Presenting our Beliefs in the Public Arena
Alan Wolfe of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life recently invited Elder Clayton M. Christensen, Area Authority, North America, Northeast, and a prominent Harvard Business School professor, to present a seminar on Mormons in American Politics. Margaret Woolley Busse, a member of the Public Affairs Committee for Greater Boston, attended the conference, and has kindly agreed to share her learnings about how to present what we believe to the general public.
As I listened to Elder Christensen present on the the topic of “Mormons and Public Life,” (in the wake of the Romney campaign), I found both his themes and his methodology for delivering them were great examples of effectively communicating our beliefs in a public arena. Below are the highlights:
The importance of being able to clearly explain why Mormons consider themselves Christian while others do not.
Elder Christensen succinctly explained our beliefs about the Apostasy and the subsequent Restoration, and in a very diplomatic but also uncompromising way, explained how other Christians tied themselves to tenets of the Nicean Creed and various subsequent Reformation ideas, while we adhere to what we believe to be 1st century Christianity. If more Mormons could articulate this narrative effectively (but not combatively), it would greatly help us as we contend with those calling us non-Christian.
The importance of articulating the difference between being truly religious vs. using the banner of religion as a means to gain power, incite hatred, and invoke violence.
He gave examples of people who declare themselves religious and have garnered power by doing so, but their actions reflect anything but (Ralph Reed of the Christian Right, who turned out had siphoned millions of dollars away as part of the Jack Abramoff scandal; Newt Gingrich, who it turned out was having an extra-marital affair at the same time he was prosecuting the Monica Lewinsky case; and the Islamic extremist who masterminded the horrific elementary school hostage situation in Chechnya a few years ago, and who, as it turned out, didn't know much about Islam at all).
Very often academics, the media, and general conversationalists, refer to "religious people" to include both of the aforementioned types. Elder Christensen rightly defined being "Christian" as simply someone who "[has] love one to another" (John 13:35) and as James says, “[visits] the fatherless and the widows in their affliction and [keeps] himself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27). As an addendum to the first learning, these attributes are what identifies one as Christian, not specific doctrinal beliefs.
The strong argument for religion working alongside democracy
He told a story of a friend of his who was a Fulbright scholar from China that had come here to study American democracy. He concluded that democracy here functioned so well because we have a strong religious foundation. Because Americans have, at least historically, attended churches and synagogues regularly, they were taught again and again the importance of abiding by a certain moral code. If one did not, not only would the law punish, but more importantly, so would God.
It is thus voluntary adherence to religiously-based values that keeps society in line, rather than the enforcement of a strict penal code. The Chinese scholar concluded that without this religious foundation that has now seeped through all elements of our culture, a state trying out democracy will fall into corruption, chaos, and quite possibly anarchy, as no citizen would feel compelled to abide by a moral code. In short, religion should not be considered as irrelevant--and possibly harmful--to our government, as many would like to assert, but instead key to its very existence.
The real role our Church plays in public life
Our church is involved in true political activism because we focus so strongly on strengthening families, and the family is the unit of society where people learn to be good and contributing citizens. He said when we teach in Relief Society and in Priesthood quorum how to strengthen our families, that is political activism. When we hold Family Home Evening once a week in our homes, that is political activism.
The effectiveness of using stories that emphasize people’s commonalities
Elder Christensen used compelling stories to begin each of the points he made, which grabbed the audience's attention and built on commonalities. For example, after he had briefly told the Joseph Smith story, Elder Christensen told a story of his own, where a fellow student at Oxford to whom he had enthusiastically given a Book of Mormon, had returned the book a day later, saying “This story at the beginning of the book—the one about this guy Joseph Smith? That should be put at the back—it is simply too unbelievable for anyone to continue reading!”
Well, this is in fact what everyone in the room was probably thinking, so it made people feel that Elder Christensen could understand their viewpoint. He continues, “So I said to myself, well is it really so unbelievable? So I went to the Bible and found many examples of young boys being called as prophets—Samuel, David, Daniel,” etc. In telling this story, he re-affirmed his own belief in the Joseph Smith, while being empathetic and reasonable. A reminder that before I launch into an argument that may be off-putting for some, I should begin with a story that helps people get comfortable and builds on our commonalities.
Can you think of other people/times where people have effectively shared what they believe with those that believe differently?
If you haven't had a chance to read Alan Wolfe's article Mormons and Money, I would encourage you to do so. It is quite good. Note, however, it does require a payment.
Related articles/posts:
Richard Bushman's Pew Center Forum speech Mormonism and Politics: Are they compatible?
President Thomas S. Monson -- working with others
President Gordon B. Hinckley -- Friend of the media
Public Affairs project: Mormonism 101
Leaven in the lump
Recent Comments