DarkJedi wrote: ↑15 Apr 2022, 07:13
AmyJ wrote: ↑15 Apr 2022, 05:27
It can be a lot more. I hear stories of (usually retirees) for whom it works well. IF it is an equalized executive functioning deal (all spouses are engaged in the logistics of it), IF the content is relevant to the family members, IF family members have the time and resources to devote to study, listening, and thinking about it, and IF there is a family culture of solid communication skills, it probably works really well.
I agree, and in the cases where it is working for individuals and families the breakdown is clearly at church on Sunday. I think the church has not done a very good job at training teachers how to facilitate discussions of this nature.
I always thought that was a feature, not a bug for the situation. The idea of it was to mitigate teaching/staffing requirements at church while "strengthening the family". [Tongue in cheek - the same reasons "why" cleaning the church went to unpaid volunteers - with roughly the same results. YMMV]
I think unintended consequences of it were a) alienating the population who does not have a spiritual family base aka "proper home environment" for home centered, church supported church, b) making more work for the woman at home because she is running/co-planning the lessons at home AND doing church work AND living a life (for less "peer recognition" - everyone is doing it), and c) creating echo chambers in family structures.
I think the bigger problem is assuming that men and women had the time and resources (and communication skills) to handle interesting, thought-provoking gospel conversations without at least a heads up along the lines of, "Don't do this until you and your partner can communicate well enough to handle these issues without fighting". The church makes a stab at teaching facilitation/communication skills for the teachers - the couples don't even get standardized pre-marital counseling to start the process.
DarkJedi wrote: ↑15 Apr 2022, 07:13
There could be several reasons for that beyond just those who like the status quo in the way it's always been done. A big reason might be the shock that might come from a perspective outside the church narrative. I have said this before, we really don't do justice to the Old Testament in our "study" and classes. Not all of the stuff we skip is repetitive, some of it just doesn't fit the narrative. And the narrative comes from a very singular point of view where 2+2 doesn't always equal 4 when you look at it (or more correctly it's made to look like 2+1=4). Specifically in regards to the OT we almost wholly ignore the Jewish point of view - and it was their text! We put everything in the Christian context, even if there isn't really any Christian context (in fairness we're not the only ones who do that).
I think that the 3 hour church services were a way to solve the problems of "correlation" and "ensuring that people had the opportunity for spiritual nourishment", "many hands make light work" staffing philosophy, and had a stronger community tie. People had fewer ways that they considered profitable for spending their time (at a cultural, community, and family level). It was a glaring problem (from a church administration standpoint) that when people had to choose between spending their time at employment (both Sunday work and 2 wage worker recovery from work) and spending their time at church - it was a harder sell to keep their butts at church then not.
SIDE NOTE: We spent a good hundred years or so with a selling point that "we aren't like other churches" in our theology (still state that to a degree) - so we don't give their scholarship the credence it deserves. When push comes to shove, the scholar resources (bucks) are going to get paid for OUR take on scripture, OUR correlated understanding of events/controlling the narrative, because "we" are not like "them".
DarkJedi wrote: ↑15 Apr 2022, 07:13
As an aside but related, I think many faith crises have their roots in missionary service for the same reasons alluded to above. We're giving missionaries at least 2 hours every day to actually study the scriptures on their own and together. The ones who actually do study as opposed to just reading (often absently) and checking the box often have those "Huh? That's not what my seminary teacher said!" moments. The seeds of my own FC were undoubtedly planted on my mission. For those individuals and families who really undertake Come Follow Me the same sorts of things could happen (and I am aware of a couple instances with people I know where it has happened).
I can totally see that.
From women I know who are trying to do this, who actually took President Eyring seriously, I hear snippets of "I am trying to run Come Follow Me and have spiritual experiences - and my husband checks out before it even starts". What their verbal language says at the time is "I am defeated before I start, I am not good enough for this, and I am not being listened to."
We tried running CFM the first month it came out - we had 3 official lessons lasting 5-10 minutes before we threw in the towel. It wasn't worth the resources it took to run it for my young family.
DarkJedi wrote: ↑15 Apr 2022, 07:13
This is particularly true for people who are willing to look at other translations and outside viewpoints on the same material. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that while Jesus was the son of God he was not and is not a God himself (they are in that respect unitarian - 1 God). They justify that belief by citing the New Testament where Jesus never claims to be a God (and I have not seen any translation where Jesus does make that claim). I have also never heard a statement that Jesus never claimed to be God made in our church and I bet many members would be surprised to learn he never said any such thing because the narrative is different.
Our faith transition's overarching narrative of "1 way of thinking" makes it a lot harder to accept other viewpoints without being threatened. When "Unity (1 thought)" and "Correlation [there is a correct thought] are the most important values, it makes it a little hard to have a narrative with diverse worldviews.
Case in point, I have an ongoing narrative with my very active sister. It's a good conversation actually.
But it always comes back to her view that there is 1 "best way" of doing things or a "best belief system" - and that fundamentally impacts her ability to meet her "wandering siblings" where they are and be comfortable. She cannot sit with them comfortably in their living arrangements or words "because she knows better" and the siblings know that she knows better.
She was very frank in her assertion about how gospel living and being Christian are important in her life and some ways that they drive her narrative - and then closed the conversation as if I was going to get really mad and cut her off. I totally get it - my siblings have not had this site (or anthropology training or counseling to normalize diverse points of view), so they would (and probably did) take it personally and dramatically sever the relationship for a while. I wasn't offended, and it made sense what she was saying. But I did do a double take when she started talking as if I was going to cut her off and spent several paragraphs clarifying my stance and making her comfortable in the conversation.