Gospel vs. Culture

Recently, someone I apparently follow on Twitter popped up with the following context-free quote attributed to a popular therapist in the Salt Lake Valley area:

Examples of the Gospel are faith, repentance, baptism, forgiveness...

Church culture examples are women wearing skirts to & men wearing white shirts and & ties to Church, discouraging tattoos & piercings, defining immodesty as showing knees, stomach & shoulders, encouraging women with children to stay at home, expecting men to provide & preside, primary songs, green jello, specific primary songs, certain instruments aren't allowed in sacrament meetings, the format of our Church meetings, the way we sing hymns, calling the congregation leader "bishop", the specific temple recommend questions, bishop's interviews, worthiness interviews, ages of serving missions...

Since I don't have the original to pin it to, I'm not going to pin it to the twitter feed, either. 

When you discuss a quote of a quote without reference, you can always know that whatever you contribute to the discussion will probably not help communicate. But it is a fashionable topic. And the quote, as is, serves as a springboard into inquiry.

That's how I intend to use it here.

Before I start, I want to point out that it's a false dichotomy, to try to discuss what comes under the domain of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and what comes under the domain of culture.

Why do I know this?

The Gospel of Jesus Christ encompasses all truth. 

See, for instance, Joseph Smith, here, or Brigham Young, here, on this. Or Dieter F. Uchtdorf, here. Or pretty much any of the prophets, modern or ancient. 

If we had the writings of Adam, I think we'd know that he never questioned it. We can even imagine Cain asking his father to teach him how to raise wheat, and, while they were out in the fields studying, Adam telling Cain something like, "You know, if you ask God, He'll teach you about this, too, much better than I can." (Which is ultimately the only truly useful advice I can give anyone reading this rant.)

Given this, what is really being debated in the question of the Gospel vs. Church culture?

In the general Christian context, "gospel" is understood to be the "good news". (Or, for some, "God's news".) (Check the etymology in almost any dictionary.) 

Specifically, it is considered to be the good news that Jesus died and was resurrected for us.

He suffered for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane, and He laid His unblemished life on the alter for us on the cross. 

Had He not permitted it, there was no power on Earth that could kill Him. But He also had power in Himself from His Father to return to life after having died, and He did. 

(Technically, He was the only mortal who ever lived on this earth for whom the grammar "He resurrected." would be correct, but this rant is not about grammar riddles.)

We can say that He opened the way across the gulf of death for us, both for physical and spiritual death. The good news is that we need no longer fear physical death -- and if we will learn to turn our hearts toward His Father, who is also the Father of our spirits, we need no longer fear spiritual death.

And that means, if we will just learn to listen to and follow the Father's answers when we pray, we don't need to be afraid to live any more.

You should want me to back this up with scripture, so I will.

See, for instance, 3rd Nephi chapter 27, particularly verses 13 to 16. Also, the Fourth Article of Faith.

Now, how do I reconcile these two points of view on the Gospel? 

Doctrine and Covenants 6: 9 has an important clue: 

Say nothing but repentance unto this generation; keep my commandments, and assist to bring forth my work, according to my commandments, and you shall be blessed.

Yes, I know I'm cherry-picking, but, if you understand the background of the section, you know I'm not, really. This is an echo of Mosiah 18, verses 18 through 21:

... Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

And he commanded them that they should teach nothing save it were the things which he had taught, and which had been spoken by the mouth of the holy prophets.

Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.

And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.

I want to bring Bible scriptures in, but that will look even more like cherry picking (to those who don't read the Bible in context of Jesus' teachings).

Okay. Let those who think it is cherry picking think so:

Matthew Ch. 3, Here we see John the Baptist, preaching the basics in preparation for Jesus: Faith in Jesus, repentance, baptism by water for remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost:

1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judæa,

2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

...

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

...

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

...

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.

...

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Then, in Matthew 4, Jesus also begins to preach repentance:

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Continuing in chapters 5 through 7, we see the details of what repentance means. These are known as the beatitudes, and they consist of instruction in how to live a repentant life -- a Godly life. 

It is a good idea at this point to reconsider the meaning of "repent", because, after reading what Jesus preached, it appears not to be simply doing penance. 

In the Biblical Hebrew, according to some explanations, the word is a combination of feeling sorrow (nacham) with turning, or returning (shuv). (The Japanese translation of the word borrows from this: kuiru, to feel sorrow, and aratameru, to make a change or renew.) The Greek word in the earliest texts of the Bible is metanoia, which invokes the deep introspection required to change one's ways. In the Christian context, this infers turning one's heart towards God.

