Review of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate - By Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott in Reviews in Religion and Theology, Volume 15, Number 3, July 2008, pp. 426-429(4).

Stephen H. Webb (Ph.d. University of Chicago), describes himself as a ‘conservative Christian theologian’ and is Professor of Religion & Philosophy at Wabash College.  His brief four page review of ‘Claiming Christ’ in Reviews in Religion and Theology came as a refreshing critique packed with amazing vignettes and serious gems.  He applauds Millet and McDermott’s intense and civil religious dialogue.  “Their friendship lets them argue with daring and honesty, but it is their commitment to the truth that makes this book truly edifying.” (p. 426).  Webb explained how for him the book was a powerful experience in “recognizing how another religious movement truly recognizes your own savior in spite of differences in how that savior is described.”  Ibid.

Indeed, what I appreciate most about Webb’s review is that he doesn’t spill any ink contemplating on the legitimacy of this dialogue.  He wastes no time in extending the dialogue and offering his own set of questions and musings.  Webb encourages Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints to “think more seriously about the Petrine office” and consider how Evangelicals, Mormons and Catholics adjudicate between “original revelation and authoritative interpretation of that revelation.” (p. 427).  Indeed, this is likely to be an important topic for future dialogue.

The most fascinating part of ‘Claiming Christ’ for Webb is the pre-existence of Christ and most of the review is devoted to this topic.  Webb explains, “At the heart of Mormon cosmic optimism is the idea that the incarnation of Jesus was not an afterthought to creation or a contingent response to an accidental fall of humanity into sin. Christ embodied is the center of the cosmos; he lived as we do before we were created to be like him . . . Indeed, if Mormons err theologically, don’t they err in taking this worship to an extreme, if such extremity is possible?  Do orthodox Christians really want to say that Mormons make too much of Jesus?” (p. 428-429).

All throughout his review is a consistent call for engagement with Mormons.  “[O]ne can only conclude,” Webb stresses, “that the next great phase of ecumenical Christian dialogue with other religions has to begin with the conversation between orthodox Christians and Latter Day Saints.” (p. 429).

Honestly, I felt only four pages was much too short for Webb’s review. How could any reader not want to read more after the observation that:

“Indeed, one of the amazing things about Mormonism is that it transgresses most theological categories as well as the standard account of theological history. Mormonism is like an alternative reality come to life – an alternative history of a post-Nicene development of pre-Nicene theology – the ultimate ‘what if’ theological parlor game.” (p. 427).

I encourage those who have access to Professor Webb’s review to read it today, and I look forward to Professor Webb writing more on the topic soon.

On Friday, April 25, 2008, I took the occasion to travel to Tempe, Arizona.  I had received information from a friend that Greg Johnson and Robert Millet would hold ”A public conversation of a Mormon and Evangelical” at the newly constructed LDS Institute of Religion on the campus of Arizona State University in Tempe.  The event was sponsored by the the Greater Phoenix LDS Interfaith Council & The Arizona Ecumenical Council.

Given my interests, I’ve read books and articles by Rev. Greg Johnson and Dr. Robert L. Millet and I am aware of much of the content of such public dialogues.  However, I was hoping to have the opportunity to see first hand this kind of engagement and to see the reaction of those in the audience.  I arrived somewhat early and there was quite a large public turn out.  I noticed several ministers and pastors in the audience.

The Arizona Ecumenical Council Executive Director, Rev. Jan Flaaten offered the opening words. Rev. Flaaten began serving as director in 2002 after 30 years of ministry in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He remarked that years ago he never had thought he would be in a Catholic church but then later he found himself with such an opportunity.  Likewise, he remarked that he never thought he would be in a LDS chapel, but remarked that here he was, speaking in an LDS chapel.  He offered the invocation.

I had originally planned to take copious notes, but as the event began I found myself realizing the futility of trying to describe an event such like this.  It really is something that needs to be experienced.  Before the meeting began, I noticed Greg Johnson setting up a couple of seats up on the stage so that he and Millet could sit down together.  This wasn’t going to be a typical meeting where one speaker talks, sits down and then another one gets up and speaks.  This was to be a conversation.

