A few days ago we had a great series of poll questions from Bloggernacle journalist EmJen on worship styles. In what will probably seem like quite a tangent until I get to the end of my post, that made me think about a couple of conversations I’ve had relating to school, work, and extracurricular activities.
A Story from Work
The passing of 2011 to 2012 represented more than just a change in the final digit to my journal entry dates for me. It coincided with a rite of passage…the closure of 18 years of formal classroom education with my graduation from my Master’s program in tax accounting. Between December and January, I transitioned from wearing a backpack every day with jeans and a t-shirt…to carrying around a laptop bag every day with a button-down shirt and slacks.
Yet, even without being in a formal classroom setting, I did not graduate from learning, from teachers, or even from textbooks. Now, my teachers were the various seniors, managers, senior managers, and partners on my engagements…and as textbooks, I had the Internal Revenue Code and Regs, as well as so many frameworks. Instead of case studies to study out problems from the sideline, I would be in the fray.
And so I was. My first week, even before I had gone to tax entry training, I was assigned to an engagement that spilled over into the weekend to work. And on my first Saturday of work, at the client site in a button-down and slacks (because I didn’t get the memo, and didn’t think to ask before hand, that when you work on the weekends, the dress code definitely relaxes considerably since nobody else is there — hey…dress for the job you want, not the job you have, right?), we were working.
But our close-knit team was also talking. The partner to the engagement started asking about our backgrounds. Over the conversation, she seemed to quietly calculate and connect the different backgrounds and stories…searching for something. When everyone on the team had shared our stories, she presented her conclusions: “I think our team is so proficient at working through high stress situations because we all have been in high stress backgrounds…so even a new staff who is spending his first week at the firm can jump right into things and perform well.”
I didn’t see how she had connected the dots. For the most part, the only thing we really had in common as a team was the fact that our backgrounds were all so unusual and eclectic…I mean, throughout college, I fenced. How many accountants have done that? And even though one of the other team members went on a mission for the church — an area where I potentially could have matched — even that ended up being a unique background experience for our team, since I never went on a mission.
As if able to sense my puzzlement, the partner continued: “It doesn’t matter that we all have done different things…but between Andrew’s and [engagement manager]’s very different sport experiences and [engagement experienced staff]’s church mission, these are all experiences that prepare people for dealing with stress…I’ve found that you can’t often rely purely on grades, test scores, or proficiency with accounting rules to determine who will really thrive in this industry.”
I think that when I first entered university, I would’ve viewed much of my successes as having been dependent on grades and test scores. But just from hearing what the partner was saying, it definitely resonated with me.
A Story from School
When I read some articles throughout the Bloggernacle about happenings at BYU, I sense that there is often a troubled relationship between alumnus and alma mater. On the one hand, people point to great experiences they’ve had, great people they’ve met…but sometimes, it’s embarrassing that the same school can be associated with controversy.
I didn’t go to BYU, but having graduated from Texas A&M, I think I can understand some of the issues.
Without getting too political, I’ll just say that from a perspective of school spirit and whatnot, I started university curious and resentful of a particular cultural “label” at A&M: the idea of the “2%-er.”
The idea behind a 2-percenter is simple: these are the students who do not participate in A&M traditions. In other words, they sit down during football games instead of standing up…they leave early from said games…or they don’t even go to games at all! They don’t attend Silver Taps or Muster. They don’t say “Howdy!” (even when someone says it to them first.) In fact, all they really do is go to class.
You might be thinking: well, don’t people go to school for the education? Aren’t classes ultimately what it’s about?
But that’s the asserted point: classes and grades are only 2% of the educational experience.
When I first entered A&M, I resented the 2-percenter idea because to me, it seemed like a way to penalize directed, focused, probably introverted students and to idolize extroverts who can pre-game the hardest before every game.
