The Tranformation of American Religion
I recently picked up a book I read a while back: The Transformation of American Religion – How We Actually Live Our Faith. By Alan Wolfe (Boston College and The New Republic). I thought I would toss out a few notes on the book.
Wolfe basically delineates the demise of doctrine in American churches. He follows the change from extreme sectarianism to a non-doctrinal “self help” pragmatism that is now pervasive. Even the most ardent evangelical churches are using regional focus groups to determine what type of music to play. He notes that even leaders in many churches don’t know about the foundational doctrines of their specific creeds. While he reasons that this trend, taken to extremes, yields narcissism such as the “Jesus make me rich” movements, he believes that this de-emphasis on doctrine yields tolerant people and a better society.
As it has been a while, I will just pull out some interesting things said about Mormonism.
Wolfe gives good reasons why Mormonism might benefit more from current trends than other churches. Noting that that the vast majority of Americans change churches (often frequently) in their lifetimes, He observes that Mormons (81.4%) are only second to Jews (85.4%) in retaining the faith of their child hood (pg. 47). He later notes that practical benefits of Mormonism “…make it especially attractive to switchers looking for a faith to help them negotiate their way through a complicated world (pg. 148).
In the section entitled “The Mormon Exception” (pg. 143), Wolfe argues that Mormonism is perhaps the paragon of pragmatism.
…in the course of a century and a half, a religion that began by challenging the central religious and moral precepts of a predominantly Protestant society has come to stand in the public mind as the embodiment of old-fashioned Christian ideals. (pg.145)
Speaking on theology, Wolfe writes that “of all the religions in the United States, Mormonism is, theologically speaking, one of the least demanding” (pg. 145) and later cites another authors description as “do-it-yourself theology”. He gives plenty of evidence for a willingness to “promptly change” doctrine that is no longer en vogue (e.g., OD1 & OD2). He focuses a lot of text describing a Mormon culture of inclusion that tries to iron out contention and harmonize disparate views.
While he does do a reasonable job in describing Mormon “flexibility” for the allotted text, I think he tried too much to fit Mormonism into his thesis. While there is no question that there has been a trend to de-emphasize “peculiar” Mormon doctrines and emphasize the role of Jesus in our personal lives and in the church, there are still doctrinal pillars that are hammered on repeatedly. However, maybe this is a matter merely of degree.
of all the religions in the United States, Mormonism is, theologically speaking, one of the least demanding
I don’t know about that. True, we have very few “theologians”, even (perhaps especially) among our leaders. Mormonism expounds a simple doctrine: God-Christ-Prophets-Joseph Smith-authority-Church. But under the surface there is much that is demanding. And to what is he comparing us? The Evangelical theology is even simpler: God-Jesus-Grace-Being Born Again.
Comment by Ronan — 2/2/2005 @ 12:06 pm
I would agree that there is a cornucopia of views on doctrines, such as preexistence, the fall, the atonement, salvation, exaltation and even the nature of Diety and man. It seems that most views are accepted or at least not considered heretical even though many are polar opposites.
This contrasts greatly with other Christian traditions that have definitive limits in which to maneuver.
Comment by J. Stapley — 2/2/2005 @ 1:17 pm
J., I noticed this book last year and actually posted a paragraph or two on it. It was refreshing to see a book on general Christianity that said something nice about the Mormons.
Comment by Dave — 2/2/2005 @ 1:51 pm
J,
I think that part of what we see in the disparity of opinions is a general willingness among members to ask quesitons like “What does that mean” that many others take for granted. I think this flys in the face of some popular images of the church as unthinking, but really, I think that we have a great desire to really understand doctrine, rather than simply accepting it. As Ronan points out, evangelical theology is actually quite simple. It doesn’t tolerate a lot of movement precisely because it doesn’t spend a lot of time explaining itself. I think this could be part of the reason that we might find plenty of common ground with others who see us as outside the pale and not even Christian. Thus, if someday evangelicals decided to ask what it means to be born again, or that Christ is the son of God or that he saved us, and answer it theologically, as opposed to emotionally or by recitation of scripture, they might encounter more diversity of opinion. I don’t mena this as a put down. I think many of my evangelical relatives would say that the scripture is the word of God, and we should answer theological dilemmas by simply reciting scripture without interpreting it. Scripture is the only word of God for many. I think the result is that differences of opinion are sort of absorbed into sameness. People simply think they are closer to unity than they are–as with Wolfe commenting on leaders not knowing the foundational doctrines. Thus I think that our theology actually demands that we believe more particular doctrine, but also paradoxically, in encouraging greater understanding of those doctrines, fosters a diversity of opinion on issues of how we understand that doctrine.
Comment by Stephen Hancock — 2/2/2005 @ 3:34 pm