SunstonePodcast #003: The New Missionary Discussions and the Future of Correlation
In the latest edition of Sunstone Magazine, John-Charles Duffy explores “The New Missionary Discussions and the Future of Correlation”.
In this podcast, John-Charles discusses the history of official missionary discussions within the Church, the new LDS missionary program entitled “Preach My Gospel”, and the future of correlation.
Click here to listen.
===============
John-Charles Duffy is a William N. Reynolds Fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he is working toward a doctorate in religious studies. His interest in the development of LDS missionary discussions dates back nearly a decade, to his first Sunstone symposium presentation in 1996. He used the 1986 discussions while serving a mission in the Dominican Republic.
October 28th, 2005 at 9:41 am
First of all, congratulations to John-Charles on a fascinating article, and to both John’s on a great interview.
I’ve talked with missionaries in three different parts of the world about their experience to date with the “Preach My Gospel” program. One thing that is noteworthy is that, in practice, many of the missionaries are functionally unaware of the lengthy checklist that John-Charles mentions in both the article and the discussion. Instead, several different missionaries have explained to me that the practical meaning of the new program is that missionaries get to decide how much and what doctrine they teach members before baptism.
In a sense, this isn’t terribly surprising. Everybody knows that, in practice, missionaries had a great deal of doctrinal autonomy under the old system, as well. They could delay some discussions until after baptism, as John mentions in the interview. They could omit specific principles or rearrange the order of doctrinal presentation. (During my mission, there was a popular trend of doing a “second-and-a-half” discussion which explained the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity.) Furthermore, they could–and frequently did–add substantial new doctrinal content to the process by teaching that material during visits between discussions and by “sharing spiritual thoughts.”
In light of the substantial practical autonomy missionaries had under the 1986 discussions, it may be somewhat unsurprising that an early consequence of the ratification of that autonomy in the 2004 system (at least among the nonrepresentative sample of missionaries that I’ve talked to) is that some missionaries no longer feel any constraint in terms of doctrinal teaching requirements whatsoever. After all, if they were able to have the freedom that they had under the strict 1986 system, the easiest way to understand the looser system is perhaps as an elimination of all control.
How do you think the hierarchy will respond if this kind of excessive autonomy becomes a persistent, generalized response to the 2004 teaching system?
October 28th, 2005 at 2:07 pm
I listened to this last night and thought it was very interesting. Thanks, John. Thank you, John-Charles.
Of course, I was teleported back to when I was in the MTC in December of 1985. The first few weeks we began studying/memorizing the old discussions. Then it was announced that new discussions were coming. We got photo copy drafts to start working from and then the official first and second D booklets right as we were shipping-out in January…the rest came at about 1 new discussion every month or two, as I recall, and finally we got an official copy of the Missionary Guide around May-July of 1996.
I recall we thought the new discussions were pretty cool…like a major step forward in presentation preparation and resources. Of course the older missionaries would brag about the old days when you actually had to memorize stuff (brag because it was hard) and had to come up with your own visual aides. There were still a lot of those aides circulating around the mission and the pres repeatedly had to reign-in the use of new presentation ideas that had had been allegedly and wildly successful in other missions. It was all about the “Commitment Pattern” now, which was work shopped and roll-played until we believed. The Lord’s work had finally arrived in future of proven sales techniques and technologies…was this not further proof that the Church was inspired? I recall thinking so.
I left my mission, convicted that I was a born salesman…that sales was my gift and my calling; that I would be selling my whole life and that everything I experienced and learned would in the end further my preordained mission of selling the Church and the Gospel…selling as in: helping people make decisions that you (that you, but not necessarily they…yet) knew to be right and true.
It took me 15 years and much pain and disillusionment to recover from this sales job. Powerful medicine.
October 29th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
I appreciate both RoastedTomatoes’s and Mahouri’s comments. As my time permits, I’ll try to check in on the blog periodically to respond to posts.
I’m very interested in RoastedTomatoes’s anecdotal evidence that “some missionaries no longer feel any constraint in terms of doctrinal teaching requirements.” You’re pointing toward an important problem: as long as missions breed a culture that pressures missionaries to baptize, missionaries will be motivated to find ways to justify baptizing as quickly as possible…which will encourage them to do as little teaching as possible before baptism…which is very likely to lead to poor retention. To the degree that missionaries may perceive “Preach My Gospel” as simply doing away with minimum teaching requirements, “Preach My Gospel” could actually exacerbate the retention problem. That’s unfortunate, especially since I’m attracted to the greater autonomy “Preach My Gospel” officially grants missionaries.
Ultimately, I suspect the key to addressing the retention problem is not to be found in the particular system missionaries use to teach. The problem is overcoming the corporate-style, results-driven culture that has become deeply entrenched in missions since the mid-twentieth century. Mahouri’s post laments this culture, and I’m sympathetic to much of what he (I surmise it’s “he”) says. I feel very fortunate–I will even say “blessed”–that my mission president resisted that sort of culture. He was sincerely interested in building strong local church communities, not in having high baptismal numbers to report. Unfortunately, his superiors were mostly interested in the numbers, when push came to shove.
In defense of the Commitment Pattern, which I think I view more positively than Mahouri, it was an attempt to make missionary teaching more effective, and it produced principles which I think are pastorally sound. I’m therefore glad that those principles (invite, commit, resolve concerns, etc.) persist in “Preach My Gospel” even as the new manual tries to move away from a mechanistic or technological understanding of the pattern. But in a results-driven mission culture, sound spiritual principles are easily abused and distorted into techniques for making a sell. There are elements of “Preach My Gospel” which, if taken to heart, could help to break down the results-driven culture, and I hope that happens. If it does, then “Preach My Gospel” will do what Church leaders are hoping it will: promote climates where the Spirit can work to touch hearts and bring authentic, enduring change to people’s lives.
