milk & honey mamas

Contributed by Kristen

Christianity had become the imperial religion. A man named Arius, a presbyter from Alexandria, was concerned about a topic which would become a central theological debate concerning the person of Christ: the relationship between the stated union of Christ’s humanity and divinity in the person of Jesus. Arius was anxious to defend classical theism against the potential danger of human stain or divine “mixing,” arguing that Jesus must have been a created being, not of the same substance with God (homoiousios, meaning “like substance”). Athanasius, also from Alexandria and later the bishop, adamantly defended the humanity of Jesus, arguing that Jesus was co-eternal with the father and of the same substance with God (homoousios). The debate became heated, with staunch defenders on both sides claiming orthodoxy and insisting that the other side be declared anathema. The debate was officially addressed at the council of Nicea, where Athanasius’ position was declared valid and Arius’ was declared heretical, but it continued with various defenses and arguments through to the council at Chalcedon, which proclaimed official Christological language without resolving the metaphysical questions involved. Questions about the metaphysical realities and communication between Christ’s two natures continue in various forms today.

Sometimes Latter-day Saints look at Christian history with some form of derision, criticizing things like the council of Nicea as an improper cite for establishing dogma. I remember teaching such criticisms as a missionary, with the contrasting idea that revelation comes not through argumentation and political persuasion but through clear lines of authority. But when I read portions of our history, such as D&C 41-44, I see that our processes of correlation and process of creating orthodoxy are not really so different. 

‘Correlation’ is an interesting idea. The church’s correlation committee is officially responsible for “ensuring that all work aligns with the doctrine of Jesus Christ and inspired policies of the Church. This department grew out of a 20th-century reform movement in the Church, led by President Joseph F. Smith, that focused on simplifying and centralizing work across Church organizations.” (see here). A global membership means that customs, cultures, values, goals, and norms will differ enormously across the institution’s body. The question becomes what it means to have a unified doctrine, suggesting that doctrine is something separate from realities of culture, custom, race, gender, and so on.

In the earliest days of the Latter-day Saint community, correlation was not the primary goal. It is primarily when the movement becomes an institution that issues of organization, leadership, authority (and, by association, heresy) become central issues. It is easy for me to criticize these eras of church history, to see from my vantage point their blind spots, weaknesses, and contextual situatedness. I think this critical lens has value—it is important to note how historical context shapes what becomes established doctrine and practice. But it also has its limits. Correlation is an ongoing project in essentially every aspect of contemporary life: how do we reconcile and relate secular and religious teachings? How do we weigh goods in various aspects of life? How do we allocate child care, balance work and “life,” establish norms for education, policy, and politics? Difference is a critical facet of this reality. We are all prone to respond to differences with fear and attempt to control and tame it. The colonial project is a good example of this impetus. But even as we criticize this, we know that difference in its polarity can be almost unbearably uncomfortable. 

As I think about law, correlation, and the process of establishing orthodoxy this week, I am asking questions about what uniformity means. I am wondering how (practically) to live with difference, theologically, culturally, politically, and so on. I am wondering what it means to be ‘one,’ and whether that is a bigger thing than being one in stated belief. I am wondering how to go about efforts of correlation with integrity and compassion, acknowledging honestly that correlation is an inevitable aspect of life. Wonder, and wander, with me? 

Ideas for Play

Contributed by Kristen

• Read from Girls Who Choose God 

• Talk about different religious laws in different religions (the three sister religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are helpful examples because of their many similarities). Consider the example of prayer:

• Try this video about how people in different traditions pray

• Read from D&C 41-44. What was going on? What would it have been like to have heard these things? Maybe try a translation activity (rewrite a scripture in your own words)

• What is a commandment?

• What does it mean to obey?

• Consider an activity about law and obedience:
  • Write down different “commandments,” some which you think are appropriate and some which are not (ignore everyone with blue eyes, etc). Hide them around a room and have the kids find and practice them. Then discuss. Are laws good just because they’re laws? What should you do if someone tells you to do something you feel is wrong? Is obedience following even if it makes you uncomfortable? 
    
  • Talk about people who followed God even when it was hard (share some favorite scripture stories, look at Standout Saints)
    
  • Talk about people who followed God even when their actions contradicted the law (Martin Luther King Jr., Fanny Lou Hamer, etc. Try Courageous World Changers.)