This meeting was perhaps one of the best meetings I’ve ever experienced.  Johnson and Millet’s interaction was entertaining and humorous at times, yet it was extremely moving at others.  I was deeply touched by Greg Johnson’s personal story of being saved by Jesus at a bible camp he attended as a youth.  I felt in many places that I was extremely glad that Mormons and Evangelicals were hearing their message. I felt that everyone needed to hear what they had to say.

Reading Scriptures with New Eyes

Millet explained that we should be curious about one another and for him he has been curious to know what makes Evangelicals tick.  He remarked, “You cannot study another person’s religion without it impacting your own.”  One of the interesting things he pointed out was that as a result of his engagement with Evangelicals he has been able to ”Read my own scriptures with new eyes.”  This turned phrase was particular interesting to me.

He read a statement from the Doctrine and Covenants Section 45.

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—
4 Saying: “Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;
5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.”

Millet remarked to the audience that this indeed was a strange defense.  He said, imagine being in a court room and your attorney says to the judge, “Your honor, my client should win because I’m a great lawyer, and I’ve never lost a case and I never will lose a case.”  In other words, the defense isn’t “Father, look at what a great person this person was, look at all the great things this person did with his life.”

What makes this exchange powerful is that Millet isn’t saying these things to try to prove to the Evangelicals in the audience that Mormons are Christian so much as he is trying to help Latter-day Saints understand this important teaching.  So many times in our discussions with those of other faiths, doctrine is tossed around not for what the doctrine can do in a persons life, but it is used as a sword and shield to attack or defend against those who seek to infringe on our identity.  As a result, we inadvertently reject much truth simply because it is coming from a person outside our faith.  Doctrine, on the other hand, should heal.  This was a message that people needed to hear and it was wonderful that both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals were hearing it together.

The Role of Healing

One of the things I realized was that there is a lot of healing that is taking place as a result of these conversations. I feel this point is largely overlooked because the ‘doctrinal debate’ aspect is more readily highlighted.  Often critics are so focused on the theological aspects of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue that they fail to appreciate the human aspects.  Those who have read How Wide the Divide have heard Stephen Robinson’s account of attending a meeting of Christian leaders in Utah who were discussing efforts to deal with the spread of pornography.  Robinson explained that he and his colleagues were asked to leave.  Robinson explained to the group that Mormons were also against pornography.  He was told that Mormons were not Christian and that if they didn’t leave they would have to disband the meeting.  Greg related this story to the audience and noted that Stephen Robinson said that he learned that day that Evangelicals hated Mormons more than pornography, no doubt a lesson which was not lost on Robinson.

Greg Johnson explained a time when he and Robert Millet were ready to give their event at an LDS Chapel when the bishop unexpectedly cancelled the event. Greg went to speak with the bishop to ask why he cancelled the event. The bishop began to explain that he served a mission almost 30 year ago and, as Greg explained, he wasn’t treated very well by the Evangelical Christians he had met. The experience had such an effect that he simply didn’t want to expose his congregation, comprised of the youth, to this same experience.  Greg told the bishop that this would not be the same experience. The bishop then agreed.  Greg noted that after the event, the bishop came up to him and thanked him.  Greg remarked that there was healing that was taking place at that moment.

Upon hearing this story my mind turned to a close friend of mine.  As I’ve shared with him my passion for interfaith dialogue with Evangelicals and others, he has never quite responded with too much enthusiasm.  At first, I wasn’t really sure why this was so.  I thought he was too defensive and perhaps simply unable to be open to these things.  After many conversations with him, I’ve come to realize that he was deeply hurt by his encounters with Evangelicals as a missionary, perhaps in ways I have never been.  Often he would tell me that he really just wanted to avoid them because of the way he was treated.  Greg and Bob’s conversation has helped me understand my friend’s reaction, to be less judgmental towards him but also realize the lasting effects that unfortunate circumstances can have on our perceptions of others.

This isn’t something limited to any one faith group.  In many cases, it only takes one bad experience with either a Mormon or an Evangelical to sour our whole perception of all of them.  In fact, I would venture to say that in many cases where Evangelicals and Mormons are communicating online, at least from what I’ve seen, if you look behind all of the elaborate arguments and even sophisticated statements you find someone who is saying, “You hurt me” or “I was mistreated by your people.”  I’ve sometimes interacted with Mormons online who have been so hurt by their interactions with Evangelicals, I can’t even reach them.  My suggestions for them to be kind to Evangelicals, or to read their statements charitably come across like those of a ”traitor” or at best highly misguided.  Relationships with those of other faiths simply cannot go forward until we deal with that hurt.  This isn’t something trivial.

