Rough Stone Rolling

One of the benefits of being an HPGL is getting to pick who you want to teach a particular lesson (that is, if they don’t beg off, as is often the case). This week the lesson was out of the manual, Lesson 23: The Shepherds of the Flock, which covered the sustaining of Church leaders. The brother whom I called is known for being a bit of a dissident among the group, one of those pesky academics if you will, and I always enjoy hearing his soul-thrashing comments, full of second-guessing and self-inventory.

As I suspected, his opening thoughts got some of the brethren to squirming right away. Why should we be expected to automatically sustain every leader presented before us? Wasn’t the point of the War in Heaven to abolish such compulsive behavior? Are we expected not to question? Most of the group was uncomfortably quiet. It took a couple of us to raise our hands to try to kindle dialogue. I already knew what he was doing. He was trying to make them think– defend their beliefs. This wasn’t the kind of class a lot of the brothers were used to, and it took time to get them into the rhythym. I stated my case by saying that I was required to gain a testimony of the called leader; I should sustain him in faith first and let my testimony of his appointment catch up as he spiritually grew into the position. There were grins and chuckles from a few of the others who were getting the teacher’s intentions, and they rose to spar. It was, IMHO, a good class. The teacher concluded that leaders, like us all, have made mistakes, but when they are called at those times for those positions, we should exercise faith and sustain them to keep the administrative ball rolling, and gain the understanding why they were chosen later. He illustrated by describing how flummoxed he was by the appointment of every bishop that had been called in the ward (a couple were in the class), but after a while he felt he knew exactly why they were best for the ward at the time of their appointment.

In the end, he brought to the class exactly what I hoped he would– controversy. He was never dissenting, he was just stirring the pot, and I felt it made the class better for it.

Do you feel such an approach to teaching a class in church is detrimental and opens it up for a negative spirit, or is it good to argue points of the gospel? While I use the word “argue,” I am not suggesting “fighting,” but more a civil debate of ideas.