wrong and evil for Catholics to change baptism from immersion to sprinkling, it is just fine for LDS to essentially eliminate the initiatory ordinances of the endowment, because they have a “prophet” who evidently can’t disagree with deity. (Yes, I know that true Mormonism doesn’t teach that the president of the church is infalliable, but LDS practice presumes otherwise.)