The J Curve
In any religious community, two forces pushing in opposite directions, one liberal and one conservative, form a kind of fundamental tension and equilibrium as Man wrestles to define God’s law. This tension—not static, but shifting—no doubt dates back to the dawn of Religious Man, whether He originated in Jackson County, Missouri or Ethiopia, Africa. The religious issues over which we grapple are both old (i.e. the nature of God) and new (i.e. Women’s roles, Gay Marriage). The success of any religion relies at least in part on its ability to balance these conservative and liberal forces.
Any casual watcher of Religion is probably familiar with the recent reports that indicate that religions moving in a more liberal direction (i.e. ordaining women into the clergy, blessing same-sex couples, etc.) are losing members, while those moving in a more conservative direction are gaining members.
One such report notes that those mainline churches that pioneered the ordination of women are the same churches whose members are exiting in droves…
A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark… contends that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents’ commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches… which generally eschew women’s ordination… are growing robustly, both in the United States and around the world.
The report concludes,
So this is the liberal Christianity that was supposed to be the Christianity of the future: disarray, schism, rapidly falling numbers of adherents… And they keep telling the Catholic Church that it had better get with the liberal program—ordain women, bless gay unions and so forth—or die. Sure.
Closer to home, we can witness a similar result (declining adherents) as our sister faith, the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS Church), becomes more and more liberal. Community of Christ historian Roger Launius has said,
I believe this reformation within the church… has led to an identity crisis of capital significance… Reorganization liberals relentlessly demythologized church history, theology, and assorted traditions and in the process overturned the church’s traditional ideological consensus. The signs of collapse… will become even more prominent in the next score of years as the stalwarts supporting the present institution depart the scene and are not replaced with a younger generation of RLDS members bent on sacrificing for the ideals… of the Restoration. The church membership have to reshape the intellectual underpinnings of the religion or fold their tents and go home.
The typical, knee-jerk conclusion to such reports is thus: conservative—good, liberal—bad… especially if the success of a religion is measured by its membership growth rate. But is declining membership due to liberalization always a bad sign? And is such a decline permanent?
A new book, The J Curve: A New Way to Understand Why Nations Rise and Fall, by Ian Bremmer, offers some interesting theories that may have parallels to the rise and fall of Religious Institutions. Following is a quick definition of the J Curve:
Bremmer’s J Curve describes the relationship between a country’s openness and its stability; focusing on the notion that while many countries are stable because they are open (the United States, France, Japan), others are stable because they are closed (North Korea, Cuba, Iraq under Saddam Hussein).
The x-axis of the political J-Curve graph measures the ‘openness’ (of freedom) of the State in question and the y-axis measures the stability of that same state. It suggests that those states that are ‘closed’/undemocratic/unfree (such as the Communist dictatorships of China and Cuba) are very stable; however, as one progresses right, along the x-axis, it is evident that stability (for relatively short period of time in the lengthy life of nations) decreases, creating a dip in the graph, until beginning to pick up again as the ‘openness’ of a state increases; at the other end of the graph to closed states are the open states of the West, such as the United States of America or the United Kingdom. Thus, a J-shaped curve is formed.
Bremmer’s contends that once you “get it,” you’ll see applications of the J Curve all over the world. So, I wonder, does the J Curve apply to religious institutions? Are closed-but-stable religions (i.e. absolute truth claims and stable membership) represented by the left side of the “J”? Must a religion like the Community of Christ or the liberal Christian churches described above that were “stable because they were closed” survive a period of dangerous instability to become a religion that is “stable because it is open”?
And finally, does the J Curve have anything to say about Mormonism? I recently engaged in a fun exchange with John Dehlin that touched on just this issue. John said,
The fuel that runs the church is “absolute truth claims,” because it turns out that just being good or nice isn’t enough to grow a church, nor to keep it strong. Large amounts of people don’t give 10% and TONS of time to “just another good church.” Or even to “a really, really good church.” Large groups of people will only do this for “God’s one and only true church.”