Which means, praying and listening and doing.

Thus, repentance is not just following some list of rules, it is an attitude of letting God change your heart, and letting those changes be reflected in changes in your thoughts and actions.

That should be sufficient for this little rant.

Returning to the quote of the quote above, what do we have?

Examples of the Gospel are faith, repentance, baptism, forgiveness...

So the idea is supported that there is a fundamental set of principles, and that the fundamental set of principles includes faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

And the idea that we should be focusing on these principles in our preaching is also supported.

-- and the idea that we should avoid preaching so many other things to each other that we begin to be contentious is also supported, per Mosiah 18: 21, as noted above. 

Just for good measure, see Matthew chapter 23, verse 13 to the end:

But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. ....

There is a verse in Isaiah, that I think is important here, Isaiah 55: 6-9 in reference to our idealized understanding of the gospel:

Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near:

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I don't see Him limiting verses 8 and 9 here to the wicked and unrighteous. Quite the opposite, He is talking to those who draw near to Him and seek Him in those verses. I mean, seriously, what need is there to tell the wicked and unrighteous that their ways and thoughts are not on God's level? Their conscious is already hard at work telling them that.

We who claim to be trying to be righteous must understand that even our thoughts, not to mention our ways, are not equal to God's.

I should, I suppose, leave that second paragraph from the 4th-person quote to the interested reader as an exercise. Maybe I will.

Before I decide, however, I will offer a couple more scriptures that I think are relevant: 

Remember, when you are tempted to give someone advice or counsel, Doctrine and Covenants chapter 1 verses 19-21:

... that man should not counsel his fellow man, neither trust in the arm of flesh—

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

That faith also might increase in the earth; ....

This may help understand Matthew 7: 1-5, where Jesus said, Judge not, that ye be not judged. 

(You may have heard that He said, "Judge not unrighteous judgements ...." He said that, too. He said it both ways. While we are considering why, remember that righteous judgement is not stroking your own ego.)

And when someone offends you, the following is very useful:

From Doctrine and Covenants 42:

27 Thou shalt not speak evil of thy neighbor, nor do him any harm.

38 For inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, ye do it unto me.

88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled.

89 And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.

Yes, I know that I am cherry picking here, as well. I've linked it. Read it for yourself.

Oh, just a little bit more, and, yes, I'm going to cherry-pick again. 

In Acts 15, we have Paul and Barnabas teaching at Antioch, and certain members from Judea coming and adding to the preaching, telling everyone they should be circumcised. This causes contentions, and Paul and Barnabas, after trying to resolve the issue locally, go to Jerusalem to get the official word.

At Jerusalem, again, we have certain whom we might suppose have converted from among the Pharisees (a sect of Jews who seem to love detailed laws) expounding the virtues of the Law of Moses (which we understand to include all the detailed rules that were added since Moses' time, which Jesus Himself had warned had become a roadblock to faith, see again Matthew 23: 13). 

And Peter stands up and says, "Since we started, by inspired direction from God, to preach to the Gentiles, they have received the Holy Spirit without needing obedience to our traditional Law of Moses. God makes no distinction between us and them. What place do we have, making a distinction?"

Verses ten and eleven:

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?

But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Then Paul and Barnabas get a chance to testify of the gifts of the Spirit that the Gentiles were enjoying -- without the supposed advantage of the Pharisaical laws. And James finally stands up and lays out a minimal standard that would be acceptable within their cultural context. And this becomes Church policy for them.

Read it yourself for the details. I don't want to spoon-feed anyone on this.

Concerning the detailed 4th-person quote I mentioned above, I don't have a right to attempt to lay out doctrine and policy, so I should refrain.

The Church has a handbook on-line and they continue to edit it, to adapt it more to the needs of the members of the Church all over the world. If you haven't read it recently, check it for the current real policies. If you have, you might want to re-read it.

There is also a Gospel Topics manual on-line which contains a lot of relevant material, and it is is also periodically updated.

Now, I'll add my personal opinions and comments from my experiences concerning those details from the 4th-person quote. Remember, these are my personal opinions and observations. Go to God for the real answers,

• women wearing skirts to & men wearing white shirts and & ties to Church, 

This dress code, definitely cultural, is specific to the modern culture of certain parts of Utah, USA. 