…but what I came to realize over my course of study is that one doesn’t have to look at this idea of non-classroom education so cynically. Perhaps the most memorable and formative experiences we can have during school are in fact ones fostered through our involvements in extracurricular activities.
Once again, the interesting thing is that it doesn’t really matter what a person does. Through fencing, I developed leadership skills. My brother has been just a little bit involved with the Kiwanis family of community service organizations since middle school. I’ll suppose he’s picked up a few leadership skills along the way too. When the Student Review was reviving at BYU, many of the creators and writers from its first incarnation spoke similarly about its role for them. What do swords, community service, and journalism have in common? (Sounds like the lead-in to a joke, if you ask me…) The point is this: hands-on experiences put students in situations where they have to stretch themselves and their organizations…the particulars may vary, but the general skills are quite transferable.
Synthesis and Questions
One thing that’s important to realize is that different people have very different passions. I’ve tried to get my brother to start fencing, and he’s certainly tried to get me to become involved in Circle K (and now that I’m out of school, he wants me to join a Kiwanis Young Professionals group.) What so thrills and excites him there doesn’t speak to me, and vice versa. (Maybe I’m just a cold, heartless person and he’s a lazy, unathletic bum?) But in some respects, it’s OK that we have different interests…because there is plenty of opportunity for each of us to pursue our own passions and make changes on ourselves and on others.
The important thing is that if my brother didn’t enjoy what he was doing, he probably wouldn’t be motivated to do so much for it. I definitely feel the same thing is true for me. So, at the very least, pursuing passion has a direct impact on our ability to develop.
It’s true that certain organizations are going to be better at teaching certain kinds of things than others…but it’s also true that you could probably learn those kinds of things from other organizations in the same category. Or, to put in another way, while both my brother and I have learned to raise funds, seek out potential donors and maintain relationships with existing donors, network with various related parties, plan and host events, I’d be willing to venture that I get more exercise in fencing, but not as much of a community service impact as Circle K. However, for community service, Circle K isn’t the only option…and for exercise, fencing isn’t the only option either.
And so…that’s kinda what brought me back to EmJen’s post that I linked all the way up top. If we can recognize that different people can have different worship styles, then it would seem like a natural conclusion (at least to me) that they should be able to seek out different activities and organizations for pursuing those different worship styles.
What if we treated religion more like an extracurricular activity? What if we recognized more fully that, just like neither my fencing club nor my brother’s Circle K has a monopoly on leadership development, no one religion has a monopoly on personal or interpersonal moral development? Or even if we try to say one has “more” or “better” development, what would happen if we more fully thought about the possibility that different people can progress at different rates depending on whether they are pursuing their interests? That if there isn’t something about an activity that thrills and excites you, then perhaps that is hindering or plateauing your development across the board?
And I would say something more. A lot of the time, we focus on, “Is it true?” “Is it right?” I don’t mean to downplay the nature of truth claims in any particular religion (although, I guess having said that, I will inevitably proceed to do so), but what if we viewed truth claims of a religion as being a smaller percentage — say…two percent…– of the experience taken on the whole? What if we came to expect that people would seek to engage themselves with more than just book learning and classroom instruction?
Wheat & Tares 
Kind of the way Anglicans have high, middle and low church? Some worship scouting and the rest of the gospel passes them by?
Some interesting thoughts there.
I participate in Scouting because I feel I want to do something to be helpful to the rising generation. I participate in my worship meetings because I love the Lord Jesus Christ with all my heart, and because the Eternal God of the whole universe has so commanded me. I hold his priesthood, and stand with the brethren of my ward and stake to serve all who want to join us.
The Savior said let every man [and woman] be anxiously engaged in a good cause. I applaud Church members who get involved in something beyond the Church. But I hope our religion is at our very core, rather than just being something we have chosen to do for a while because it makes us feel good.
I’m a convert to the Church, so my perspective might differ from others who are Mormon for cultural reasons.