Stuff like Sunstone [and] Dialogue… tend to weaken people’s faith/devotion to the traditional church (based on absolute truth claims), and tries to say, “Hey, stay in the church, even if it’s really not what it claims to be. Metaphor is still valuable!”
[But] what’s better/worse: a strong, effective church that makes absolute truth claims… or a weak, relatively ineffective church that makes no absolute truth claims? This, to me, is the liberal, Mormon Studies conundrum of the ages.
What do you think of John’s liberal conundrum? Could the J Curve suggest a more stable and more successful church on the upper right side of the “J”?
November 9th, 2006 at 5:39 am
Sounds like a fun book. I think upper-right J-countries have an advantage over churches: they can levy coercive taxes. If you don’t pay there are severe consequences. If liberty-loving upper-right J-countries extended liberty to taxes (i.e., made payment of taxes voluntary) they would have real problems compared to left-side-of-the-J countries that presumably have no qualms about coercive taxation. Coercive taxes in an otherwise open society remind us of the limits of liberty.
The analogous problem for fully open discourse churches is they can’t mandate financial contributions. So, for practical reasons, they need to stress those attributes of a church that make participants willing to contribute financially, such as it being “true” in one sense or another and it having something more than a metaphorical connection to God. I recall a bishop once making a plea to the ward members to kick in a few bucks each for some desperately needed ward budget funds: “It’s not the principle of the thing, it’s the money.”
November 9th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I can see this principle working in teaching as well.
I went through this period where I was trying to deconstruct the classroom, thinking that I would be putting more freedom in the hands of the students, motivating them to higher things.
It didn’t work out very well. I think the reason why was because the “truth claims” of the classroom were no longer there. The students count on the teacher to constuct an environment where they feel like their work is valuable. Most of them don’t have the wherewithal to construct their own. They need the teacher to scaffold for them.
I think this is a lot of what happens to people who seriously question the truth claims of the church. We no longer have that scaffold to build on and we find out that we had premised our entire personality on those claims. Now we have to either start from scratch and make our own, or find another scaffold that we can believe in.
That’s actually what I was addressing with my Buzz Lightyear post. I really admire people who can construct their own worldview after their previous one has come crashing down.
The old saying is, “Without vision, the people perish.” And that’s pretty true.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Thinking about this some more, i want to refer you to a fascinating essay by E.M. Forester that addresses why the newly liberal churches are having a hard time keeping their members. And why that could possibly be OK.
Find a version of the essay here.
He starts out with an article of faithlessness that resonates deeply with me.
“I do not believe in Belief. But this is an Age of Faith, and there are so many militant creeds that, in self-defence, one has to formulate a creed of one’s own. [...]Tolerance, good temper and sympathy - they are what matter really [...] But for the moment they are not enough, their action is no stronger than a flower, battered be- neath a military jackboot. They want stiffening, even if the process coarsens them. Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch, which ought to be applied as sparingly as possible. I dislike the stuff. [...] My law-givers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St Paul. My temple stands not upon Mount Moriah but in that Elysian Field where even the immoral are admitted. My motto is : “Lord, I disbelieve - help thou my unbelief.”
Then he describes the type of people who probably try to lead their churches in more liberal directions, such as female ordination, gay marriage, etc.
“I believe in aristocracy, though - if that is the right word, and if a democrat may use it. Not an aristocracy of power, based upon rank and influence, but an aristocracy of the sensitive, the considerate and the plucky. Its members are to be found in all
nations and classes [and might I add, churches] [...] They represent the true human tradition, the one permanent victory of our queer race over cruelty and chaos. Thousands of them perish in obscurity, a few are great names. They are sensitive for others as well as for themselves, they are considerate without being fussy, their pluck is not swankiness but the power to endure, and they can take a joke.”
But here’s the twist:
“On they go - an invincible army, yet not a victorious one. The aristocrats, the elect, the chosen, the Best People - all the words that describe them are false, and all attempts to organize them fail. Again and again Authority, seeing their value, has tried to net them and to utilize them. [...] But they slip through the net and are gone; when the door is shut, they are no longer in the room; their temple, as one of them remarked, is the holiness of the Heart’s affections, and their kingdom, though they never possess it, is the wide-open world.”
