Last week, many of us here at Wheat & Tares began a dialogue about “Middle Way Mormonism” that spread over to a discussion from Sam Brunson at By Common Consent. I love that everyone has had such different perspectives; it has certainly forced me to re-evaluate my own thoughts about the middle way.
For example, when I wrote my own post “Outsider Thoughts,” I wrote two things in particular that I have now had to think more deeply about since then. The first thing was about the definition of the middle way.
The definition of the Middle Way
In my post, I said:
But the group in between them — called various names but which I’ll refer to as “Middle Way Mormonism” — challenges the working definitions, challenges the very dichotomy that traditional Mormons and exMos adhere to.
Andrew S, “Outsider Thoughts on Middle Way Mormonism”
What I didn’t state (because I didn’t want to derail the conversation) were the various names that I had provisionally associated with the Middle Way — in my mind, I had at the time other terms like “Cafeteria Mormonism” or “nuanced Mormonism” or “progressive Mormonism.”
I didn’t dive into these terms because most of these terms have obvious connotative defects that make them unsuitable for productive dialogue. (Notwithstanding that “nuance” sometimes is regarded negatively as overwrought “mental gymnastics,” quite frankly, the insinuation that that orthodox Mormonism may not be nuanced is not an assertion I feel entirely comfortable with doubling down on. Hawkgrrrl indirectly addresses this in her “Finding Nuance at Church“)
Of these three alternatives, I thought at the time that perhaps Cafeteria Mormonism might be closest to a neutral synonym.
…so I was very surprised to find myself reacting quite viscerally to certain things in Sam’s post and the ensuing discussion. Firstly: Sam’s overall thesis of a more universalist Middle Way:
But here’s the thing: we’re all Middle Way Mormons.[fn4] Or, at least, the vast majority of us are.
Sam Brunson, “My Middle Way Mormonism”
In my sense that the cafeteria is similar or synonymous with the Middle Way, I actually like this sort of statement. But at the same time, I also empathized with the pushback against this sentiment. Christian Kimball captured this well in his comment:
But but . . . as a proudly middle way person (with public creds, no less!) I think there’s something missing when we go to the “we’re all” formulation, something missing about the lived experience of people who are writing and talking and claiming “middle way” as an out group label. One way to say it is to pick up the idea of trauma but maybe expand the edges. It seems to me that there is always (there’s that word—but I’m going to use it) some kind of trauma:
christiankimball, “My Middle Way Mormonism” comment excerpt
Several commenters (including christian and our very own Kristine A) recognized in Sam’s post a description of cafeteria Mormonism, but I was surprised when I read Sam’s rejection of the term.
At the same time, I don’t like “cafeteria Mormon” as a descriptor. Partly it’s aesthetic—while there are some hipster high-end cafeterias, its connotation is (in my mind) elementary school school lunch. But also, it implies choosing, and only choosing those things that appeal to you. And that doesn’t strike me as the way participating Mormons act. We might prefer the chicken nuggets of religion, but we also try the bitter greens if they’re served to us. And the things we accept or not are based partly on taste, true, but also on feeling and compatibility and personal revelation and inspiration and familial obligation and sense of duty and sense of mystery and so many other things that pointing to our decisions as picking and choosing purely based on personal taste strikes me as so simplistic and wrong as to be useless. (In fact, if we want to limit Middle Way Mormonism to those who have suffered some sort of trauma, they’re kind of in the opposite position as a cafeteria customer, unless the cafeteria we envision them in is, in fact, an elementary school cafeteria where all of the food is disgusting.)
Sam Brunson, “My Middle Way Mormonism” comment excerpt
So, my first minor conclusion was that I do think that cafeteria Mormonism is different than Middle Way. (My co-bloggers are probably rolling their eyes at me for taking so long to agree with them on this.)
But, my next issue was in wondering at how to differentiate the two, and how to differentiate whatever I think the Middle Way is from whatever Sam thinks it is (acknowledging that he doesn’t see his approach as being Cafeteria).
And that got me thinking about trauma.
The role of trauma in the Middle Way
Again, in my original post, I had written that I recognized some people that I would certainly label as Middle Way who didn’t seem to have gotten there through religious trauma.