From the OP: …I’ve found that you can’t often rely purely on grades, test scores, or proficiency with accounting rules to determine who will really thrive in this industry…
In medical school, there is an honor society called AOA, that only the top 10% or so of students “make”. It is largely based on bookwork, tests, etc. One of the surgery professors actually did a study where he had all of the attending surgeons rate the residents they worked with over the past 10 years – categories such as good with patients, technically proficient, would want them as their surgeon, etc. He then correlated the results with AOA status.
Just like hinted at in Andrew’s post, there was actually an INVERSE relationship. The residents who did well in book work did not rank as high as SURGEONS on any level. So membership in an honor society did not translate to the real world.
One more thought. From the OP: …what would happen if we more fully thought about the possibility that different people can progress at different rates depending on whether they are pursuing their interests…
I actually went to BYU for one year before my mission until I repented and transferred after I got home 🙂 It was actually a good place and I had a lot of good friends there.
Like most freshmen, I live in the dorms. Being an engineering student, I took physics. I say “took”, but I never really went to class. I went the first day to pick up the syllabus, but never again. I turned in homework. I took tests in the testing center. I relied on other students to tell me if anything changed. I read the whole book. I got an A.
There was a friend a few doors down in the same class. He went to class religiously and never missed a day. He took great notes. Yet he never even cracked the cover of the textbook except to copy down homework problems. He also got an A.
The point – we both got out of physics what we needed. We both got A’s. We had different learning styles, however. I learn by reading and zone out in lectures. He learned by listening and zoned out in textbooks. If we were forced into a “one-size fits all” approach, which would it have been? No matter which one you chose, one of us would have suffered and not reached our full potential.
Some people already do that, or less.
Love your thoughts on this. I like that idea, that people can self-select what is going to benefit them most and still get an “A”.
Love your post. Since we all have different interests and abilities, it makes perfect sense to treat religion as an extracurriculur activity –but that’s precisely what we “Cafeteria Mormons” get criticized for.
As I’ve been wrangling through my thoughts on Mormonism, and what my place is in the church, I’ve been focusing more and more on community rather than doctrine. I believe that, as you inferred, religion can be about truth claims but it more importantly is about the experience. Excellent points.
re 1:
Stephen,
I love the idea of high and low churches…I had never heard of that before…When I was writing the post, I think I left it up for a lot of interpretation.
One way to interpret it would be to allow for multiple valid approaches within the same organization. So, for example, within the church, if Boy Scouting is consistent with the goals of the church (and i would assume that it has such a privileged position because it does), then why not allow people who are really interested in it to stick with it?
But if it’s not your thing, you shouldn’t have to do it. There should be other equally valid approaches instead of an approach that says that some things are more essential, or that you have to try and do it all.
…however, another way to interpret it completely would be to recognize the validity of different organizations and approaches. With a “one true church” model, that’s kinda like a “one-size fits all” and the issue is…if the size really *doesn’t* fit, then you risk having people burn out from the entire religion thing.
re 2:
ji,
I guess what I would say is that religion should be expressable in multiple ways. So Still, I’m curious with this:
How does religion get to the very core, if it’s not because it — in some way, shape or fashion — lifts us up, enlightens us, enlarges our soul, etc.,?
Great post. I found that my relationship with religion improved greatly when I started treating it like an extracurricular activity. I can use it to enrich my life and be really involved or pull back when it isn’t working as well for me without feeling any sense of guilt. I wouldn’t say that religion IS my life, just an important component of it.
I think a lot of attitudes could improve with this approach.
On a tangential note, I find the 2%-er theory kind of stupid, simply because it makes the assumption that every student can live on campus, not work,and have time for a thousand other things. For older students or married students or students who work, it’s just not realistic. I did the most extracurricular stuff when I was unmarried, not working and living in the dorms. Now that none of those are true, I just don’t have the time for anything else.
So if I’m getting this right – no matter what your “core” is (accounting, school, church), we should all seek to diversify in what we do outside of that core.