I think this is just the way life goes. The values Forster’s aristocracy espouses are so deeply personal and so incapable of enforcement that there is simply no way to compound them into a program.
He finishes:
“The above are the reflections of an individualist and a liberal who has found liberalism crumbling beneath him and at first felt ashamed. Then, looking around, he decided there was no special reason for shame, since other people, whatever they felt, were equally insecure.
“The greater the darkness, the brighter shine the little lights, reassuring one another, signalling: “Well, at all events, I ‘m still here. I don’ t like it very much, but how are you ?” Unquenchable lights of my aristocracy! Signals of the invincible army ! “Come along - anyway, let’s have a good time while we can.” I think they signal that too.”
Amen.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
I think the analogy is pretty good but breaks down because of a fundamental difference between countries and churches. You have to pick a country to live in (we’re running out of undiscovered desert islands), to love or hate, but you don’t have to pick a church to go to.
Liberal churches are shrinking because it is so acceptable in our current society to attend no church at all. Unitarian Universalists aren’t losing members to conservative religions (not many, anyway); they are losing members to the golf course, lake house, restaurant brunch, etc. If blue laws made it so that there was no out-of-the-house work or entertainment on Sundays except attendance at the church of your choice, or if it were scandalous/unheard-of to be religiously unaffiliated, liberal pews would fill up.
November 9th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Great comments by everyone so far!
All three of you have hit on the limitation of applying the J Curve to Religion. It is easy to pick relgions we can equate to the Chinas, Cubas, and North Koreas (though I intend no disrespect by such comparisons), but difficult to find a religion (open and stable/successful) on the upper right end of the J Curve that represents the US, Japan, and France. I am tempted to catch up all Secular Humanists, Universalists, Agnostics, and E.M. Forester’s “Aristocracy” into one net and call them the “open-and-stable” example to which the J Curve alludes to, but while they may be united somewhat by similar “religious” (for lack of a better word) sensibilities, they are not united into any one institution or organization. As Forester puts it, “their temple, as one of them remarked, is the holiness of the Heart’s affections, and their kingdom, though they never possess it, is the wide-open world.”
As both Dave and Beijing note, if religious affiliation (and like taxes, tithing) were mandatory, liberal churches in the “open” mode of the US, Japan, and France would no doubt thrive. However, as the “report” I reference above notes, “When your religion says “whatever” on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it’s a short step to deciding that one of the things you don’t want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.”
Therefore, for a Liberal Church to be successful without resorting to the lever of (sometimes) fear-based absolute truth claims and promises of rewards in the next life, it must offer something “special” because it is competing for the precious leisure time of its potential members with a host of other activities.
So far, I’m not aware of a liberal church that has achieved that kind of upper-right-side-of-the-J-Curve success. Please supply me an example if you know of one.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:05 pm
The J Curve may better apply to personal spirituality, as Stephen aludes in both of his comments.
When a person is affiliated (i.e. believes in the absolute truth claims) with a religion, his life is stable, but somewhat closed (i.e. limited to thoughts, beliefs, actions espoused by the religion). When a person begins to lose faith in his religion, for whatever reason, a dark, unstable transition period always preceeds any kind of renewed sense of purpose/faith/belief. That transition period could last days, but more likely weeks, months, or even years.
As Bremmer points out in his book, it is usually easier (and faster) for some countries to return to stability by going back up the left side of the J Curve — they replace one closed system and dictator for another. It is easier to institute a stable dictatorship than usher in a free and open democracy; however, the height (rewards/success/payoff) of the J curve on the left hand side of the J can never reach the heights on the right hand side of the J. The curve is not a “U”. The parallels to personal belief/faith are obvious.
Having said all that, I do not want to offend orthodox believers of any religion (let alone Mormonism) by suggesting their spiritual payoff on the left hand side of the curve is somehow less than those on the right hand side of the curve. Personal experience and preferences vary.
