by

[Edited to add link to Gospel Topic essay on the end of plural marriage]

In a recent article, Cardinal Schönborn and Archbishop of Vienna analyzed the response to the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops on “The Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization” [1]: “At the moment there is a massive wave of attack on the Pope from various circles.” It turns out that these circles also include traditionalists:

There is growing concern from conservative groups who are concerned that Francis and his approach to concrete problems and his compassionate image could soften the official doctrinal positions. […] Maintaining dual loyalty both to the existing teachings of the Church and to the many problems of the people is a balancing act. […] The areas of tension that manifest themselves here are now open to further discussion. [My own translation of remarks made in the article linked above by Jan-Heiner Tück, head of the Department of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Vienna]

Professor Tück’s remarks about the balancing act between theory and practice reminded me of Armand Mauss’s work on new religious movements in The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation:

At any given point in time…a movement is grappling with either of two predicaments: If it has survived for some time as a “peculiar people” (in the biblical phrase), conspicuously rejecting the surrounding society and flexing the muscles of militancy, then it will begin to face the predicament of disrepute, which invites repression and threatens not only the movement’s success but its very existence. […] After a movement has achieved some success through this strategy of purposeful accommodation, however, it will soon find itself in the opposite plight: the predicament of respectability. Now the movement has taken on so many traits of the surrounding culture that it is not readily distinguishable from the establishment. […] To complicate matters, every time the movement switches direction, it must contend with the endemic internal tendencies toward schism and defection (apostasy), for different kinds of individual needs among the members are satisfied (or threatened) by different forms and degrees of tension with the surrounding society. Theories of social psychology have taught us that people tend to commit themselves to those causes for which they are required to sacrifice to some degree. (pp.5, 6)

Sure, the Roman Catholic Church is the opposite of a new religious movement, but it is interesting to observe that the establishment is not as static as one might suppose and that opposition to leadership is hardly the sole domain of the non-committal, half-out-the-door, activist liberal. While Mormons may have had a different experience with navigating the narrow channel between assimilation and repression, for the time being it appears that Mormons and Catholics have something in common—namely, change is in the air, and conservative members of both denominations seem to be feeling the pinch.

This has probably been hashed out more eloquently elsewhere, and I will leave discussion of the Catholic experience to someone more qualified. Still, I wonder if negative reactions to shifting policies and teachings of the church stem less from the divergence between institutional and personal ideological commitments and more from a sense that such changes 1) upend expectations of the way things are and 2) devalue sacrifices made out of obedience to what were understood to be the policies and teachings in force.

Just a couple of days ago, for example, the church flooded the earth with a video depicting not only the temple garment but also the robes of the holy priesthood! On YouTube! With comments turned on! [Update: “It has just been brought to our attention that criminal charges had been brought against a Church member shown in [a short clip of stock footage]. We have therefore replaced that eight-second clip with new footage” (Newsroom statement). The edited video is available on YouTube here.] While the move seemed to be generally welcomed as a means of getting in front of the public discussion of things Mormons consider holy, this departure from the default setting of faithful temple attendees that what happens in the temple stays in the temple was a source of dissonance for at least some who report being devoted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church.

In this case, the problem seems to be disorientation. After all, if shared expectations are vital to maintaining satisfying relationships with each other, how much more important is it to the faithful to be able to gauge where they stand with God? Even if our expectations about and relations with the divine remain largely unexamined, it can be disconcerting to discover that what we thought we knew turns out to be temporary rather than eternal.

Mauss’ insight that “people tend to commit themselves to those causes for which they are required to sacrifice to some degree” points to a second reason why highly committed members may experience anger, resentment or hurt to accommodations in church policy and teachings to the surrounding culture—it lessens tension and in doing so devalues previous installments paid in the name of discipleship. For example, I know someone who forewent college, a career and professional development to raise a large, naturally-occurring family, complete with a time-intensive garden and a room devoted to food storage, who now wonders what that was all about in light of the current practice of tip-toeing around family planning as a matter between couples and the Lord. (Compare, for example, this 1980 statement from N. Eldon Tanner: “There are various arguments for curtailing the birth of children or the size of families, but they are contrary to the laws of God” with this one from Neil L. Andersen in 2011: “When to have a child and how many children to have are private decisions to be made between a husband and wife and the Lord.”)

Other examples abound. In the brand new essay on “The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage”, the church notes that “the end of plural marriage required great faith and sometimes complicated, painful—and intensely personal—decisions on the part of individual members and Church leaders”, no doubt commensurate with the great sacrifices to faithfully practice this principle in the first place.

Today, many manifestations of 19th and 20th century Mormon life that required pretty significant sacrifices—polygamy, big families, gardens, unconsolidated meeting schedules, member-built meeting houses, just to name a few—are not as important as they once were. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing—as Mauss observes, responsiveness to changing circumstances is necessary for survival, and continuing revelation is usually regarded as a feature of Mormonism. Nevertheless, there’s no denying that when the price of discipleship is discounted, early adopters may understandably respond like the laborers in the vineyard, “Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.”

Of course, an institution cannot be held solely responsible for the ways its members choose to express their commitments to it and the disappointment that ensues when expectations are not met, and some of the sacrifices associated with Mormon life reflect American mores rather than uniquely Mormon policies or teachings, but still—institutional change will try even the most committed of us and in ways we may not have anticipated.

——————

[1] BCC coverage here; statement here