Perfection Pending

Excellent discussion going on over at Times & Seasons concerning imperfections in church members and the 'appropriateness' of discussing flaws in the church with a critical eye. The discussion started with an earlier post on T&S and a parallel one on By Common Consent discussing the treatment of women in the Church. I had thought that in the original discussion thread, some commenters weren't making the distinction between the Church and the church members (in other words, there was an undercurrent of 'Well...if this was REALLY the true Church, these things wouldn't be happening." even though there's no logical basis for reaching that conclusion). I said as much in a comment (about 50 posts down the list), and while my comment was (seemingly) ignored, others expressed some thoughts along the same vein...leading into the more productive discussion today.

I'm going to expand on my comment somewhat (no, you don't have to go find it first), since it's on my mind and, you know, this is my blog...

First, though, a question: Why did Jesus choose Judas (Iscariot) to be one of His apostles if He knew he was going to be bad? Saying Judas had to be chosen so he could play a pre-determined part in the death of Jesus doesn't work, because that idea violates Judas's free agency and indeed the events that led to the crucifixition would have happened without Judas's direct participation.

Perhaps a better question is: why did Jesus choose ANY of the original Twelve Apostles? Peter, of course, was impetuous and weak-willed. James and John were childish and selfish. Thomas had a distinct lack of faith, etc... Based on these observations, Jesus didn't appear to be making good choices for apostles across the board, did He? Of course, Christ knew what He was doing, and made choices not based on who they were, but for who they had the potential to become. Peter (along with James, John and the others) had many negative traits, but positive ones as well, and through time we can see Peter overcame his weaknesses and became a great leader of the early Church. In other words, Peter grew and progressed in the gospel and became a better person, despite his inherent weaknesses. One has to assume Judas was the same way: when he was called, he had some serious character flaws, but also the potential to be a strong and effective witness for Christ and His gospel. We don't know much about the early period of the Apostle's ministry, but it is certainly possible that Judas was a good missionary at first. The difference between him and Peter, though, is that Judas didn't progress and overcome his flaws, but instead let his flaws overcome him. The fact that he ended up in a deep, personal state of apostasy doesn't mean, however, that he was like that from the beginning.

In Ether 12:27, we read:

I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

God is upfront about giving us weaknesses, but says they can be overcome, whatever they are. That's good news for us, but the deeper implication in this scripture is that we can't use the existence of weaknesses in ourselves or others as an excuse for our downfall. Let's look at another scripture: Alma 48:9

And in their weakest fortifications he did place the greater number of men; and thus he did fortify and strengthen the land which was possessed by the Nephites.

'He' is Captain Moroni, and he's protecting the land of the Nephites from the invading Lamanite army. The Nephites knew their land had weaknesses, but wasn't willing to let their weaknesses become the cause of their downfall, so they put extra effort into protecting them. Pretending their weak spots didn't exist would have been a recipe for disaster, since their enemies certainly weren't going to ignore them. Just having weaknesses can't be an excuse for sin because we're given the ability not only to recognize and protect them from 'attack', but to overcome them eventually by progressing in the gospel.

Which leads us back to the original topic: 'imperfect' church members. All of us know that there is only one perfect person: Jesus Christ himself, so we know that our wives/husbands, bishops, stake presidents, EQ/RS presidents, even the members of the First Presidency are therefore 'imperfect'. But it's a vastly different situation between when you know that someone's not perfect in your head but as it happens you couldn't name a specific flaw of theirs off-hand, and when you can name a specific and annoying character flaw in a person which bothers you a lot and causes conflict and sadness. It's this second situation that causes the major problems in the Church, especially when the flawed person has a 'high ranking' calling. Many church members say, "I can't believe he's the bishop when he's so {insert character flaw}", or "This just can't be the Church of God if she's being called to do {some calling} with all her flaws". But, again, the existence of character flaws isn't reason enough to doubt the authenticity of someone's calling, because the Lord calls us not based on who we are but who we might become. Faith and effort allows all of us to overcome our weaknesses, even though it seems sometimes like many other church members aren't trying very hard to do so.

This brings new meaning to the sustaining 'votes' we perform in sacrament meetings. When we raise our hands to sustain someone, we're essentially saying, "I know you are not a perfect person. And, in fact, some weakness of yours may become apparent to me in the near future such that it causes conflict. However, I believe in Jesus Christ and His Church, and I know that He has called you to do His work not because of your current perfection, but because of your potential. Because of that, and my love for Him, I'm willing to support you to the best of my abilities, and work with you to fulfill your God-given calling despite any conflicts that may come about because of your (or my) weakness, and help us both achieve our celestial potential." By recognizing the inherent goodness and potential in others, we can work together with church leaders more effectively, and small differences of opinion won't be quite so decisive.

Note that this does not 'excuse' sinful behavior. We should always work towards correcting sinful and improper attitudes and actions both in ourselves and others. But we should also remember that we are in the Lord's Church and that even though He uses imperfect people to achieve His ends, we shouldn't lose faith in the ultimate result. I'm a convert to the Church (I joined when I was 16, and am still the only member in my family--wife and son excluded). Before I was baptized I knew many members who were great examples, and many who were not. After baptism, I met many more members who were wonderful, Christ-like people, and many who were not. But I learned this important lesson early on: that people weren't perfect even though the Church was, and I wasn't going to let improper behavior, even by people in high callings, separate me from my Savior.