The other caveat I’d add is that some people mentally/spiritually move down the left hand side and up the right hand side of the J Curve all the while remaining an adherent of the religious institution. They utilize all of the good things (service or devotional opportunities, etc.) from the “closed” instituion while remaining “open” in their heart and mind to all truth, even if it is in opposition to their religion’s dogma.
November 10th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
[...] Check out Matt Thurston’s post over at SunstoneBlog.com regarding the LDS Church and the J-Curve. I think it’s a conversation worth having…. [...]
November 10th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
Then [Forester] describes the type of people who probably try to lead their churches in more liberal directions, such as female ordination, gay marriage, etc.
Yes, because such people are never petty, mean, or vindictive, and never, never, ever throw around their weight.
Coming from probably the more conservative side of lapsed Mormonism (and as one who has visited some of the more liberal churches - UU, Episcopal, etc.) I can point out one of the fatal flaws in your argument: it is that these churches aren’t without their own dogma. It’s just that this dogma is political, not theological. See, for example, the home page of the Unitarian Universalist Association, or of the United Church of Christ, or the “Faith in Action” page of the United Methodist Church. Even when such churches aren’t themselves expressly political, they often have various (well funded) auxiliaries that are heavily involved in politics, supporting a variety of political lobbying for things like hate crimes laws, affirmative action, open immigration, more government welfare - even suing the Boy Scouts. An openly conservative individual would feel just as unwelcome at a liberal church as a doubter would at a conservative one.
And which church is a young couple with kids more likely to want to attend: one that talks politics, or one that talks values?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Good points CraigBa. Dogma is dogma, regardless of how it is dressed up.
However, whether the institutions you refer to above (both conservative and liberal) are talking politics or values is pretty subjective.
Over at John Dehlin’s blog, you say, “For that matter, how could you expect any church to be open? They are there to provide people with direction in life. They are there to point out proper behavior. What would a truly “open” church have to say that people attend church to hear?”
It is an interesting question. I’d need to give this more thought, but off the top of my head… I’m not sure I want a church to provide me with a direction in life, or point out and define proper behavior. (Though I can understand why some people would want both the path and the behavior spelled out.) I’d be more interested in a church or community of people that helped me find my direction in life, and helped me define proper behavior. And I’m interested in learning from other’s experiences. The questions interest me more than the answers.
I’m curious to hear what other people think of CraigBa’s question, “What would a truly “open” church have to say to people?”
November 13th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
To CraigBa:
I think my argument still stands pretty well simply because the “aristocracy” type people Forester was describing usually aren’t very effective politically. The folks you pointed out seem to have it together and seem to be interseted in changing the world.
As far as I could see in Forester’s description, the aristocracy-type person usually isn’t very effective politically and lacks leadership skills (or finds it distasteful to use them). But having lunch with him/her is one of the greatest pleasures of life.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Matt asked:
I’m curious to hear what other people think of CraigBa’s question, “What would a truly “open” church have to say to people?”
I answer:
Well, I think a truly open church is usually only attained around a meal where people who trust each other speak freely, vulnerably, compasionately, and realistically.
Whenever I think about what kind of “church” would nourish me, I always think of M. Scott Peck’s book _The Different Drum_.
In an interview with Peck I found online, I found a good summary of what kinds of values this “church” would espouse:
“These values include openness, being willing to be challenged, to re-look at norms, being willing to change. There has to be love and respect, of course - but there also has to be valid data. There has to be a kind of tension between caring and a terrible dedication to reality.
“At the Foundation we consider community to be a group of people that have made a commitment to learn how to communicate with each other at an ever more deep and authentic level. One of the characteristics of true community is that the group secrets, whatever they are, become known - they come out to where they can be dealt with.
“By other definitions, a community is a group that deals with its own issues - its own shadow - and the shadow can contain any kind of issue. We have tried unsuccessfully at the Foundation to come up with a sort of slogan, but one of the phrases that kept coming up was from the gospels: “And the hidden shall become known.”