As I sat there, I recalled the remarks of someone who asked what might have happened had Joseph Smith not encountered a clergyman who was quick to dismiss the possibilities of visions and gifts of the spirit, and dismiss out of hand the possibilities of angelic visitations.  What would have happened instead had Joseph met someone who lovingly listened to his story?

Interfaith Dialogue is not about Conversion?

One last point.  Often I notice that people online are uncomfortable when Millet says that his interfaith dialogues are not about making converts.  One of the stories that Millet has offered to explain this is where an Evangelical moves into a neighborhood next door to a Latter-day Saint.  The Latter-day Saint invites this new neighbor to church and the neighbor says, “Thank you, but I already have a church and I am happy in it.”  If this is only about conversion, then the Latter-day Saint might think, “Okay, I guess they aren’t interested” and never speak with them again.  However, at this point if someone suggests actually trying to develop a relationship and become friends with the neighbor, it seems like a radical and novel idea!  Or the misconception critics have is that somehow being friends would compromise one’s faith, but this isn’t the case.  The other challenge is that there is a suspicion (and perhaps justified) that the friendship is conditional on conversion, in other words, behind the façade of friendship is a conversion agenda where ultimately friendship is merely a means to an end, and all the efforts at being “friends” will “pay off” with a convert.  The implication is that if conversion doesn’t happen that this friendship was all for nothing; just a total waste of time.

At one point Greg Johnson explained that he met a professor at BYU who asked him if he thought he was going to convert Millet to Evangelicalism, and Greg said he didn’t think so. “You do understand that he is the dean of our religion faculty?”  Greg said, “Yes, I know that” to which he was asked “Well, then are you considering joining the Church?”  Greg replied ”No, I’m not.”  To this his conversant exclaimed, “Well, I don’t get it, what’s the point?”

Millet didn’t bring up this scripture but I later recalled the account of Joseph Smith during the time he was trying to sort out which church was true:

JSH 1:6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued-priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

Millet says that his conversations with Greg Johnson are not about conversion.  This doesn’t mean that Millet and Johnson do not have desires for conversion.  It only means that their friendship is not conditional on conversion, and it also means that success and failure is not measured by conversion but rather it is measured by how hard you are willing to try to understand your neighbor.  It is important for people to realize that people can’t simply accept that friendship is not contingent on conversion because two people say the words to each other.  I don’t believe this was the case with Johnson and Millet.  This understanding developed over time and after building trust.

Allowing God to Play a Role

I agree with Millet that:

“Reaching out to others in the form of interfaith relations is hard work. It is much easier to resort to fight or flight.”

I think it is important to realize that God has a role in all of this.  Millet and Johnson relate an occasion where they asked themselves where their relationship was going.  The question was if either side won’t convert to the other, should they continue the friendship?  They decided to continue their discussions and allow God to have a role in the matter.  God is the great mover, Greg explained, and if God wants to move Millet, God will do so.  If God wants to move Johnson, then God will do so.  The early Christians were characterized by the phrase, “Oh how they loved one another.”  True love is unconditional.

The audience sang “How Great Thou Art” a favorite Lutheran hymn at the end of the event.

I don’t think I can adequately describe what took place at that meetinghouse in Tempe on that night.   I’d venture to say that most people who came did not know what they were going to experience.  There are many moments I’m deliberately leaving out because of their intimate nature.  I am convinced that God was pleased and that the Spirit of the Lord was there in that room.  Indeed, I believe God was glorified that night.  I left that meeting with so much love for my fellow man and with the conviction that interfaith relationships are friendships.  There is no more noble virtue than friendship.

I am keenly aware of the concerns that some have about these exchanges, as if friendship was less important than salvation, or somehow that the greatest love a true Christian can give is to tell a Mormon to repent and deny Mormonism, so that they can be saved.  However, as I’ve listened to scores of unfortunate stories of people who have been hurt by those of other faiths, I am convinced that salvation doesn’t come through going up to someone, telling them to repent and walking away.  Anyone can do that.  It only pushes people away, and it drives gaps between faiths, even generational gaps that spawn generational feuds.  One generation passes on their problems to the next.