I think that there are many ways people can get to this point, and different ways have different odds for continued church involvement. For example, one slight disagreement I’d have with Kristine’s model is that it implies that becoming a less literal believer only happens after a catalyst “traumatizes” a “true believer.” Yet I have met several folks who grew up reading Sunstone and Dialogue and so their belief was already informed by the warts and messiness of history and theology — they didn’t have a “traumatized believer” stage because there was no surprise. This, I think, is the fundamental argument behind “inoculation” concepts within church apologetics.
Andrew S, “Outsider Thoughts…”
And even after thinking about this more, I would still consider folks in this category as being Middle Way folks.
And, even further, Cody’s follow-up post Community Vulnerability and the Middle Way went one step further: it gave me a glimpse of a religious community in which the Middle Way is not simply a reluctant side effect of religious trauma, but a way of engaging that can be institutionally cultivated. As Cody wrote:
The tradition of Anglicanism is more caught than taught, so we provide a great deal of leeway for people to just breathe it in and let the Spirit do the work. In order to do so, there has to be a great deal of humility and vulnerability within the community. Does the Presence at Eucharist mean transubstantiation as the Romans believe, or is it less literal? We Episcopalians are happy to let things remain a mystery, so leave it for the believer to discern for themselves. We must have the humility to admit we don’t know with precision how this stuff works, and the vulnerability to be wrong or let others come to their own conclusions (which may be different than mine).
Cody Hatch, “Community Vulnerability…”
So, the second thing I had to grapple with was reconciling my own perception that the Middle Way (at least in Mormonism) is a struggle or a setting apart, while for others, the Middle Way is normative and institutionally supported.
I don’t have a clean answer to this, except to point out that to me, it still seems that there is a difference between how traditional believers carry themselves in Mormonism from how those I would describe as Middle Way Mormons carry themselves. Sam described something in his article that struck me, even though he caveated later that it was said tongue-in-cheek:
And while I agree that most who choose to believe that they’re not picking and choosing don’t recognize that they are, in fact, picking and choosing, I don’t know what to do about that except to open up the acceptability of picking and choosing. Sure, there will always be people who claim that their net is in fact gross, or that their net is the best net there is. In fact, I’d put myself squarely in that camp. I know I’m a smart and moral person, so the things I choose to do must clearly be the best, smartest, and most moral things. The trick, I think, is to somehow convince myself that, even if my choices are the best, smartest, and most moral choices, others’ choices are not inherently worse, dumber, and more immoral. (That’s not to say that some of their choices aren’t one or more of those things, but it’s critical that I don’t label them as worse, dumber, and more immoral just because they’re not the choices I made.)
Sam Brunson, “My Middle Way Mormonism” comment excerpt
The thing that struck me is this: such a self-assured confidence seems profoundly antithetical to the Middle Way. In my observations, middle wayers don’t have to “convince [them]selves” of these sorts of things.
In fact, I’d probably go so far as to say, whether one is a political liberal or political conservative, whether one is religiously traditionalist or religious progressive, that if one’s basic stance is a self-confidence in one’s smartness, rightness, morality, what-have-you, then that is probably contrary to the Middle Way.
I’d probably say that it’s not trauma itself that is constitutive of the Middle Way, but rather the way that trauma appears to be one of the best ways for a person who has never confronted the contingency of their beliefs to finally have that confrontation. And that instead, what constitutes the Middle Way is that recognition of contingency. We cannot simply take our beliefs for granted as being certain and unassailable.
To me, it seems that it’s easier to see this as often occurring in the more progressive direction within Mormonism because the institutional center does seem more conservative — and so most progressive Mormons will confront the sense that their own intuitions are regarded with deep suspicion and distrust by friends, family, and religious leaders — but this isn’t an inherently conservative or progressive thing (and the suspicion that triggers further introspection doesn’t have to be with one’s co-religionists), and it’s also easy to imagine communities with a progressive institutional center that don’t have this.
And again, this says nothing on whether the Middle Way is a path people should pursue. After all, maybe it’s important for people to take an absolute stand and insist that certain other viewpoints are not worthy of serious consideration and engagement.
But, if one is going to pursue the Middle Way, then to sustain the Middle Way, I think that a person must independently regain some form of this confidence (that’s probably a better way to reframe “spiritual independence”), but in so doing, this newfound confidence shouldn’t look like replacing one unyielding truth with another, but rather of replacing an unyielding truth with a deeply more personalized one.