As far as i have been able to see, the Church could do this. But what we’ve fallen into is not a committment to communication, not a commitment to deal with our own issues, not a committment to be willing to be challenged. Rather, what we are dedicated to is telling the same story over and over again. We’re committed to maintaining a single lens through which to judge the world and ourselves.
It’s true that people often bare their souls in testimony meeting. But how do they bare their souls? By telling about how they all believe in the same thing. The focus isn’t on people, it’s on principles. Man was made for the sabbath.
I think we Mormons, despite our beliefs, have shot ourselves in the foot, as far as community making goes, because of how much we have bought into the efficiency model. We’re the inheritors of the Protestant Work Ethic. What’s the first thing they say to you when you move into a new ward? “Time to put you to work.”
How about we build some community first? Ooops. Don’t have time. Too many meetings. Too many responsibilities. Too many jobs. Too many committees and city council meetings and school plays and soccer practices.
“It takes a significant amount of effort to build community, but it takes even more effort - ongoing effort - to maintain it. The biggest problem with community maintenance, as with community start-up, is the problem of organizations simply being willing to pay the price - which is, primarily, a price of time.”
In order for Mormons to start making or way toward community, we’ll have to dump the beehive model for a while in favor of the grasshopper model. And then learn how to transition back and forth so we can stay healthy AND get stuff done.
Right now, if a leader asked me to take a callling I’d put it through my calling cruncher that would give me this information: would this calling help me spend more time with my family? Would it help me enjoy life more? Would it help other people spend more time with their families and enjoy life more?” If the answer is yes, then I will accept the calling.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
Bravo, Stephen!
If what you have just outlined from the late Scott Peck had been in place when I was drowning in the Church way back when my family was young, I would likely still be a member! It was from Peck, himself, having met him at a 1988 conference just after he published “Different Drum” that I first learned about Sunstone.
I like your “calling cruncher”!
ENK
November 13th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
First (just to restate the obvious), I don’t think the basic premise of Mormonism (that of divine guidance, priesthood authority, and a revealed “Plan of Happiness”—all under the banner of a god-granted and designed organization) is compatible with the concept of an “open” church. The basic premise is that this is not open to individual interpretation…only individual acceptance or rejection. So, as John D says, “The fuel that runs the church is ‘absolute truth claims’,” and it’s the belief, desire, and need for these claims to be literally and practically true that is the breath of Mormonism. As such, openness beyond the sustaining vote is antithetical to the basic and defining character of the church.
So, in my mind, a truly open church would be antithetical to the Mormon Church and may not even be recognizable as a church. What it would say to people is “we’re all relatively equal in ignorance, so let’s just pool our resources and help one another with no qualifications beyond the desire to build an interdependent network of human tribes…a super-tribe.”
But as I said, this is not what anyone would recognize as a church. In fact, most existing churches and governments would do all in their power to subvert such an open “church”…such godlessness and anti-patriotism…such an “open” organization might even be labeled “the church of the devil” as it would threaten to undo the dominions of every church or government that claims to rule by the grace of god. Instead, all we get are varying degrees of not open to capture the masses while an insignificant few are allowed to fall through the cracks labled “tolerance” — this is progress.
In the end, I’m be happy with this progress…even glacially slow progress. What I worry about most is that the pressure put on churches to be more open will lead those who need “not open” to cease being tolerant.
IOW, I’m thinking that, at least when it comes to religion operating within a secular democracy, the option for people to operate within less/non-open systems is best left open … until every last individual has personally moved right along the x-axis of their own free will. And I think I’ll be okay if that never happens.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
And as if the preceding wasn’t convoluted enough…’cause I must say that my thougts on this subject have not been thurough. Ya gotta love blogging.
Matt, there’s an idea from “The End of Faith” that strikes me as relevant to your question of the relevance of the J Curve to religion and Mormonism…
Harris suggests that “dogma” is what closed systems have in common. They are closed in order to protect, perpetuate, and enforce dogma. So I would imagine that an “open” church or society would have signficantly less dogma–of course this is what you would expect. But I think this means that an “open” church would not speak dogma to its people….which is exactly the point Harris makes:
I think the J-curve does apply.