In Texas and certain other states, a bolo tie was usually considered plenty formal for church when I was growing up, probably still is. In Tonga and many other islands in the tropics, men wear something like a lava-lava to church with their white shirts and tie. In certain South American countries, white shirts and ties are not appropriate for Christian men. And there are places where skirts are not appropriate for Christian women. 

My personal preference would be for everyone to wear robes to church, but that would not be conducive to worship for many people.

And that's the real issue. We want to wear clothes that, at minimum, won't interfere with our own or other people's focusing on learning about the Gospel and worshiping God at church. That is a cultural question. Without cultural context, there is no basis for specifics like shirt color, accessories, and whether the leg covering is a skirt or a pair of trousers.

If you want more detailed information, read the handbook and consult with members of your local bishopric. There is some general discussion of dressing appropriately in meetings in the handbook, and some slightly more detailed discussion in the Gospel Topics manual under modesty. Not a lot of specifics. Do your own research.

And remember to pray before you go talk with your local leaders. Keep your heart open to the Holy Spirit (watching out to not accept unholy spirits, which do try to distract you) while you talk with them. And pray again after you talk with them. 

Doesn't have to be formal prayer, but you must keep your heart open to God, who loves you and wants you to be happy.

• discouraging tattoos & piercings, 

The gospel topics manual has a section on tattooing and piercings. It's not hard to find. It doesn't offer reasons. It also does not offer any justification whatsoever to people who want to judge others' appearance, whether to tease, bully, or simply offer unasked-for advice and counsel. 

Reasons for discouraging "tattoos and excessive body piercings" that I can think of might include the problem of undoing tattoos safely, the problems of finding a tattoo artist that practices proper hygiene and uses safe dyes, the deeper problem of decorating what doesn't need to be decorated, and the meta-symbolic meanings of tattooing. 

These problems are similar to the problems with using makeup, hair coloring, and so forth.

We really ought to be satisfied with what God gave us and try to build upon those gifts instead of effacing them to meet the standards of the world. 

But. 

What building upon our own gifts from God would mean, and what effacing them would mean, will vary from individual to individual. That's why, in the modern cultural context, when makeup is much safer than it used to be, and its use no longer tends to be generally interpreted as following the immoral practices of those old caste systems we're supposed to have left behind and such, the Church no longer has much to say about makeup.

The technologies of tattoos and body piercings are not quite at the same level at this point in time. Nor have they lost the meta-semantics to the same degree.

If someone asks for approval for their tattoo or body piercing, and you feel a need to tell them you can't approve, perhaps you can admit that you just don't like tattoos and body piercings, and it's something you're not qualified to offer opinions on. But do remember to tell them you won't let that interfere with how you feel about them as individuals.

There is at least one paragraph in the manual about dress in meetings which specifically says members should not judge others by their appearance.

This is something that we really need to understand. When we go looking for answers in the handbooks and manuals, we should be looking for ourselves, not for others. Remember, Jesus said, Judge righteous judgements. Leave the details to them.

Love them -- which means wanting them to receive whatever happiness they are willing and able to receive. Think about how God loves us. He wants each of us to receive whatever happiness we are willing and able to receive. He knows that we can then receive more, and He is patient while we grow to be able to receive more. That's the love that we should feel for others. (This one, I will really leave to you for your own research. It's there in the scriptures, and looking for it yourself will be much more to your benefit than letting me point it out to you. You probably already have some ideas where to start.)

• defining immodesty as showing knees, stomach & shoulders, 

I have a friend, whom I have lost contact with, who is confined to a wheelchair. Her physical condition puts restrictions on what clothes she wears. Covering the calves, much less the knees, is not an option for her. 

Perhaps you will say, that's an extreme case.

It is not so extreme. We all have health issues. Some of those may require clothes that don't meet artificial standards. See my comments above about dress code. 

We should not be busy dividing the membership of the church into "us" and "them" groups.

•  encouraging women with children to stay at home, 

Yes, in the ideal scenario, both men and women work close enough to home that one or both will always be available to their children.

If you, yourself, have a choice between more money and a job that keeps you closer to your kids, I'd recommend the latter. If you don't have a choice that keeps you available to the kids and while making you enough to pay rent and buy food, usually, paying rent and buying food takes precedence.

Usually. But not always. 

