Micah
March 2009
Written February 22, 2009
I found today's Elders Quorum lesson very challenging/engaging. "Beware the Bitter Fruits of Apostasy" (Chapter 27, Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith) warns that losing confidence in our church leaders is the first step on the path to apostasy.
The manual, quoting from History of the Church, states:
That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives.I commented in class that the lesson had some internal and external validity issues in my mind. Internally, the lesson shouldn't proceed without acknowledging the convenience that the principle of apostasy offered Joseph Smith—a man who, though loved by many, often times had much push-back from his followers. Externally, I don't understand how the principle of apostasy should properly manifest itself into modern LDS discourse.
It seems like excommunication happened regularly in the early days of the church. Joseph Smith readily removed people from membership, including the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. But he also readily allowed people back in. My impression is that Brigham Young was a bit harsher.
Organizationally, I can see how the policy of declaring dissenters apostates made good sense in those days. The demands of building Zion from the ground up required a strict form of obedience, not only to church doctrine but also to the temporal, day-to-day decisions of leaders. The if-you're-not-with-me-you're-against-God approach to management, although unsettling on a certain level, drove the early saints to create a cohesive community that could withstand the common pitfalls of organizational development.
But I wonder how the principle of apostasy should function in today's church. Our lesson on Sunday often drifted into discussion on following church doctrine. However, the lesson, as presented in the manual, wasn't about this type of apostasy (i.e. disbelieving or disagreeing with doctrine). The lesson's discussion narrowly defined apostasy as it relates to leadership.
A year or so ago, a local leader came to Elders Quorum to tell us that a petition would be placed outside the room. He went on to give a brief and biased summary of a bill before the Maryland state legislature. We were then encouraged to sign the petition as we left.
For many reasons, I strongly disagreed with the leader's approach. There have been various other occasions in my life where the actions of leaders made me... well, made me upset. I never know what to do in these situations. On the one hand, I want to be respectful of my leaders and give deference to their decisions based on the inspiration I expect them to receive in their callings. But on the other hand, there are occasions where my silence causes me to feel complicit in actions that I feel damage my church community. And then there is probably occasions when a leader isn’t receiving inspiration and exercises his or her authority improperly.
The information in today's lesson seemed to present an extreme view of apostasy. Likely apostasy was framed in a particular manner by Joseph Smith and early leaders because of the organizational demands that existed in the early days of the church—demands that don't exist in the same form today.
I disagree with a view on the principle of apostasy that creates hierarchical structures in which authority operates in an unchecked manner. There's going to be error. People are going to make mistakes, most of which will hopefully be the result of good intentions. A view of apostasy that damns members who are unwilling to be silent doesn't create room to correct the error. A view on apostasy that makes members worry they'll be damned seems equally damaging. Members ought to feel safe offering valid criticisms of the decisions made by their leaders.
(And perhaps there is/was room for this type of criticism in Joseph Smith’s discourse on apostasy. I just didn’t gather such from the manual or our discussion in Elders Quorum. Plus, people tend to cringe whenever I say, “I don’t agree.”)
At the other extreme, a view on the principle of apostasy that allows members to pull away at the legitimacy of leaders based on non-consequential matters can't be healthy for the community either. "Because Bishop [so-and-so] picks his nose" isn't reason enough to throw one's hands in the air and give up on the leader's ability to contribute.
And so the principle of apostasy seems to necessitate a balance between unbridled criticism by members and unbridled authority of leaders.
Mark recently mentioned that it's important to have faith that our leaders are qualified and ordained to lead. I like that thought because it requires work on my part. I look back on times in my life when I've been asked to watch over others in a leadership position, and I never expected anyone to blindly follow or substantially defer to my exercise of authority. It comforts me to think that someone maybe worked on having faith in me and my call to serve.
There’s a lot that can (and should) be said about how leaders approach the authority they are given. I can see how the attitude of a leader really affects how this will all play out. If both parties (the leaders and the non-leaders) approach the process with humility, it seems likely to work out. If not — jumbled mess. But for now I’m content trying to engage my own involvement in the process because my personal contribution and attitude is all that I really have control over.
Approaching my leaders with faith gives me hope that I'll be able to find a proper way to express my legitimate concerns when they arise. That's not a very definitive resolution to the anxiety I felt while reading the lesson. But I think the faith approach is the right attitude. It allows space for both deference to leadership and constructive criticism of issues that will inevitably arise.