November 16th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Your post, Matt, and most of the follow-ups, seem to assume that a church claiming to have the truth (such as Mormonism) is on the left side of the “J.” Let me posit that Mormonism is already on the right side of the “J” and heading higher.
First, I think the suggestion that Mormonism is an “absolute truth” church is a little misleading. I know there are folks who bear their testimony to the fact that the Church is “the only true and living church” (whatever that means). But Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both said that we accept all truth, wherever it is found. And the existence of living prophets and of continuing revelation means that there is a mechanism in place for change. Granted, change in the Church is relatively slow, but that tends to make an organization more stable, not less. (Change is slow in the United States, as well.)
What if we looked at the “J” curve as follows: In the beginning, the Church was fairly unstable (as is the case with most new nations). Joseph Smith made some decisions that, in hindsight, may have contributed to the instability (such as instituting two gathering places – Ohio and Missouri – that were 800 miles apart in an age when communication traveled no faster than a man on horseback). The instability heightened in Missouri during the Mormon War when a wedge was driven between Joseph and his early trusted supporters (the Whitmers, Cowdery, Phelps, the Pratts, Hyde, Marsh, etc.). It continued to escalate in Nauvoo, when plural marriage was surreptitiously introduced and new and ultimately untrustworthy leaders like Bennett and Law quickly moved into the leadership void. The instability reached a head when Joseph and Hyrum were murdered. There followed a crisis in leadership; Rigdon left, some followed Strang to Wisconsin, some followed Wight to Texas, some followed Hedrick to Missouri, some eventually joined the reorganized movement of Joseph III and his managers.
There followed a period of isolation and stability under Brigham Young in the Great Basin. This might be said to represent the left side of the “J” – the South Korea, Cuba side. Brigham and his counselors ruled rather absolutely. Dissent wasn’t countenanced. Polygamy was made public and preached aggressively. Conflict developed not so much within the Church as it had before, but between the Church and outsiders. The Utah War, the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the Black Hawk War are just a few examples of this conflict. Finally the conflict with the United States government over polygamy became so severe that the leaders had to go underground. The Church was disenfranchised. The nadir of the “J” was reached.
Then Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto. Conflict continues, but things are changing. Some leaders, including apostles, are excommunicated for continuing to preach and practice polygamy. Various fundamental Mormon groups break away, but the Church begins to enter the mainstream. “Music and the Spoken Word” is broadcast throughout the United States. The missionary program is greatly expanded and, more importantly, the commandment to gather to Zion is relaxed and then repudiated. Mormons begin migrating out of Utah, first to other Western states, then to the Midwest and East, then to other parts of the world. Elite eastern graduate schools (like Harvard Law and Harvard Business, for example) become overrepresented with Mormon students. Temples are built all around the world. General authorities are called from states other than Utah and from countries other than the United States.
Beginning in the sixties, Church intellectuals become more visible and vocal. Dialogue is launched, followed by the Mormon History Association, Sunstone and other such organizations. Many “new Mormon history” books are published that investigate things we had previously swept under the rug. Juanita Brooks, Leonard Arrington and other historians within the Church publish works that challenge previously held beliefs, and while perhaps not as widely read as books by General Authorities, they nevertheless begin to have an effect.
As the Church is exposed to the rest of the world, change continues to take place and it becomes more main stream. Polygamy is not only abandoned, it no longer “has anything to do with us,” according to President Hinkley (though one wonders how literally to read this). The priesthood is given to all worthy males, regardless of race. Garments become shorter. The temple ceremony changes. Mormons become respectable, even emulated. Mormons are elected to high offices in the government and are even considered for the presidency.
In the process, haven’t we already started ascending the right side of the “J?” Never in the history of the Church are we more stable than we are right now. Conflict with the outside world is minimal. Our leaders, though still very old and conservative, are well educated. Many have had careers outside Salt Lake City before assuming leadership. Change may not come as rapidly as we might like, but it is coming in measured steps.