Wheat & Tares 
There are so many good things to be found in Mormonism. The cultural self-righteous attitude of “We Have The Truth” is not one of them. I am seeing a trend of people —mostly men — who are looking for a way to leave the basic history claims behind and yet keep the cultural and social dynamics of authority. Too often, the changes they attempt to make, become a play for power through published articles that claim: I have The Truth. Come Follow Me.
Maybe Middle Way Mormonism (MWM) needs to simply focus on the recognizition that there are many ways to live a life that are equally pleasing to God.
It’s worth thinking a bit more about Cody’s discussion of Middle Way Christians. He explains that you can quite comfortably be a MWC within the confines of his Episcopalian denomination. I am sure there are more conservative denominations or megachurches where intradenominational MWC is less of an option, but it is quite easy to slide over to another Protestant denomination that fits one’s new MWC views. There is so little “trauma” in getting to or being a MWC that it isn’t even a thing. If a young Methodist or a young Lutheran comes home from college and tells mom and dad that they were attending a different denomination or a funky new megachurch and really liked it — I doubt mom and dad throw a fit or shun their kid.
In contrast, there is little official toleration for the Middle Way within the LDS Church (although they really hope you keep signing checks and accept whatever callings they do extend to you). And moving to another Mormon denomination is much less available (the Community of Christ is the only realistic alternative but appeals to only a small percentage of MWMs) and is not in any sense accepted or approved by mainstream Mormons.
So apart from focusing on Middle Wayers or trying to define who they are and what they do or don’t believe, we also ought to look the other way, at institutional Mormonism and the LDS Church, and ask: Why does the Church make the Middle Way so unwelcome and perceive it as so threatening? Why do so many Mormons absolutely go ballistic when their friend or sibling or child openly moves to the Middle?
I am an LA Temple cafeteria mormon. I always go for the macaroons.
for six years, Siddhartha and his followers lived in silence and never left the forest.
For drink, they had rain.
For food, they had a grain of rice, or a broth of mud, or the dropping of the passing bird.
They were trying to master suffering by making their minds so strong they would forget about their bodies.
Then, one day, Siddhartha heard an old musician on a passing boat, speaking to his pupil:
– If you tighten the string too much, it will snap, and if you leave it too slack, it won’t play.
Suddenly, Siddhartha realized that these simple words held the great truth, and that in all these years he had been following the wrong path.
– If you tighten the string too much, it will snap, and if you leave it too slack, it will not play.
A village girl offered Siddhartha her bowl of rice, and for the first time in years, he tasted proper food. But when the ascetics saw their master bathing and eating like an ordinary person felt betrayed, as if Siddhartha had given up the great search for enlightenment.
– Come and eat with me.
– You have betrayed your vows, Siddharta.
– You have given up the search.
– We can no longer follow you.
– We can no longer learn from you.
– To learn is to change. The path to enlightenment is in the middle way. It is the line between all opposite extremes.
– If I can reach enlightenment, make this bowl float upstream.
The Middle Way was the great truth Siddhartha had found the path he would teach to the world.
Dave B., the boundaries between different Protestant theological approaches and communities tend to be a lot more blurry than the boundaries of a religious organization like the LDS church, but that’s not to say that all movement between different Protestantisms is culturally inconsequential. It might be more useful to think in terms of overlapping poles or clusters of Protestant expression (Charismatic, Reformed, Evangelical, Emergent, Mainline, Fundamentalist, various expressions of Black Protestantism) , and there could be a lot of institutional or familial trauma as you move between poles. Parents who have spent their lives at an Episcopal parish (Mainline/liberal) probably will be completely unconcerned about their kid going off and joining a United Methodist congregation (also Mainline/liberal) or even a more broadly Evangelical non-denominational church (Evangelical, but could still be close enough to not make mom and dad cry), whereas they might be concerned when their kid joins a Charismatic church, a hardcore Reformed church, or even a conservative Anglican parish (which is theoretically the same global denomination as the Episcopal church!). Similarly, parents who are members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (suuuper hardcore Reformed) might only go tsk tsk if their kid joins a reformed Baptist congregation (also super hardcore Reformed) but could very well think their kid is unsaved and actually going to hell if he joins a Presbyterian Church in the USA congregation (Mainline/liberal oh noes!) and will probably be really, really bothered if he joins a Sovereign Grace Ministries church (because even though it’s arguably Reformed, it’s also Charismatic). The issue in each of these cases is not the denomination change per se that is the problem but the change in the broader approach to belief and practice.
