Why Bother with Church?
by Mark Gutman, April 16, 2015: In 1958, Lawrence Kohlberg proposed a theory of six stages of moral development, with stages divided by how people dealt with moral dilemmas that he proposed.1 His six stages are evenly spread through three levels: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional autonomous (or principled).
In 1981, John Fowler, in Stages of Faith,2 also described six stages of a developmental process in “human faith” that people pass through. For example, stage three: (synthetic-conventional) individuals tend to have conformist acceptance of a belief with little self-reflection on examination of these beliefs. Most people remain at this level. Those individuals who move to the fourth stage of faith (individuative-reflective) begin a radical shift from dependence on others’ spiritual beliefs to development of their own.”3
You get the idea. We start out as infants doing (mostly) what we are told to do and what we see others do. As we get older, we start to think more for ourselves and follow some of our own rules. But, according to Fowler and Kohlberg, we quit our development too early, as they place most adults in levels 3 and 4.
As you can imagine, those of us who have reached level 6 in Fowler’s and Kohlberg’s stages4 struggle trying to deal with the quitters, who, of course, make up the majority of the community and the church. We’ve been through the lower levels ourselves at one time, so we understand why people can be down there.
But when it comes to going to a church filled with members of inferior, er, lower levels, we level sixes often have a time. Preachers’ primitive reasoning and Sabbath School classes’ illogical and irrelevant observations can be hard to put up with. You might remember hearing that “It’s hard to soar like an eagle when you’re surrounded with turkeys.” That’s what it feels like to mix with people who haven’t read the deep theological and philosophical works I have. Imagine asking Novak Djokovic, currently the world’s number one tennis player, to spend his time practicing with high school tennis players! It would weaken his game. Don’t expect me to lower my standards!
There’s another kind of level six. Not a brain kind, but a morals kind. You know – doctrinally and lifestyle-wise, they dwarf their peers. When it comes to the sanctuary doctrine, how to dress, what to eat, how to keep the Sabbath, they “have it all together.” They are able to detect when the preacher or elder is slightly heretical (which leads the congregation downhill), when the potluck or social doesn’t comply with Counsels on Diet and Foods, and how the church’s toleration for sin is increasing.
Level sixes of the intellectual or moral kind often separate themselves from lower-level people. Why taint themselves or waste time (to quote Jesus) throwing their pearls before swine? Besides, they can get a much better church service by watching certain TV channels. Better music. Higher quality of sermon. Less contamination.
But before you toss church because the members aren’t up to your level, keep in mind that churches (congregations) offer friendships that may be hard to find elsewhere. The world is full of lonely people. “Loneliness is a serious health risk. Studies of elderly people and social isolation concluded that those without adequate social interaction were twice as likely to die prematurely. The increased mortality risk is comparable to that from smoking. And loneliness is about twice as dangerous as obesity.5 “Having social ties is the single best predictor of a longer, healthier, more satisfying life.6
Church members work together in social events and sharing events. Churches where I have held membership feed the homeless, provide a free medical clinic, and take Sabbath afternoon walks together. Many who feel lonesome or unwanted would feel better if they spent more time with a church group.
It’s hard to improve spiritually in isolation. In a chapter titled “Religion Is a Team Sport,” Jonathan Haidt reports that research by Putnam and Campbell found that “[t]he only thing that was reliably and powerfully associated with the moral benefits of religion was how enmeshed people were in relationships with their co-religionists. It’s the friendships and group activities, carried out within a moral matrix that emphasizes selflessness. That’s what brings out the best in people.”7
Then there’s the record of Jesus. Luke 4:16, Message, tells us, “As he always did on the Sabbath, he went to the meeting place.” If Christianity is a matter of believing the right doctrines, I can stay at home and build my ivory tower even bigger. If Christianity is a matter of following the teachings and actions of Jesus, meeting with other less devout or less informed human beings seems to be part of the program. In fact, the people that he met with in Luke 4 tried to kill him! OK, so he needed to start meeting with a different group. I doubt if he stopped his practice of going to a meeting place on Sabbath.