Aren’t we a lot like the United States in this regard? Like the U.S., more people want to get into the Church than want to get out of it. We are not a closed society like Cuba and North Korea. We don’t go around wearing nineteenth-century clothing like the Amish. We don’t outlaw preachers from other Churches in Utah like most Muslim countries and Israel. For better or for worse, we all have television sets. We read newspapers and books. We freely associate with non-Mormons.
Perhaps we’re not as open as many would like, but, I submit, we’re on the right side of the “J.”
November 16th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I would certainly like to hope, for the sake of liberal religion, that the J-curve applies to it. I know that, as Rome was falling, it was difficult to see the other side of the situation and I feel that many religions are there right now: unable to see the consequences of their actions, whether liberal or conservative in nature. I think that the reflex reaction in times of crisis is to do what you’ve always done (conservative) rather than make radical changes whose consequences are unknown (liberal). And so, it seems to me that in right-side-of-the-J-countires, most religions are facing (mostly political) crises. Their reactions to these crises differ and are sure to alienate either its conservative or its liberal constituents. The choice becomes: do the same thing and know the problems it will cause or do something different and be unsure of the problems. It seems to be a damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don’t sort of choice, and when you’re talking about religion, damnation is actually a deterant. My hope is for all countries and all religions to become as liberal as possible (I spent many formative years in Europe and think they mostly have it right), but I know that there are others who hope for all counties and all religions to become as conservative and exclusive as possible. Time, I suppose, will tell.
November 16th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
It’s about time you graced SSB with you keen insight, Dad (#15). As I wrote this blog post, I wondered (and hoped) someone would make the argument that the Mormon Church actually was on the upper right side of the J Curve.
I think your well-reasoned response demonstrates that there are many ways we can apply the J Curve to Mormonism, or Religion in general.
If we want to tighten the discussion, we’ll need to better define the premises, or more precisely, better define the x- and y- axis variables.
You’ve correctly identified the x-axis variable (“openness”) as the key variable. You’ve also seized on the component of that openness variable (“truth”) that I (and most of the responders) have taken for granted as the key component of “openness.”
So the question is:
1.) Does “openness” imply openness to truth?
2.) And if so, is Mormonism really “open” to different interpretations of truth?
I think we’d agree that the answer to the first question is “yes.”
The second question is more subjective. Any community (religious or civic) cannot by 100% open. Open countries like the United States still have laws, taxes, etc.; and even the most open religious community presumably frowns upon such things as rape, murder, theft, etc. But there is a vast spectrum of relative openness between Totalitarianism on the one hand, and Anarchy on the other.
You cite Joseph Smith and Brigham Young’s statement that we accept all truth, wherever it is found — but for many people this is more lip service than reality, especially if they cannot believe or accept the truth claim that Mormonism is the “most correct” (if you don’t like “only true and living”) church; Joseph Smith ushered in the Restoration (applicable not just to “Mormons” but to ALL mankind); and that a current prophet, not just in name, but also in fact (and the only prophet on earth) leads this church. If you cannot believe these truth claims, then the church is not “open” enough.
You make a good case that the Church is evolving in a more open direction, reversing or relaxing many of its earlier truth claims. I’d agree. Although it is ironic that much of the reversing and relaxing comes via influence from “the world” and from liberal (i.e. more “open”) voices within the church. The Muslims and the Amish remain comparatively stuck in time because they more successfully control or frown on such worldly influences from the outside, and liberal influences from the inside.
Inherent to the J Curve is the idea that the right side of the curve is qualitatively better than the left side – that is why the curve is higher on the right side. (Thus, the relative openness of democracy is better than the relative openness of, say, communism.)
And while I’m sensitive to other’s beliefs/opinions on this matter, it is my opinion that more openness in religion in general, and Mormonism in particular, is better than the current degree of openness. In other words, were we more open and accepting of Gay relationships; more open with respect to gender equality in leadership roles; more open with respect to individual beliefs relative to such speculative things as the nature of God, the afterlife, and how best to live one’s life — to name just a few examples — that such openness would be better for both the community, and individuals in that community.