I continuously see Mormons and Evangelicals online who argue back and forth, each side claiming the other’s faith is defective and illegitimate.  Perhaps it is a phase of those who wish to test out their analytic skills and practice their debating techniques, and it will pass, but perhaps people really live that way.  (Granted it is possible a group of friends could get together and engage in respectful and rigorous debate about their respective faiths, but I haven’t seen it.)

With each keystroke they push people further and farther away, giving others ammunition to support their suspicion that the world is attacking them, perpetuating a victimology, supplying twisted interpretations of scripture and disfigured depictions of the faith.  How God would ever be pleased with that, and how this ever “glorifies God” I do not know.  All is not lost however, for there is a better way to “offer the reason for the hope that is within, with gentleness and respect.”

Many people today are interested in Christian apologetics.  The title apologist has been given to several figures in history and in modern times.  One often considers C.S. Lewis as the quintessential Christian apologist.  One might even consider early Christians such as Justin Martyr or Origen as well as the medieval St. Thomas Aquinas.  From Ravi Zacharius to Greg Koukl to Lee Strobel to Walter Martin, there are a variety of diverse individuals given the appellation of Christian apologist and each approaches their task from a different perspective.

The classic biblical verse from which the calling and duty of the apologist is based on is 1 Peter 3:15-16. 

“Always be ready to make your defense [apologia] to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (NSRV).

Apologia can be read as defense but also simply as an answer. 

“Always be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (NIV).

It is the reason for hope that should be the substance of the message.  Unfortunately, it is often verse 16 “yet do it with gentleness and reverence” or “respect” which is forgotten.

As I’ve reflected on past posts, I feel there could be some who have misunderstood my views on  apologetics.  Initially, rather than set forth my views in an essay form, I chose a dialogue format in What is ‘Bad Apologetics’? to illustrate the drawbacks that I’ve seen by a popular notion of apologetics as it is often practiced.  This isn’t to say that the enterprise of apologetics in all its diversity doesn’t have a place.  Rather, it is to say that if one is determined to engage in apologetics, one should do so effectively and responsibly, otherwise the results could be quite unfortunate.

As I’ve experienced and read various authors and have become familiar with different kinds of apologists and apologetics, I’ve come to see two categories: the Apologist as Warrior and the Apologist as Healer.

Apologist as Warrior

This is probably the kind of apologetics that most people are familiar with.  The young Christian aspires to be like the famous apologists who know all the answers and have studied philosophy and ancient languages and is able to counter any argument that comes his way.  “I’ve never been defeated,” I heard one budding apologist exclaim.  This kind of apologist doesn’t simply “stand ready” to give the “reason of the hope” of Christ “when asked” but even does so when not asked.  He opts not to present the ”reason of hope within,” but rather his message is why other religions have no hope, i.e. “let me tell you why you’re hopeless.”

He goes on the offense and seeks to show the superiority of Christianity in comparison to all other religions.  Moreover, he seeks to refute any religion in competition with Christianity.  Because of this, many Latter-day Saints are more familiar with the Christian apologists who specialize in countering the new religious movements than those apologists who defend Christianity in general, against secularism and atheism.  In my experience, most of the apologetics that occurs on blogs, message boards and chat rooms are of this type.

Apologist as Healer

However, there is a second category of apologist: the Apologist as Healer.  She doesn’t seek to attack another faith but to assist those in the faith to live it better and to assist those who have doubts and concerns, or perhaps those who are unable to articulate the beauty that lies within.  The apologist as healer doesn’t need to tear down another faith in order to present her own.  Rather she seeks to present the hope that is within her.

Again, I think of C.S. Lewis who has been able to explain Christianity in such a way that his writings resonate with Latter-day Saints, Catholics and Evangelicals.  Truly, a remarkable feat.  His appeal is that he offers the reason of the hope that is within him.

Anglican philosopher and close friend of Lewis, Austin Farrer, illustrates well the activity of the apologist as healer.

It is commonly said that if rational argument is so seldom the cause of conviction, philosophical apologists must largely be wasting their shot. The premise is true, but the conclusion does not follow. For though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish. So the apologist who does nothing but defend may play a useful, though preparatory, part. Jocelyn Gibb, ed., “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C. S. Lewis. (Harcourt, Brace & World, 1965, p. 26.)