If Jesus, who must have ranked as (at least) level 7, could meet with others who were scattered through the lower levels, who am I modeling when I keep my distance? Jesus told one of his parables specifically for “some who were complacently pleased with their moral performance and looked down their noses at the common people” (Luke 18:9, Message). Alternate “moral performance” with “intellectual level” and you’ll get a picture of self-ranked level 6’s.
Ellen White describes how Jesus mixed. “Our Savior mingled with men as one who desired their good. He showed His sympathy, ministered to their needs, and won their confidence. Then He bade them, ‘Follow Me.’”8 You might say that his focus was (with apologies to John F. Kennedy), “Ask not what your church can do for you; ask what you can do for your church.” The least you can do is help those poor folks.
When I go to church and meet with human beings who aren’t as smart, logical, or devout as I am, I’m following in the footsteps of Jesus. Isn’t that what Christianity is all about? Only I, unlike Jesus, might discover that my smartness is pretty narrow. That my logic has some holes in it. That some members are more loving or sympathetic than I am. That my braininess or spiritual eliteness can benefit from my mingling with others.
Paul urged liberals and conservatives (or the “weak” and the “strong”) to work together “for peace and for mutual upbuilding” (Romans 14:19). Getting together with others to help a family recover from a fire or a flood can help more than just that family. As I work together with Level 3 and 4 people, I may discover that they have some traits that I wish I had, some experience in life that has taught them lessons I’ve never thought of. By the way, levels 3 and 4 can look askance at Level 6, so Paul’s counsel applies to them just as much as it does to the Level 6’s.
In short, attending church and mingling with others often provides an antidote to loneliness, more opportunities for service, and growth from being around others different from us. The advantages of keeping away will probably be outweighed by the advantages of associating with others who can help us even as they challenge us.
1See, for example, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Reading-Barger-on-Kohlberg.htm For an example of a moral dilemma used by Kohlberg, see https://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm
2James Fowler. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning (Harper and Row, 1981). Fowler and Kohlberg were both building on work by Jean Piaget.
3https://www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html
4I have no idea what level I am. I am writing, tongue-in-cheek, from the standpoint of a Level 6er to make a point. Most of us probably rank ourselves as Level 6 in one way or another.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316
6Winifred Gallagher. Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life (New York: Penguin Press, 2009), p. 84
7Jonathan Haidt. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2010), p. 267. Haidt is an atheist. He is reporting on a benefit of church that he has to look for elsewhere.
8The Ministry of Healing, page 127
Perhaps it’s easier to bond with groups outside our intellectual level than those outside our social level (though the two measurements undoubtedly overlap in significant areas, over significant issues). I seem to have a tremendous difficulty bonding with folks who clearly revel in being “purer-than-thou” in the sense that they believe themselves to be further up the scale of defeating sin than other mere Christians. For one thing, such individuals seem to try to “hide” a lot of their personality, and become very defensive when cheerfully and sincerely quizzed about their experiences and the proper definition of “overcoming sin” and other basic working vocabulary in Christian circles.
By contrast (in my experience) those who regard themselves as more intellectual than others (not necessarily brighter, but more all-encompassing in their thinking) often project a gentle sort of self-revelation that’s refreshing. Yes, intellectuals on edge can be unbelievably caustic, as well, but by and large Nicodemus-type Christians earnestly seeking truth (even if they’re looking in all the wrong places) seem to provide an easier environment for discussion than those who are clearly angling for gnats and camels in the Church, while suggesting that they themselves are no longer troubled by such basic temptations—and woe be to those still falling short in areas such as an appropriate understanding of the Nature of Christ or a precise understanding of the downfall of syncopated rhythms in music.
Interesting POV. The penultimate paragraph of the piece begins: “Paul urged liberals and conservatives (or ‘the weak’ and ‘the strong’)…” Perhaps the author’s comparison (at least implied) or word sequencing was inadvertent. Or not. Regardless, to characterize liberals as ‘weak’ and conservatives as ‘strong’ does not promote harmony or enlightenment. As a presumptive 6, the author should know this.