Evidently, other churches (i.e. Community of Christ, and presumably, some Christian faiths) share such beliefs relative to openness. But they are less stable now than before, leading to my conclusion that they were reaching the nadir in the J Curve.
So I’d agree that the church today is more open and more stable than it was in the beginning, though I still wonder if it is on the right side of the J Curve. (And I’m not even sure that such a curve – at least as it applies to religious institutions – is “J” shaped.)
To conclude, my feeling is that Democracy is “open enough” to accommodate most of the world. (Obviously, there will always be those that wish it were more open, but I’d consider them to be the exception to the rule… besides, Democracy provides for the exception (i.e. abortion; a more open illegal drug policy, etc.) to become the rule.) Maybe the comparison isn’t fair, but I still wonder if Mormonism is “open enough” to accommodate most of the world? Though it is clearly more open than Islam or Amish, Mormonism is still a top-down, authoritative institution with no mechanism for hearing the voice of the people. In that regard, it remains “closed” not unlike some of the countries on the left hand side of the J Curve.
But maybe your theory is correct… the Church is on the right side of the J Curve, and as it presumably continues to become more open it will only continue to rise higher on the curve.
November 16th, 2006 at 7:52 pm
I haven’t read Bremmer’s book, but I have read an article he wrote for the Washington Post on October 1, 2006 that explains, in brief, some of his theories. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901325.html The final paragraph of that article states:
“In one way or another, all states — even open, stable ones — are constantly moving along the J curve. Some states swing widely; others shift imperceptibly over time. However, history suggests that all closed states eventually wither or explode; their walls merely hide their potential instability from the world. Only an openness that links citizens within and across nations can help states build stability and social and economic dynamism. Only the free exchange of information, values and people can build global stability that enriches all who take part in it.”
I hope and believe that the LDS Church is moving toward a freer exchange of information, values and people. Our missionary program that continually brings in fresh blood, coupled with the counsel that foreign members of the Church stay in their countries to build up the Church there, should eventually (we can hope) bring more diverse ideas and thoughts into the mainstream thinking of the Church.
You ask whether Mormonism is really “open” to different interpretations of the truth. Well, the easy answer is that a church led by a “prophet” will always have its essential official “truth” emanating from a central place. But even such a church has room for disagreement on many subsidiary points (the existence of organic evolution, for example), even within the hierarchy. Will policy ever be formulated from the ground up in the Mormon Church? Not much chance of that. Will policy ever be influenced, and perhaps stimulated, by ordinary members? I think it has (blacks and the priesthood, the three-hour block, for example) and will continue to be. The more we open ourselves up to continued growth abroad and continue to emphasize higher education for our members, the more likely it is that we will grow into a more open institution. At least that is how it seems to me.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:44 am
I ran across this today…thoughts?
November 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Dad, I generally agree with your points. As I said before, I agree the LDS Church is moving in a direction towards more and more openness.
While there is something to be said for caution, I could wish it were moving in that direction a little faster. I remain a little more skeptical than you. As long as an authoritative, hierarchical structure remains, it will always act somewhat as an anchor attached to the ankle of growth and openness. Granted, democratic governments and businesses are also somewhat authoritative and hierarchical, but term limits and the voice of the people in the case of the former, and the market in the case of the latter, serve to temper or check its authority. I don’t see such a mechanism in the Church, unless you consider people voting with their feet, which is not a happy alternative for some.
Furthermore, I think there are some institutional and cultural walls that keep the LDS Church and its core members comparatively isolated and therefore somewhat immune to the liberating effects of “the free exchange of information, values and people” Bremmer cites as necessary for dynamic openness.
Still, I appreciate your optimism, and SSB can certainly benefit from more varied points of view.
Reg-O-Rama, the link you provided was certainly interesting. It just “shows to go ya” that the liberal/conservative tension/dynamic I point out in the opening paragraph of this blog post is a universal human phenomenom. Thanks for providing the link.