The Inevitable Return of Home and Visiting Teaching

Ministering is a "newer, holier approach," but it also turned out to be much harder to execute.

Five years ago, President Nelson announced a change we didn’t see coming: the end of home and visiting teaching.

That’s not what it was, of course. The transition from the old program to ministering was variously called a “better way,” a “new… approach,” “adjustments,” an “expansive new view,” a “more gospel-based concept,” a “heaven-sent opportunity,” “a new name, new flexibility, and fewer reports,” “an invitation,” and a “coordinated effort.”

But regardless of what you call it, it was a change that was widely celebrated. It was a shift from a cold, quantitative program to being focused on loving and caring for others. This was the higher law. We understood that the Lord was “building our spiritual capacity… [and] demonstrating increased trust in His covenant people in the latter days.”

But… are we actually doing it?

My oldest son recently turned 14 and became my ministering companion. We were assigned to two strong, active families in the ward, both with kids close to our kids’ ages. I wanted to teach my son the real point of ministering, to meet people where they are—not to force them into a template of what we believe ministering to be, but to meet their needs in the way that makes sense to them. So, in that spirit, we asked them how we can best serve them.

Both families said, please, do not come visit every month.

They simply did not want us to come and share a message, the old way. Instead, they said we were welcome to check in once in a while, but they didn’t need or want any more than that. And as a result, my experience with ministering is that, since the program was announced, I have actually done less outreach than before.

There are a number of reasons why we might struggle with ministering. Perhaps the biggest one is the concept of “artificiality of relationships,” which is well-documented; meaning, being assigned to people does not automatically engender the loving, caring relationships you want to have in ministering. For example, I am not assigned to minister to the family I would call my best friends in the ward—those I know best and care for most. I am assigned to families that are good people, but with whom I don’t necessarily have a lot in common.

Another reason we might struggle with ministering is that it’s just hard. Being “higher and holier,” it turns out, requires real work.

When ministering was announced, President Russell M. Nelson, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, and Sister Jean B. Bingham all spoke about the change and its implications. The talks are good! Their descriptions of ministering are actually slightly different than I remembered. Elder Holland doesn’t rule out monthly visits; instead, he seems to suggest that they’re still a good idea, but that they’re not the rule in cases where that kind of visiting would be a burden:

We will continue to visit homes as possible, but local circumstances such as large numbers, long distances, personal safety, and other challenging conditions may preclude a visit to every home every month. As the First Presidency counseled years ago, do the best you can.

And directly contrary to my own experiences (or more pointedly, my own failings) with ministering, Elder Holland continues by clarifying that we should be more engaged in ministering than we were in home teaching:

…with these adjustments we want more care and concern, not less.

Sister Bingham gets right to the point. Instead of anchoring on a monthly visit schedule, she invites us to:

…ask yourself, “How can I share the light of the gospel with this individual or family? What is the Spirit inspiring me to do?”

This is, of course, the Right Way to do it. This is at the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ. At the end of the day, this is really just the second great commandment—to love your neighbor. But either the Lord or Church leaders, or both, decided that we could use a little help in making that happen. The home and visiting teaching programs were designed to make obedience to this commandment, in words attributed to St. Augustine, commodior et multitudini tutor—“handier and more reliable for the public.” If we can’t force people (or even convince them!) to love their neighbor, maybe we can at least get them to visit their neighbor once in a while.

This is why I see home and visiting teaching coming back. I don’t think the name will change back, and I don’t think there will be any sort of big reversal announcement. But I won’t be surprised if we end up with a version of ministering that looks a lot like home and visiting teaching did.

We’re already starting to hear little bits of these old programs returning. At least in my stake, we’re being asked to consider going back to the once-a-month, visit-in-the-home structure. I think our bishops, stake presidents, and other leaders just want to know that someone, somewhere, is being reached out to. And if the alternative is nothing happening at all, that makes sense.

Ministering, done well, is clearly better than home and visiting teaching. But home and visiting teaching were better than nothing. And if nothing is what’s happening, then maybe the old way of doing things wasn’t so bad.