I was aware of the misleading impression that juxtaposing those pairings leaves but decided to run with it anyway. I’m more used to hearing “liberal and conservative” and “weak and strong” in those word orders. I have preached a sermon from Romans 14 several times, pointing out that the “weak” ones in Romans 14 probably (ironically) considered the “strong” ones to be the weak ones – that is, not well-grounded. Paul, the one who was less restricted in eating, seems to have identified his beliefs as in the “strong” camp (Romans 15:1). The tendency is for the liberals to regard conservatives as simplistic or ignorant, and for conservatives, in turn, to regard liberals as weak in the faith. The focus of the column is not to define who’s weak or strong, but to encourage getting together with people we judge as inferior. In Romans 15:2, Paul encourages the strong to build up the weak. That’s hard to do when you keep your distance from them.
Who is “weak” and who is “strong” is a very relative thing. Liberals may view the answer one way and conservatives another way.
Being an accomplished life-long sinner, I know that I am weak and only Jesus is strong.
Jim, I think you are missing Mark’s point but getting caught up in the wording there mate.
Nope – I fully appreciated the both the satire and the message.
But I do not have any “weaker bothers” because I AM the “weaker brother”.
While I suspect that references to developmental stages are a bit tongue in cheek as they do not exactly reflect what those ideas offer in their true light (e.g. people at higher stages actually would have an easier time interacting with people at lower numbered stages precisely because they do understand them – and finding people at Fowler’s 6th stage would actually be somewhat rare – Jesus being one of them for sure, etc. – or that those levels are somehow analogous to other ways of measuring spiritual performance) the overall thrust is valid, that we need to be together in community with each other in order to fully be who we are called to be (an idea that actually does tend to be reflected in those more “advanced” levels of development, but what can be experienced on any level). It is, however, the reality that we do tend to operate on those different “levels” that accounts for much of the difficulty we have in actually being that community – which is an issue that we would do well to find a way to address better than we have.
Lord, I feel so inferior after reading from these enlightened people sitting in their lofty higher development stages of Christianity!!!!!
Is Church important?? Definitely yes!! For several reasons 1. People who attend church generally have a basic understanding of spiritual values of the Golden Rule.
2. Worshiping together, singing praises, prayer, S.S. class, increases our awareness of God, and feels good to share the blessings of worship.
3.But the “social benefits”, those of sharing Sabbath together with close friends, in our homes, out of doors, walks, studies, etc. are I believe, several times more wholesome and beneficial to individual believers. Generally this tends to be in cliques, separate to offices, income, professions, and social standing. The groups i met with were usually all day affairs, closing worship, supper, fun and games. Not being involved with church for 25 years, i fondly recall those earlier sharings, which occurred almost every Sabbath, and many of those friends now having given up the ghost. Is the pastor much of a benefit to the “average member”?? i think not. It’s the Elders and Deacons that are the direct contact with membership, solve problems, and know what’s happening with individual members. And most sermons are forgettable. I’ve only been involved with large churches. Perhaps a more practical involvement experience would be smaller membership churches, without
a fulltime pastor, and members would carry the load of church. ( as witnessed by William ).
As to Salvation in Christ Jesus, it isn’t a community happening, but a individual commitment. My faith as a recluse grows stronger every day. PRAISE GOD.
Thank you, Earl. I really don’t care what spiritual level someone says I’m on because I’m happy to just stay at the foot of the cross.
To MG: With all due respect, I find this part of your comment, posted at 10:33 am, distressing: “The focus of the column is not to define who’s weak or strong, but to encourage getting together with people we judge as inferior.” 1) We are discouraged from judging: ‘Judge not…’ 2) I imagine virtually no circumstance under which a Christian would consider another human being (if we are all God’s children, that makes all other humans my brothers and sisters) inferior. Short of having a sibling born deficient in either physical or mental capacity, I cannot conceive considering a sibling inferior. Different, perhaps. Inferior, no. I believe that’s contrary to God’s intention and what was practised by apostolic church members, when they were ‘of one accord.’ You may well be superior, intellectually and/or morally. But to call attention to that is to tread on dangerous ground. I try to remember (when I see someone less fortunate): “There but for the grace of God go I.” It helps maintain perspective, gratitude, and humility.
