Runtu wrote:wenglund wrote:I understand that it may play well to the home team for you to refer to Church leaders as "suites", and I want to see you strengthen the bonds of your friendships here. However, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would caution againts using that kind of dehumanizing (mildly in this case) and disrespectful label.
I wasn't talking about church leaders. I was talking about the folks running the Church Office Building. It's interesting that you find my calling church employees "suits" dehumanizing when such was intended instead of trying to improve relations. Fascinating. I had lunch with my friend at the Church Office Building the other day, and he referred to them as "the suits." That's probably why that was fresh in my mind. Again, interesting that such a term is considered dehumanizing.
I didn't mean to put you on the defensive, John. My comment was meant as a helpful suggestion, not an accusation, and it wasn't a big deal to me, just something to consider. I know you have a good heart and wouldn't intentionally be mean or disrespectful.
By way of clarification (not argumentation), as I understand things, "dehumanization" is not a function of who certain terms are used in reference to, or who is using the terms, but the nature of the terms, themselves. If the term somehow removes or diminishes the inherent humanity, then it is dehumanizing. That is what I view happening when human employees are reduced to non-human "suits". You, of course, are free to view it differently.
I understand, too, that it may play well to the home team for you to ascribe "income" as the mission of the Church. However, again, if one is interested in improving relations between believers and unbelievers, I would also caution against making this kind of conspiratorial conjecture, particularly when it sharply conflicts with the stated mission of the Church.
The bottom line is growth and income. Again, it's fascinating to see you take a rather factual statement and find it disrespectful, going so far as to call it a "conspiratorial conjecture." Wade, the church dies if it doesn't grow and have income.
We evidently differ as to what is "fact" and what is "opinion"...and that is okay. While I think we may agree that tithes and offerings are intrumental in building the kingdom, to me it is not a "fact" that the mission of the Church is to generate income (which is what you had suggested, and what specifically differed with you about). That is your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it. My comment wasn't intended to accuse you of being disrespectful, but again to voice caution in stating your opinion as an unbeliever about Church motives (in carnal or lucre terms), because it may be vulnerable to being percieved as disrespectful by believers who view the mission of the Church to be salvific in nature (in spiritual terms). That's all. I don't see what is so fascinating about that.
In other words, good interfaith relations have a better chance when people are treated respectfully and taken at their word.
I heartily agree, which is why I'm finding it so strange that you've taken offense at dispassionate statements of fact.
Had I taken offense, let alone offense for dispassionate statements of fact, then I would find that strange as well.
But, knowing myself as well as I do, I am quite confident that I didn't take offense, and certainly not for dispassionate statements of fact. I wasn't even offended by your mildly dehumanizing and conjectural opinions about people working in the church office building and the mission of the Church. I figured they were well-intended and meant no harm, though perhaps not completely mindful of how they may come across to a broad range of members. I don't see what is so strange about that.
As for your expressed concern about what you see as "not a healthy trend" (and I do appreciate your concern for the welfare of the Church), I recall that some of the same sentiments were being expressed by some members and missionaries during my mission to South Texas in the early 70's (where the bulk of conversions were Mexican immigrants). I learned then that that concern had been felt by various members since the early days of the restoration. In fact, if one looks closely at Christ's mortal ministry, it is clear that the membership at that time was not drawn from the educational and economic elite, but those that were spiritually and physically poor, sick, meek and lowly--I.e. the "publicans and sinners".
My post was specifically aimed at the church's growth potential, which I see as hampered by overbuilding and lack of sustainable missionary work. If you again wish to turn that into a statement about the church's salvific mission (which I don't dispute), you're more than welcome to do so.
I don't mind bringing up the Church's salvific mission when I think it applies. But, in terms of the specific point I was addressing immediately above, I don't see that it would (which explains why I didn't mention it, even though I was welcome to do so).
If you were to have addressed what I actually did say, rather than what you have since welcomed me to say, that would have been helpful. ;-)
Yet, to me, in seeming inexplicable defiance of this perpetual concern, the Church has experienced very respectable growth throughout it's history, and its membership has continually risen among religious denominiations and communities world-wide in terms of educational and economic achievements, and can reasonably be said to have thrived.
I'm not particularly "concerned." If you read my post, you saw that I suggested "belt tightening," not some sort of apocalyptic collapse. The church has endured similar building sprees (notably in the late 1950s) that affected its bottom line. I suspect this particular one isn't going to prove fatal.
My partner in our land development business has had extensive experience interacting with the building department of the Church, and from what I gather from him, the Church, at least in terms of its land and building holdings, is not hurting in the least, though the recent housing slump in the US may put a bit of a damper on the rate of transactions.
This latest "sprees" was an attempt by the Church to meet rising demand (rather than an attempt to stimulate demand, as you inferred).
In other words, whatever decline there may be in the rate of building of new church houses, will not likely be a function of "belt-tightening", but diminished demand for church houses in various locations. For example, since there are fewer housing developments being built in California, or Nevada, or Arizona, or Florida (the states that have been hit hardest by the housing slump), there understandably will be less need to build new church houses in those subdivisions.
Does that make sense?
What I have learned from this, metaphorically speaking, is that the best cakes are often made from scratch rather than from packaged mixes. In other words, the raw materials brought into the mix can be advantageous since they tend to be more easily shaped, combined, developed and fashioned into the desired finished products. As Christ once said, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
I can respect, though, that others may view it differently. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
This exchange shows me that we still have a lot of work to do. Wade is often accused of backhanded slams in his posts and expresses surprise. In this case, Wade finds my descriptions offensive and disrespectful, and I likewise am mystified.
I hope that my clarifications have been of some help in de-mystifying things for you, if not also corrective of your misperceptions of what I thought and meant by what I have said. Again, I am not accusing you of anything (backhanded slams or otherwise). I am simply offering a word of caution about certain terms and phrases that may prove delitarious to improving interfaith relations. As long as you understand this (particularly in the helpful spirit in which it was intended), then there may not be all that much work to be done. ;-)
Thanks, -Wade Englund-