Our ideals are not God's. Again, using a person's or a family's situation to judge them is not good.

• expecting men to provide & preside, 

Concerning providing, see above about women working. 

About presiding, for your own sake, learn what it means to preside. 

Jesus is our presiding high priest. When James and John, the sons of thunder, asked to sit at his right and left, He said,

But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

in Matthew 23: 8. In fact, start from the beginning of Matthew 23 and keep reading until you get the idea. Presiding in righteousness is not about telling people what you think they should and shouldn't do. Nor should the woman expect the man to do so in her home, especially not without her help. See also Doctrine and Covenants 121, towards the end.

• primary songs, 

I'm not sure what the reference is here, at all. We as a church are expanding our choices of sacred music, now that the physical hymnbook doesn't put limitations on how many we can print. This is not a bad thing.

• green jello,

Surely we can forgive green jello.

• specific primary songs, 

I suppose there are certain of the primary songs that are way over-simplified in their descriptions of certain gospel principles, but this is like ideals. (I can only assume this is what is being referred to.)

Ideals are things we need. None of them ever come even close to God. (See my mention of Isaiah 55, above.) But we still use them as stepping stones, to help us gain understanding. 

Hymns are usually closer to doctrine than primary songs, but they are also still too short to encompass the whole Gospel.

We have to forgive each other for our choices in primary songs, hymns, and ideals. 

Oh. We do have the right to forgive other members when they like songs we find not so likeable, or even disagreeable, and this includes primary songs and hymns.

• certain instruments aren't allowed in sacrament meetings, 

This is much like the above. 

Our music should help both us and others to focus on learning the Gospel and worshiping God. If there are members of the congregation who don't find electric guitars and drum machines (for example) conducive to their worship, we should sacrifice our preferences for them for an hour or two.

• the format of our Church meetings, 

Yes, it changes. It changed from all Sunday to three hours, then to two, and now to home services for the coronavirus fuss, and it will change again. Anyone who is fussing about the changes just wants something to fuss about.

Sort of.

I can understand feeling a little lost when church has been the one stable thing in our lives.

But real worship is a personal thing, not a social thing. 

We are supposed to gather together to strengthen each other, but if we then go home and somehow don't continue our study and worship, we can't bring anything to church to help others with next week.

We need to find places in our days to squeeze in reading a verse or two or ten each day, think about them, and pray for understanding of how to apply them -- instead of taking them at whatever the community opinion of face value is.

• the way we sing hymns, 

More of the problem of helping others when we get together to worship.

Paul works through the question of things offered to idols in 1st Corinthians chapter 8. 

He talks about how the saints of Corinth understood that idols are nothing, and the foods offered to them are not (assuming equal hygiene, and absence of poisons and drugs) fundamentally different from things not offered to idols.

Then he points out that we have a responsibility to strengthen others, and if our partaking of the thing sacrificed to idols offends someone else, to destroy their faith, we still should abstain. 

This principle applies all throughout this list -- and any similar list.

And I've run completely out of time to continue this rant.

You've probably run out of time to read more anyway, if you've gotten this far.

Not probably. Close your browser and go to the scriptures. Turn to God for your answers, not to me or to others of the children of God. Give others support and encouragement, not roadblocks. 

(If you aren't so busy blocking others, you'll have more time to get yourself into where God can help you be happy.)

Why I Believe

People ask me why I believe in God.

Well, it's usually more like, "How can you believe in a God that is/does this and that terrible thing, or whose existence contradicts that famous person's theory of everything.

All too often, I try to answer the complaint instead of the question.

It goes something like this (in the abbreviated version):

Me: "That's not the God I believe in."

Them: "You can't redefine God."

Well, I'm usually not rude enough to say, "Why not? People have been redefining God to give themselves excuses not to believe for, well, most of recorded history." So the conversation stalls.

By the way, I am not redefining God. I am simply taking the scriptures literally.

Recently, I thought, well, with all the getting stuck on what God is and what God isn't, maybe I should put up a post about what/who I believe God to be.

That hasn't been working. I keep getting stuck in esoteric stuff -- like what it means to call God our Father.

It occurs to me now, I should answer the first question, instead -- how I came to believe in God.

So I will.

When I was approaching eight, and the question of whether I would get baptized or not was looming, I told my parents that I thought I was smarter than God. I didn't like the program He had set up, I didn't like all the rules, I didn't like going to a church where I couldn't seem to get along with the kids my age, etc.