October 29th, 2005 at 5:08 pm
A quick note: as a missionary in the MTC, one of my teachers actually gave an analogy between missionaries and computers. He explained that we missionaries were the computer hardware, and the commitment pattern was the software. All we had to do to be perfect missionaries was learn to always follow the instructions from the software… This in echo of the argument that there was certainly a down-side to the Commitment Pattern…
November 11th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
I’ve not finished listening to it yet. I’d just got to the point where you were discussing the issue of goals. It seems to me, that as you alluded, the real issue is how the leadesrhip focuses in on it. I think that the given language will at least help put a check on some Mission Presidents who went a bit nutso, hurting the church in the process. However a lot depends upon the leaders of the leaders and how Mission Presidents are trained. I think that in my own area, while not having the problems yours did in the least, focused on numbers too much because of pressure from the area presidency at times.
Your comment about the tensions these changes make is good as well. As we moved towards better committed missionaries, of course the numbers dropped. And that caused some tension for some. Unlike the impression I got from the interview, I think that tension can be good. Same with the goals. The problems arise when there isn’t a tension, as that means some element has been repressed that shouldn’t be.
So I think that missionaries do need motivation and something like goals ought do it. That’s the difficulty of being a Mission President and why I respect those who do it so much, even in the midst of problems. You are trying to motivate people to do more than they think they are capable of. And typically they are. I’ve long been thankful for those who motivated me. At the same time though, as you correctly pointed out, motivation is always in tension with other principles such as agency. It is, I think recognizing that essential tension and being in the middle constantly trying to resolve it that is what one must always be doing.
November 11th, 2005 at 9:53 pm
Definitely good points. Goals can definitely be motivating, as long as they don’t interfere or eclipse the true objectives, or become ends in and of themselves.
And of course, like Elder Oaks says, we should never set goals that are tied to/based on other people’s free agency, or we’re setting our selves up for disappointment.
But I agree, good tension is good, and goals can be good…if they aren’t abused, or misdirected.
But it’s clearly a though balance for many. I’m not sure I’ve ever met a modern missionary who doesn’t confide that numbers/goals were emphasized too heavily on their mission.
Ugh…MP is one tough job!
November 12th, 2005 at 2:16 am
You see, I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate, with all due respect to Elder Oaks. While we should be slaves to any goal, at the same time I honestly don’t think it is wrong for a missionary to set a goal to say teach 3 3rd discussions (or whatever they are called now) Especially not if it is arrived at by prayer and is a reasonable goal.
The problem with goals are that they are so often treated naively and without that consideration. I’d probably say that we should never set goals that neglect people’s agency. That’s a subtle, but I think important difference.
We all set goals that are contingent on people’s agency I think. Indeed, often those are some of the most important goals to set. Just think of some of the goals you make in your own family. A goal for nightly family prayer, for instance, is contingent upon the agency of my family members. But I’m not sure it’s a bad goal, so long as I don’t try to overstep and overrule agency.
What happened among some missionaries is that the numbers became cut off from the people being taught. As you said, the tools for productivity in business became ill applied.
Once again this isn’t a criticism of Mission Presidents. I think the ability to motivate people to exceed their expectations is an important one. I wish I had it. And frankly a lot of people did come out of business and it’s hard to change gears. Add in that one is dealing not with mature adults but basically kids barely out of high school with little training, and I think its amazing we do as well as we do. And there are even Mission Presidents who haven’t been on missions, adding a whole other layer of difficulty.
I think the numbers game was a dangerous problem that creeped in by the attempt to quantify things too much. Similar to what I’ve read happened in the military post-WWII that led to some of the problems in Viet Nam. Measurement is important, but a lot on a mission isn’t measurable in an easy fashion.
November 15th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
I’d like to add a hearty “Amen” to clarkgoble’s remark that “a lot on a mission isn’t measurable in an easy fashion.” One of the exciting features of “Preach My Gospel” is its clear acknowledgment of that reality. Missionaries are told to “avoid comparing yourself to other missionaries and measuring the outward results of your efforts against theirs.” They’re then given a bulleted list of ways they can know they’ve been successful missionaries. The list includes feeling the Spirit, loving people, developing Christlike attributes, doing your best to bring souls to Christ, going about doing good. There is no reference in the list to baptisms. Missionaries are advised that “when you have done your very best, you may still experience disappointments [that's putting it mildly, actually], but you will not be disappointed in yourself. You can feel certain that the Lord is pleased when you feel the Spirit working through you” (10-11).
I consider this a very healthy message, and I hope it doesn’t get drowned out by the lengthen-your-stride, one-more-door type motivational rhetoric that seems to dominate missionary life. I can certainly understand the need to motivate missionaries to stretch themselves. But speaking as a perfectionist who spent a lot of his mission feeling guilty and stressed, I wish I’d heard more messages along the lines of “You can feel certain that the Lord is pleased when you feel the Spirit working through you.”
April 6th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
[...] In the feature article for Sunstone Issue 138, John Charles Duffy explores a number of topics worth discussing in this forum. (The article is very insightful and well done, you may download a pdf version here. There is also a podcast with Duffy available here.) While I’d certainly like to visit such topics as the evangelical discourse, retrenchment, and a reemergence of Restoration-centered discourse, I’d like to touch on one aspect of the missionary experience that may suffer under the new guidelines: the use of memorization as an effective ritualistic element. [...]