I’m gathering that you did not notice endnote 4, where I wrote that my self-ranked level 6 was tongue-in-cheek. Of course, we shouldn’t judge, but we shouldn’t overeat either, and the day all church members quit doing either one of those, it should be about closing time. Jesus wouldn’t have told the crowd and his disciples (and us) “Judge not” if they hadn’t been judging. I’m writing to address the sad reality. If I hadn’t perceived that people (including me) at least occasionally judge themselves as superior to at least one other person, I wouldn’t have written on this topic.
Para#4 is a patent illustration of those which are waffling between stages 4 and 5, at best, as those at level 5 have accepted the rationale differences of those which base their morals on groupthink and those who are (at least intellectually) committed to uplifting their fellowmen from the ravages of submitting their identification to cultural norms.
It is at stage/level 5 that the identity is transitioning from the group to God. That is, one’s faith and trust in God in performing His will on earth as it is in heaven generally holds sway over the prevailing attitudes and practices of the group. They are generally forgiving of ignorance, though not always as they see the group constrain its members from emancipation into God’s love.
(BTW, instituting the disclaimer as footnote#4 indicates to me, at least, that you have no clue as to the All-One experience of stage 6, that it is, as yet, unfathomable.)
Para #5 indicates a less than rudimentary understanding of stage 5 and complete ignorance of stage 6. Perhaps though an entrenchment a stage 4 in a condescension of stage 3. It really deprives your commentary of substantive value as it ends up being an apologetic of stage 3.
Thank-you for bringing this up, as I sense that the denomination is conflicted in its message.
Trust God.
My comments were not meant to be from the viewpoint of a genuine level 6. I try to limit my writing to around 1,200 words, so I let endnotes stretch my word count. In the endnote, I pointed out that most of us probably rank ourselves as Level 6 in one way or another (never mind Kohlberg or Fowler, both of whom I read years ago). When we “know” we’re at the top level, it’s kind of hard not to notice that others aren’t. My wife warned me that people would react strongly if they didn’t look at endnote number 4 (or, I guess, didn’t realize what I meant by it).
The weak and strong in faith parallel, may not be compared to ceremonial law in Paul’s day, with moral law applications in the church today. It plays off things of indifference with different understanding of moral imperatives the church deals with today.
And you didn’t mention the “hostile environment” often present within SDA church discussions. I am sure Elijah would have loved to have a consistent “fellowship” to discuss and dialogue all the issues he felt so strong about. You did mention the situation with Jesus, but even this scenario was far less than ideal for a viable church fellowship.
And finally, it doesn’t matter what level a person may mature to, only in the context of witnessing can any doctrine become relevant and “the law is written on our hearts” and eventually “sealed” in the truth by ongoing witnessing. Whether in a friendly fellowship, or, in an hostile environment. So even Jesus was being sealed by the Holy Spirit as He was being prepared for His final test and victory. And this can only be done by a continual ongoing experience.
Bill, as I said to Jim, I think you are missing Mark’s point but getting caught up in the wording there about who is supposedly ‘weak’ and who is supposedly ‘strong’ mate.
As for Elijah and in fact all who took the Nazirite oath, they did withdraw from others for a time. Jesus did that. But they always returned to their people. That is the difference between true godly behaviour and Roman Catholic monasticism. I once wrote an article in an Adventist magazine about it if you want to know more.
Yes dealing with others is difficult. But a key message of Jesus is this is what we have to do – especially if it is difficult. Otherwise we’ll be the salt which loses it saltiness or the light hiding under the bushel, or the fig tree which lost its fruit, or the wedding guest which didn’t go to the party etc etc etc. I could go on but there are just soooo many references in the NT that I really don’t need to go on.
Mark, thanks for the timely warning re. hubris. Your first six paragraphs were priceless!