Diversification is good, if your core is stable.
OK, I’m off work, so I can respond to more comments…
re 3, 4,
Mike S,
My dad reported a similar correlation between successful RNs and their grades/test scores. At some level, it makes sense…a lot of what people see on the ER floor (or in surgery, I would imagine) doesn’t exactly match textbook cases…people have to be able to think on their feet and work with novel situations.
In so many things, the real world is just so much messier than textbook cases…
re 7,
Course Correction
I guess there just has to be a way to point out that one alternative to cafeteria Mormonism that people would probably like less is if the people stopped eating at all…we should be comfortable with asserting that it’s best to get your fill of foods you enjoy than to be turned off of the whole thing.
We need to embrace the fact that we do have so many offerings that you can get full without having something of everything.
re 11,
LovelyLauren
I think you really put what I was trying to say to Course Correction well: by shifting our approach to religion, we can improve our relationship with it. I think a lot of people might at first dislike the idea of religion being “extracurricular,” but I think that if the choice is between hating it or treating it in an extracurricular way, then the latter is a clear better option…
Great points on the other problems of the 2-percenter idea…I completely agree that it completely trivializes many students who don’t really fit a particular mold as far as location w/r/t campus or time spent therein.
re 12,
Frank,
I probably wasn’t as clear as I could have been (perhaps because I still don’t know what the exact point is…hehe), but I would think you could go even further than that. I don’t think we have to think of the “core” activity and the activities we do as diversification as totally separate things. So, diversification strengthens the core, so to speak.
For example, if we can diversify the way that we worship and worship in a way that best suits us, then that *strengthens* our core church experience, does it not?
In the same way, as my engagement partner was mentioning, the team’s involvement in activities that seem to have nothing to do with accounting ended up making us all better accountants.
“With a “one true church” model, that’s kinda like a “one-size fits all” and the issue is…if the size really *doesn’t* fit, then you risk having people burn out from the entire religion thing.”
Agreed, this reminds me of measurements of model fidelity. If an implemented model is relatively new then usually fidelity to the model stays pretty “pure” and “narrow”. But as an implemented model ages (and begins to be applied to broader populations) fidelity to the model usually starts to widen. Usually because the model doesn’t meet the needs of the wider population, and because the needs of the original population change. The LDS church is a young church and still has narrow fidelity. Especially compared to other religions where there is much greater variety in model implementation (e.g. Catholicism, Buddhism). 1000 years from now it will be interesting to see what types of LDS church fidelity will be available.
I think this can highlight the difference between Church and the Gospel.
The Church has programs and there can be emphasis on “activity” and being in the fold, doing things the way we are told to do them to worship and grow. It works for many and is highly correlated and organized for a global organization…it is impressive to me.
But some people get lost in those things, forgetting there are other ways that are equally beneficial. Sports, hobbies, school clubs…to me, these things can really help a person as much as seminary, scouts/yw, and camps.
I think the gospel can be lived many ways, and different individuals have different approaches to it. But the church is often very conforming. There is a difference. One size doesn’t have to fit all.
re 17,
Troth,
With 1000 years, anything can happen, but it’s interesting to see (now) how people are so opposed to broadening/expanding implementation.
re 18,
Heber13,
Yeah, one thing I would say is that, recognizing a difference between Church and Gospel…the church doesn’t have to just be *one* program…it’s ok for the church to emphasize its importance…but why can’t church also find a way to incorporate sports, hobbies, etc.,? Basically, wouldn’t it be even more impressive for this global organization to find ways to relate *more* activities to its purview?
Andrew, doesn’t it seem the church has cut back on those other activities for budget reasons and because they want to be globally uniform, and they also are not wanting to put burdens on the family with more things.
I think that is fine for the church to pull back from things so people aren’t obligated to participate in church activities, but it means my kids need to be involved in things outside of church, and sometimes that conflicts with their activities in the church, and that is OK.