Everyone’s talking about this article from the Washington Post about how the LDS church has stockpiled $100B:
I know a lot of people who wish the Church were more transparent (and some who don’t), but I have to say the headline is a bit inflammatory. My intention here isn’t to discuss whether the church has done something wrong. Rather, I want to discuss what this means for the future of the Church.
A few weeks ago, Mercedes and I were talking about how the church used to be a lot more involved in secular activities like Boy Scouts, basketball tournaments and roadshows. Now it seems they are backing away from that kind of thing. I speculated that if the church plays less of a role in people’s lives, they will be less inclined to donate and that as a result, the church will have to become less dependent on tithing. I suspect that the church actually does have projections that show tithing is leveling off. That may not be the reason the Church has cut back on roadshows and amassed so much money, but I think it is related.
Then, in the aftermath of the Washington Post story, my MIL Bonnie sent me a link to an interview with scholar and friend, Matt Bowman about a similar topic. Basically, Matt argues that in order to become a global institution, the Church must leave behind its attachments to Utah culture.
So what is the future of the Church: a deep, but local institution — or a more shallow, but global institution? (By the terms “deep” and “shallow” I don’t mean philosophically or spiritually. I mean the extent to which the church be involved in our day-to-day, secular activities?)
I think Matt is implying that the Church is making strategic moves to become a global institution, and in doing so, some of the local cultural practices are being left behind. But this results in a bit of a local institutional vacuum. What should fill the vacuum?
A phrase that the Church now likes to use is “home-centered, church-supported.” This suggests that they want at least some of the roles that used to be filled by the church to be taken up by families. But if we’re not careful we will just end up spending our time like everyone else. Basically, we will watch more TV. Here is a chart showing how Americans use leisure time:
I have often marveled at how robust LDS communities are compared to other groups I have been apart of. One of the great (and terrible) aspects of the church is that it can potentially encompass every aspect of your life. But perhaps that is changing. Perhaps the Church will become a global institution, but in doing so, the all-encompassing nature of local congregations will be eroded.
To use language I have been talking about lately, this may mean that the Church doesn’t want to be a Tribe. A Tribe is necessarily local, and the vision of the Church is universal. Maybe the Church leaders are right. Maybe Tribe is not the best role for the Church. But that doesn’t eliminate our need for tribal connections. It just means we will have to figure out new ways to meet those needs.
Watching more TV (or spending more time on the internet) won’t fill the social vacuum caused by a retreat from Church-sponsored secular activities. But I also don’t think the nuclear family can bridge the gap. If the Church enters a new global phase of existence, members need to be more explicit than ever about building their tribes out of relationships that originate within the family, work, neighborhood and other secular circles.