When this is put in the context of “levels” it does not come across very well. Some are more experience-oriented; others intellectually-oriented in Bible study.
I consider myself 80% more interested in an intellectual discussion of religion and relate very well to the author’s description of that group. However, the experience-motivated one may be on a higher level than I in the Christian walk. Faith is also a gift; 1 Cor 13 indicates that faith is not the most important gift–love is.
Certain kinds of groups are so agreeable and lack fresh ideas, they seem banal to me–full of cliches, etc. But they might have some of the friendliest and welcoming members with whom to fellowship. My husband stays home an watches LLBN.
EM, not sure if you actually read all of Mark’s article? He was citing the levels as a tongue-in-cheek way as how we all think we are supposed spiritual masters, better than other Christians. As for your husband, I suspect you and your husband need to re-read Mark’s article again – and all of it carefully this time.
Mark: “The focus of the column is not to define who’s weak or strong, but to encourage getting together with people we judge as inferior.”
To those caught up in Mark’s order of wording. I suspect you are totally missing the point of Mark’s article.
Well done Mark, very good. I’ve had great debates with very educated theologians about biblical and philosophical mysteries. I’ve also dealt with people who are very pious. Yet all pale in comparison to two people in my local church:
i) the lady who cleans our local church toilets; and
ii) the head of our greater team, who makes new people feel welcome.
They both get Christianity better than most of us. We could only aspire to be like them.
In my youth I was the “boy who cleans the church toilets” 8-). At my boarding academy one of my nick-names was “Mr Clean” not because of my pristine behavior but because I cleaned the toilets in the mill – the dirtiest building on campus. Janitors see a side of life that most others prefer to ignore.
Church attending … an interesting appeal, Mark.
“In short, attending church and mingling with others often provides an antidote to loneliness, more opportunities for service, and growth from being around others different from us. The advantages of keeping away will probably be outweighed by the advantages of associating with others who can help us even as they challenge us.”
Does any Stage find it appealing to be told what to do for its own good? Not really is my reading of the Stages. Even Stage 3 picks their authority. And Stage 1 and 2 pretty much are driven to church involuntarily.
Stage 5 is a natural, if rare progression where we ‘return to the sacred stories and symbols but this time without being stuck in a theological box.’
A reason Stage 5 appears so rare is that it is the rare congregation that invites this type of participation.
Seventh-day Adventists at the official levels can be expected to consider Stage 5 and Stage 6 members as undisciplined when it comes to the 28 fundamentals. Pretty simple. Something to be avoided.
Then there is the case of the Millennials, Stage 4.
There is quite a bit of reporting regarding dissonance Millennials experience with the church. Rather than trying to be rid of the dissonance, what if the church accepted it as a natural coming of spiritual age?
The problem, of course, is the fear that once in Stage 4, the chances of seeing them again is rare. And we feel responsible. And fear for their eternal salvation if they leave. And that is because we believe our salvation is self-dependent in the final judgment. And this terror shows in our eyes as the Millennials take leave for their Stage 4 encounter. What Stage 4 is looking for on the way out is confirmation that the love of the congregation from which they are leaving, is the confirmation that ‘we know in party, and we prophesy in part.’ And the certainty that love never fails in this congregation.
If the Seventh-day Adventist church were to truly be interested in the Millennials, Stage 4, they would recognize them as at that point in their lives and be patient and make a welcoming place for them when they edge into Stage 5. Indeed, a congregation that is Stage 5 friendly, with a noticeable mix of Stage 5 members will leave a really good memory in the minds of those making their way out to experience Stage 4 independently and when it comes time to rejoin a congregation in Stage 5.
I’m reminded of the spiritual journey of Mortimer J. Adler, a noted 20th Century man of letters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_J._Adler If we could just accept, as Jesus accepted, that spiritual conversion is not of flesh and blood, even His own (Matthew 16:17), so surely conversion is not of us and therefore our responsibility, how much more irresistible would we be as congregations.
Might have to arrive early to find a seat.
Very well stated!
Thanks Bill.