The point is not to laugh at all of the different denominations, because denominational lines don’t actually serve all of the same kinds of boundary-marking functions for Protestants as they do for, say, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Roman Catholics. Protestants typically see members of other Protestant denominations as a part of the same universal church. But that, at the same time, the kind of church you go to does matter for a Protestant. The lines just aren’t drawn at the denominational boundary, and they’re usually more of a spectrum than a line.
Kullervo, thanks for the helpful details. One hard line for Protestant denoms is whether they are “in communion” with another denom, which means either that a fellow priest from a different denom can conduct mass and offer the eucharist, or that members from another denom can take the eucharist. There there are open communion denoms where anyone can take the eucharist.
Mormonism has the strange hybrid where there is an open communion in the sense that anyone, even unbaptized non-Christians, can partake of the sacrament if they so choose (which probably suggests to some observers that Mormons have robbed the eucharist of any vestige of real presence, making it a purely symbolic activity, not a sacrament), but at the same time a closed communion in the sense that no priest of officer of any other denomination can conduct a service or bless our sacrament.
Mormonism has such an unconventional approach to theology and church governance.
Dave B: From my experience the Episcopal Church pretty much views all other Christian denominations as part of one, holy, catholic church. Other Christian baptisms, so long as they are performed in the name of the Trinity, are accepted as valid, so a visiting Presbyterian, Roman Catholic (though they wouldn’t), Lutheran, Baptist, *or even Mormon* could partake of the Eucharist. The stigma of switching denominations is practically absent and the focus is on living the Christian life in whatever tradition speaks to you. The LDS Church’s exclusivity claims make that type of approach much more difficult, providing a one-size-fits-all tradition, which is why there is so much pressure on those who don’t subscribe to that template.
It seems that the LDS tradition is similar to the Roman Catholic church, where there is a single, authoritative hierarchy and varying levels of adherence to those edicts. There are quite liberal Catholics as well as quite conservative Catholics all under the same umbrella. There is a lot of tension there, but that seems like the approach the LDS Church is headed toward, and I wonder if that is what Sam meant by his comments.
The LDS church definitely practices closed communion, in that only baptized members are supposed to take the sacrament, even though they don’t check your membership status and won’t actually forbid you if you shouldn’t but insist. To my knowledge, this is the same way that virtually every denomination with closed communion does it. For example, only baptized Catholics are supposed to take communion in a Roman Catholic church, but they don’t check your membership card at the rail. Furthermore, very few Protestant denominations practice closed communion anyway.
As far as a denomination’s willingness to let other denomination’s ordained ministers administer communion goes (very few Protestant churches have “priests” and “mass”–really only Episcopalians and some Lutherans), this is really not actually a very good indicator of the cultural significance of denominational boundaries, since it has a lot more to do with ecclesiastical governance (which is the main thing that denominational lines do mark), and that’s about it. Anyway, not all protestant denominations even ordain their clergy. I don;t think any of the examples I outlined above involve recognition of each other’s ordinations. So again, Episcopalians (who are typically Mainline liberal christians in the US) probably wouldn’t blink an eye at joining a United Methodist or PCUSA church (other Mainline liberal churches) even though they don’t share clergy like the Episcopal church does with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but they might have big problems with you joining a really conservative Anglican church (which actually has to respect the Episcopal ordinations). Ordination is mostly a denominational marker like church governance, not representative of the poles or clusters within Protestantism that I was talking about.
(Also, for what it’s worth, “real presence” in communion is not an argument that most Protestants really spend a lot of energy on.)
Sure, but if someone left the Episcopal Church to join a hardcore Calvinist, fundamentalist or charismatic church, it could trigger cultural or familial trauma or at least drama. It’s not changing denominations per se that’s the issue, but if someone adopted a theology and practice that was odious, people would care. And, of course, more theologically liberal Protestants are going to have a broader view of what else is acceptable than their more conservative counterparts.
Kullervo, the Episcopal Church is in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and looks set to enter full communion with the United Methodists in 2021 if they vote for it.
