Contention and Discussion -- Counsel vs. Counsel

(More of me being truculent here.)

What do you do when you can't seem to agree with a Church leader?

As a good member of the Church, you've raised your hand to sustain your fellow members in their callings. But someone has made a decision you just can't accept.

I worked this out three times, first for a friend, then later for myself, then once again for myself when I could not convince myself. I always come to the same conclusions.

Contention --

3 Nephi 11: 29, 30:

... he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

A question that should occur to you is, what is Jesus' doctrine? If you keep reading there, you'll find it in the immediately following verses, faith (in Jesus Christ), repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, just like it says in the fourth Article of Faith. Any time you get lost, return to the Articles of Faith, particular number Four, to re-orient yourself. (Don't forget Articles One through Three, and remember what Jesus Christ's name means. He really is our rock of salvation. He really is there for us.)

So, contention is evil. That means we should never disagree, right?

For what it's worth, there was a relatively recent short article in the Liahona on the subject, which mentioned the possibility of agreeing without being disagreeable. Also mentioned there is Proverbs 13: 10, which indicates that the spirit of contention is pretty much a spirit of pride. And, although it mentions that prayer -- humble prayer -- is a very useful place to start, it most definitely does not say we should never disagree.

(Do read that article. My summary does not do it justice.)

What if humble prayer leads you to think you should talk with your leader about your concerns? Is this allowed?

Let's look at some scriptures on offences, particularly Matthew 18: 15.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

(If you have a little time, maybe you want to look in the Guide to the Scriptures under "Offend", or even look up offences in the Topical Guide, whether or not you let me try to persuade you here.)

This is repeated in Doctrine and Covenants 42: 88 through the end of the section. (Again, don't take my word for it. Please check this yourself.)

The key is that you should first (well, after praying for help and listening for answers from God), take the matter up privately -- "between thee and him alone". Don't gossip. Don't ask someone else to solve the problem for you. Don't look for reasons to doubt your brother or sister. Don't look for reasons he or she is wrong. Everyone, including you, falls short of the glory of God in this world.

Talk it over, to the extent possible, privately. Try hard to come to an agreement of some sorts privately. Only go over his or her head when you can't resolve it privately.

(Note that, in cases of abusive leaders, this step may not be possible or advisable without some modification. Don't try to do it alone first in such cases. 

If you think you can trust your bishop, make sure he knows what is going on. If you are not confident of the bishop, go to the stake president. If you are worried about him, as well, you may need to ask someone you trust to help find a leader in a different stake whom they trust. 

Cases of abuse go somewhat beyond what I cover here, even though most of the principles I attempt to present here do apply. Leaders who sin need to be warned just as much as others who sin, and abuses of power are sin.)

Coming to agreement -- What is so important about that? Doctrine and Covenants 42, at the beginning, talks about this a bit. But let's go back to Section 38, v. 32. This was their commandment to gather, and the reason. They are going to receive a law that would protect them from their enemies. In Section 40, v. 2, we see that a certain saint had been unable to gather because of the cares of the world.

And we need to back up to Section 1, vs. 19 21:

The ^aweak things of the world shall come forth and break down the mighty and strong ones, that man ^bshould not counsel his fellow man, neither ^ctrust in the arm of flesh—

But that every man might ^aspeak in the name of God the Lord, even the Savior of the world;

That faith also might increase in the earth;

Now we can read Section 41, vs. 2-4:

... ye shall assemble yourselves together to ^aagree upon my word; 3 And by the prayer of your faith ye shall receive my ^alaw, ...

It's best to read these for yourself, in context, by the way.

Now, in Section 42, v. 3, we see that we are blessed, if we can come to agreement on a thing and talk and pray about it. Read the whole section to see what they received.

And reading again at the end of Section 42, starting around v. 87, we see that when you do have to go over his or her head about church matters, you should try to keep it within the Church. Why? It has to do with stewardship, which I should take up next.

Maybe you can see doing this for your brother or sister in the gospel, but is this really allowed for leaders?

Is your leader not your brother or sister? Consider another verse in Matthew 18, vs. 6: You wouldn't want your brother or sister to be tossed in the sea with a millstone around his or her neck, just because the burdens of a calling were unbearable, now would you?

Continuing from verse seven through nine, keeping the Joseph Smith Translation in mind:

And a man’s hand is his friend, and his foot, also; and a man’s eye, are they of his own household.

The verses in the Joseph Smith Translation of Mark are perhaps more explicit:

And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off.
... And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.

Oh. Mark 8: 40 is itself a good verse to consider in the middle of all of this:

For he that is not against us is ^aon our part.

Read that in context, too.

Yes, I'm cherry-picking. No time to give a thorough scholarly analysis. But go read it for yourself. If you love your leaders, you don't want them cast off just because of some silly unresolved argument.

Now, because of our modern pseudo-mosaic laws, because of the false traditions we all grow up with in our separate cultures -- We all have them, they are not all the same, but we all have them ...