My dad told me, "You gotta fight from the inside."

My response was something, "Why do I have to fight this fight at all?"

Don't get me wrong, I figured out why pretty soon, but, at the time, it didn't seem reasonable. It was good advice, but for later.

My mom's response?

"Okay, you figure out a better plan. Work it up. Write it down. Then we'll talk about it."

But they did say the decision was mine, whether to get baptized or not.

I kid you not. My mom does not remember telling me this, but she did -- tell a seven-year-old kid to write up a plan to compare with God's plan.

I was not excited about the writing part, but I started thinking about this alternate plan thing. I started actively researching the scriptures instead of just taking what the Sunday School teachers told me at face value.

Don't get me wrong. I did not turn into a scripture scholar or a straight-shirt believer overnight at eight. But I learned how to use the indexes and the concordances, and started learning how to look for meaning.

I discovered two things.

One was that a lot of what the people at church were teaching was not scriptural. These were not evil people, but people are human. And it still happens. When we run out of time, we often fall back on tradition, and tradition is often wrong.

The other was that there were things I didn't like that were in fact scriptural, that, even in my naivety, I could not think of better alternatives to. And I started seeing that could be reasons for those things to be.

Yes, I'm being vague here. The details (the specific things) don't matter. 

Well, one does. This is not a perfect world, not in the way we humans think of perfection. Nor is it ideal. It was not meant to be so. In fact, the very purpose for which this world was made, to be a place where we could learn, would be completely undone if it were perfect or ideal. This was one of the things I learned sometime between the age of eight and nineteen.

This was my first experience with the Holy Spirit.

My second experience with the Holy Spirit was during my early teens. 

I had argued with my parents, apparently about going to something at church, I don't remember what. I ended up walking the two-to-three miles from home to church. The first mile or so was through the back allies, and I was in a rage -- crying and screaming. I'm sure more than one of our neighbors considered calling the police.

Much of my rage was directed at God for letting "this", whatever it was, happen to me.

I recalled one of the teachers at church talking about hearing the Spirit, and I wondered if God was going to reply to my complaints and accusations. And I felt an answer distinctly in my heart. I can't tell you what the answer was, it goes well beyond the power of human language. The general meaning was that my parents were doing what they could for me, and that I would survive, but that's just one prosaic interpretation.

I also heard an answer in my mind. I could tell you what that answer was, but I won't. I've since learned that it was the voice of evil spirits, attempting to hijack my experience with the Holy Spirit. It's a spirit of lying, and there's no need to give the adversary of our souls any further publicity.

Some of my friends and interlocutors will argue that this was all a figment of an overactive adolescent imagination.

Yes, the imagination can, indeed, masquerade as the Spirit. One of the four general sources we can get "spiritual" answers from is, in fact, ourselves. 

No, this was not the case here. It was not an answer I particularly wanted. It was not an answer I could have constructed for myself without help -- it included elements that I did not at the time have the experience necessary to make up for myself, and the conclusion completely exceeds the sort of conclusion I have been able to draw on my own.

(That answer contains, for instance, things that made it a lot easier for me to understand, among other things, calculus and abstract algebra when I encountered those in my academic career years later.)

You may argue that there is, within the human psyche, a function that can produce such epiphanies.

That assumes two things, one that what I experienced was no more than what current researchers describe as epiphany, and, two, that we do not have within us a gift from God that helps us understand truth.

Here, I will be point blank.

One: What current biomedical researchers call epiphany is the biochemical effect, not the cause, of spiritual experience, and what they generally record is from the other three sources I've mentioned above. God usually does not help us with our parlor games.

The other: the human conscience tends to get overlaid with all sorts of things, peer pressure, family expectations, social mores and ethics, tradition. But there is a core to the conscience that is nothing more nor less than a connection to God.

This is where it is easy to miss the forest for the trees. 

I'm not going to argue this point. Every human being has a connection to God within the self.

You can disagree for now if you need to. That's part of the point of being in this world, to experience what it is like to choose things.

Having chosen to recognize the workings of the Spirit, I have since had many experiences that I have recognized and can't deny. I have also had many ambiguous experiences. This does not bother me, because, as I just said, one of the things I learned was that God wants us to be learn how to handle freedom. That requires leaving us room to choose things for ourselves. It requires ambiguities.

This is not the only reason I believe, but it is a primary part of the foundation.