Yeah, I mentioned the EC-ELCA relationship above, but I wasn’t aware of the United Methodist relationship. That’s interesting, and I wonder how it will play out with the UM church’s ongoing struggle to hold itself together. My point, however, is that “being in communion” for most Protestants doesn’t have the cultural significance that Dave B is attaching to it.
While Dave B. asks a couple of interesting questions—”Why does the Church make the Middle Way so unwelcome and perceive it as so threatening? Why do so many Mormons absolutely go ballistic when their friend or sibling or child openly moves to the Middle?”—I think the answers are largely immaterial because neither the church nor the TBMs are likely to change. At least not in my lifetime.
Salt Lake,in my opinion, doesn’t realize that falling back on “This is the one and only true church on the planet” doesn’t work quite the way it used to. If someone isn’t comfortable around the people in the surrounding pews, they won’t stick around. End of story. It doesn’t matter what kind of middle way Mormon they are or what arguments you can muster as to why they should stay. More than ever before, if they don’t feel the spirit in your presence, they will look elsewhere.
Every now and then, we hear a story of someone in the church who has figured this out. Invariably, these are isolated instances that occur at the local level, individual church members who with Christ-like simplicity embrace everyone they encounter. About six years ago I read an article in “The New Republic” called “Confessions of an Ex-Mormon” that recounts such an episode. It is worth a read: https://newrepublic.com/article/104901/ex-mormon-romney-religion-kirn
“ most of these terms have obvious connotative defects that make them unsuitable for productive dialogue.”
“ if one’s basic stance is a self-confidence in one’s smartness, rightness, morality, what-have-you, then that is probably contrary to the Middle Way.”
“I am seeing a trend of people —mostly men — who are looking for a way to leave the basic history claims behind and yet keep the cultural and social dynamics of authority. Too often, the changes they attempt to make, become a play for power through published articles that claim: I have The Truth. Come Follow Me.”
I put those together and ask myself what label applies when the path seems based on someone’s self-confidence.?
Dave B.writes “Why does the Church make the Middle Way so unwelcome and perceive it as so threatening? Why do so many Mormons absolutely go ballistic when their friend or sibling or child openly moves to the Middle?”
Continuing with my Navy metaphors; imagine you are sailing a ship at night through Chesapeake Bay eventually to Potomac river. There is a right way; ten thousand wrong ways and no middle way. To be sure, the right way can be wide at times and places, narrow at other times and places.
The whole point of Lehi’s dream is that the lighted path is narrow and straight; to wander from it even a little is risky, not necessarily dangerous (although it can be). The dream also presumes that the Tree of Life is *wanted* by everyone when even in the dream it is desired only by *some* while many people preferred the great and spacious building with its uncanny resemblance to the conference center.
If you are a person that believes that lions and tigers and bears oh my! are in every dark shadow, you stick to the yellow brick road. On the other hand, if you do not believe in lions and tigers and bears, or you think they are cute and cuddly and love you just as much as you love them, then choose another way for there is no middle way.
You can keep on insisting that there is only one Mormonism and only one way to be Mormon, but no matter how often or how loud you do it, it doesn’t make it so.
Kullervo writes (not obvious to whom but I will answer) “You can keep on insisting that there is only one Mormonism and only one way to be Mormon, but no matter how often or how loud you do it, it doesn’t make it so.”
Your objection does not make it not so, but I take your meaning.
One god, one faith, one baptism. Ephesians 4:5-6
I observe there be many of each of these. The implication is that at most one instance can be correct and whichever is correct, the others are not, although they may draw close to correctness.
The “midde way” assumes the existence of a pole which I will call “correct” and some other pole which is “not correct” and the middle way is between these poles. Clearly, the middle way is simply less “not correct” than whatever pole is “not correct”. It is likely that all Mormons are not perfectly correct, thus all are in the middle way, but it isn’t really a “way” but rather the meandering path each person makes for himself. To call it a “way” suggests that an authority exists which defines that way and others are willing to follow it. Well, if that is so, it really is just another religion; but this time a protestantism of Mormonism. If there’s 600 flavors of protestations of Catholicism, I suppose eventually there will be 600 flavors of Mormonism.
Martin Luther did not intend, I think, to start his own religion; but that is what happened even so. Same with Calvin. Anyone who thinks he has a better understanding of what God wants, and draws to himself followers, has just created a new religion.