What Else Can You Call It?

A difficulty rises up before me as I write these words. Today I was made aware of a court order that I and all members of Devon Park Branch are ordered not to make any use of the term "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (Oops) or the initials "RLDS." (Oops, again) This is the name of the church that the founders of the branch were raised in and they have never left it. Never at any point has Devon Park Branch constituted a new or separate church from the one reorganized by Joseph Smith III.

The difficulty arises in the form of a question: How can I discuss the beliefs and history of the RLDS church without mentioning the RLDS church? Starting this month, Devon Park Branch is going to have a preaching series on the fundamentals of what I cannot help but call the RLDS doctrinal position, for there is no other way to describe it. It is by no means unique to "The Devon Park Branch of Jesus Christ's Church" (the name of our non-profit corporation for tax purposes) and calling it, "the doctrinal position of Jesus Christ's Church" is ambiguous/meaningless. While we do think that it's true that our doctrines are the doctrines of Christ's church, (in other words, we think they're correct) saying so would be like calling the platform of the Republican (or Democratic) Party "correct politics." One may view them as correct, but the term "correct politics" doesn't identify them. One may view the doctrines taught at Devon Park as the doctrines of Jesus Christ's church, but the term "doctrines of Jesus Christ's church" doesn't identify them.

I am therefore at a loss as to how I can discuss the relevant issues without violating this court order in some sense. I could perhaps try to invent a new term to describe this unmentionable thing. A common practice is to name the doctrines after someone who espoused them. (i.e. Calvinism describes the theology of John Calvin) But "Josephism" and "Smithism" are also ambiguous because they don't denote whether we're discussing the teachings of Joseph Smith Jr. or those of Joseph Smith III.

Any reasonably specific and accurate description of the position in question would have to denote it's association with the teachings of Joseph Smith III - not merely Joseph Smith Jr. And the term, "Mormonism," since it carries all kinds of irrelevant baggage from it's long use in describing the Brighamite Mormons in Utah, with whom we have very little in common, is simply out of the question.

In stating that Devon Park Branch is a part of the RLDS church, Devon Park is/was certainly seeking members of or parties interested in the RLDS church. When they use the RLDS trademark however, the Community of Christ's leadership isn't interested in reclaiming lost RLDS members. Their goal is to undermine the spread of the original RLDS doctrines which are 180 degrees out of phase with their radical social and political agenda. They believe that they can abuse the U.S. court system to help further that goal, and have thus far been successful.

Traditional RLDS theology, while positive and hopeful, is not soft and fuzzy. It is hard as nails, dealing not with formless generalities but sharp contrasts, fixed principles and tenets that claim to be firm and unalterable statements of fact. When something is true, it holds true universally. RLDS theology does not give the simple, wishy-washy answers (or non-answers) that many people expect and want from religion, for it has, to quote C. S. Lewis, "just that queer twist about it that real things have." Lewis was there describing "Mere Christianity," which I believe RLDS theology to be a logical extension of.

The modern Community of Christ position, on the other hand, has tended toward liberal theology to such a degree that it's message has in many cases become almost unrecognizable. They'll still acknowledge some of the basic concepts some of the time, but the bottom line is that there really isn't all that much to it beyond a general feeling that people ought to get along (universal peace and tolerance) and the idea that we should sue the pants off anyone who still holds the original RLDS position. (OK maybe not quite so universal after all.)

There is very little trace left of the vision of the church's founders in the vision of the Community of Christ's leadership today and anyone who has studied the relevant history can clearly see this. The sweeping changes brought about in the last 25-30 years have fractured the church resulting in a huge loss of membership. And when I say, "loss of membership" I'm not referring to members like those of Devon Park who have formed their own independent organizations, but to members who have left the church, period. More changes planned in the coming years may yet divide the membership further. Their course has been nothing short of destructive to the goal which it is their office to pursue.

The Community of Christ leaders cannot answer the above claims either from the pulpit or in print and are very afraid that their remaining membership will wake up and protest or leave because they realize what's going on. So they think they can silence us through litigation. Whether they succeed or not depends on whether we can raise the funds to pursue an appeals process. To help protect the right to publicly proclaim the original doctrines of the RLDS church in the United States, donate to The Devon Park Legal Defense Fund c/o Elmer Rawlings, Treasurer, 2121 Aqueduct Place, Independence, MO, 64057-1010