Because of false traditions, having explained the above, I need to tell you about stewardship, or the domain of responsibility, or the range of authority.

Doctrine and Covenants 104: 11-13:

... ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his ^astewardship; That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.

Here, we do not interpret "man" as male. That is one of those false ideas that developed as our modern society began to separate the man from the woman. Man here means human. Every human being has a stewardship given from God.

Elsewhere we find that the limits of our stewardships are dynamic. As we prove faithful, they expand, but as we prove faithless, they contract. That is a mystery I'll leave for you to go to God to learn. (At least, it would be too much of a side-tour here.)

But we are accountable to God, not humans, not human society for our stewardships.

Continuing in Section 104, vs. 15 - 17:

But it must needs be done in mine own ^away;

Not the ways of man. Nor of woman.

(I'm cherry-picking again. Go read it for yourself.)

Jumping a little, to verses 54 or so:

Behold, all these properties are mine, or else your faith is vain, ... And if the properties are mine, then ye are ^astewards; otherwise ye are no stewards.

What does it mean here?

If you want to be able to operate as a steward over what God has given you, you have to lose the attitude that what you have is yours to do what you damn well please with. You have to get rid of your pride, as fast as you are able. (It's an on-going process, because you keep discovering that things you thought were humble have been proud.)

You have to put yourself -- and your ego -- on the alter. You have to take some risks. You do the best that you can, but then when God tells you, you let God take the lead.

Here is an important thing.

Your bishop can represent God for you if you will let him, if you do not depend on him too much. See Doctrine and Covenenants 58: 26 - 28 for how you do that:

... for he that is ^acompelled in all things, the same is a ^bslothful and not a wise servant ...

and

... the power is in them, wherein they are ^aagents unto themselves.

Why should we be agents unto ourselves? Look in Section 93: around vs 30-31:

All truth is independent in that ^asphere in which God has placed it, to ^bact for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

Behold, here is the ^aagency of man, ...

Now the bishop's responsibility is primarily regarding the church, and especially not toward making choices for members, see verse 23:

Behold, the ^alaws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth. Behold, here is wisdom.

Section 58, not coincidentally, is where Edward Partridge is given his stewardship as a bishop. If I recall correctly, another had been called before him, but the other had not listened to the instructions in verse 20:

Let no man think he is ^aruler; but let God rule him that judgeth, ...

(Perhaps the man who had been called before misinterpreted a pronoun that follows in this verse. Again, I'm cherry-picking, read it for yourself. And don't forget to ask God, not me, what it means.)

Now, if you look up "bishop" in the dictionaries we humans use, you will discover that a bishop is a steward.

Recapping:

Stewardships are limited. But they should be respected.

To the extent possible, if I understand correctly, we should leave matters of one person's stewardship for him or her to work out between him or herself and God.

When we come under a person's stewardship, for example, as children come under their parents' stewardship, or as members come under a bishop's stewardship, if we fail to give feedback, they can't do their job. Giving too much feedback is another problem, of course, but we must not be silent all of the time.

Church stewardships are (supposed to be) mostly limited to church matters, and to things that we can legitimately help each other with as members, especially where they touch on church matters. We do want to help each other, but we also need to be somewhat cautious when that help extends beyond church matters. For instance, if it gets into business, church relationships should not blind us to the obligations of following proper and legal business practices. Likewise politics. These really extend beyond church stewardships.

I'm giving too much of my interpretation here.

This is another place where the domain and range of a stewardship need to be taken into account.

"Counsel" is a good word to look up in the Topical Guide and the Guide to the Scriptures when you need help analyzing your own approach, whether you are being too proud or too something, or whether you are not being bold enough.

But when a leader might be going south, and you try to approach the problem prayerfully and humbly, relying on God, not on man, doing what you can to avoid contention, it can be easy to just give up. Maybe you think patience is better. Be careful about this. It is also important to be bold in saying what needs to be said.

Remember Ezekiel 34. (Reading chapter 33 is also very enlightening, but we must remember that the commandment to warn is given with a stewardship. And there is a limit in ch. 33 on how much effort should be put into warning.)

We should want to help the shepherds of the flock do their duty. (Doctrine and covenants Section 81: 5. They need our feedback. Make sure you look it up and decide for yourself whether it means what you think I'm telling you.)

Finally, remember Mosiah 4: 27:

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and ^aorder; for it is not requisite that a man should run ^bfaster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

Or a woman. It is not requisite that a woman should run faster than she has strength, either.

Done in order. (And wisdom.) We don't want chaos to reign in the church.

That's why learning to disagree without being disagreeable, and to counsel with each other without counseling each other, without contending, is actually a really important thing, even though it can be very hard and even feel rather awkward at times.

We must not be silent. We can follow the Holy Spirit -- the Light of Christ within our hearts -- and give appropriate feedback.