Notice, the goal is to “prevent the destruction of belief” among one’s faith tradition, not to go on the attack to destroy belief of others under the premise that argument will create conviction or that rational argument will be the genesis of belief, or simply believing that destruction of belief is the raison d’être of the apologist.

Apologetics is an in-house project that affects those in one’s in-group rather than one’s out-group.  This goes for the warrior and the healer.  Apologetic “debates” serve as spectacle to show believers (one’s in-group) just how solid and strong their position is compared to the enemy’s.  But the goal isn’t to reclaim the enemy, but to refute him and make an example of him for all to see.

Years ago when I frequented chat rooms I noticed that people didn’t want to argue by instant messaging.  They only wanted to argue in the chat room.  Without an audience, the argument seemed pointless.  No one wants to win an argument in solitude, but only to win it in front of others.  It becomes a kind of “theological bloodsport” with ”gladiator style apologetics.”  Such apologetics may not be apologetics at all.  They don’t give the reason for the “hope that is within them” and they certainly do not do it with “gentleness and respect.”  It becomes an empty ritual of thrust parry, thrust parry, over and over again.  My Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu.

We need more Apologist as Healers, those who develop the capacity and truly can offer the reason of the hope that is within them.

I recently read a post at Mormon Matters titled, The Nature of God and Bible Bashing Sharing.  I think this is an excellent example of yet another individual who has realized that debate and argumentation, and trying to prove doctrinal positions with biblical proof-texts are ineffective means of communication.  The author, Adam F, writes:

Debate over which belief is Biblical will not achieve much in the way understanding or respect.

If one believes in the Trinity, derives motivation from that doctrine to live his religion more fully, and if I get the same from believing in a Mormon concept of God as I do, why does it matter that we do not agree? Does one of the many Christian conceptualizations of God inspire more visits “to the fatherless and widows in their affliction,” or keep one “unspotted from the world?”

I think one of the keys to this is giving up on the idea of debating for the purpose of trying to win. Understanding each other is much more important, especially on a site like this. There is a lot we can learn from each other, and through my association with a Catholic friend I have come to respect and understand better Christians who believe differently about God than I do.

As I attempted to type out a response, I was brought back to earlier musings about why it is that debate and argument are so prevalent and almost inevitable.  Like Michael Corleone, I sometimes want to say: “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in.”  The black hole of ‘apologetics’ draws everything in its path, ultimately squeezing out all light and crushing its subjects into nothingness.

In the above post, the author offers these questions:

What do you believe about God?
Where does your belief come from?
What scripture(s) or teachings best describe you belief?
In what ways are your beliefs about God manifested in your life?
Which is more important: the personal characteristics of God, or what God looks like?

One of the things I’ve come to realize is the immense draw that debate has online (or off-line).  Even topics or posts which are not intended as debate end up being pulled into debate.  For example, there will be those who see these questions as simply another challenge and will try to argue that their beliefs in God are superior to another’s.  They will argue that their beliefs come from a more legitimate source and have greater reliability and validity than another.

I agree that proof-texting is usually unpersuasive, and a more helpful practice would be to identify key passages which shape one’s beliefs to assist in understanding.  Here too, some will be quick to discredit the interpretation as wrong using any of the available methods of interpretation.

I agree that all too often the nexus between belief and praxis is ignored.  Religious devotion and faith are manifested in the life of the practitioner and yet this is often an overlooked area of inquiry.  One can seek to disprove another’s characterization of God, or they can seek to understand the inspiration and motivation which arises from that belief.  All too often people are quick to point out that they personally do not accept the beliefs of another without even attempting to appreciate how those beliefs are cherished by others and seen as beautiful by others.  This doesn’t mean one has to accept another’s beliefs by any means, but to a believer they are probably beautiful, and the sincere attempt to understand this is the key.  Here too is an area which can be pulled into debate with some arguing that certain beliefs hamper a true understanding of God, which goes in the opposite direction.

The author asks the question of which “ideas” concerning God are more “important”.  I agree that we need to explore new questions similar to this one.  This one will depend on the person and what we mean by important: important in what way?  Often one can easily say that everything about God we could possibly know is important.  Here too, debate creeps back in and people will be tempted to argue that others are “less concerned” about knowing God, etc., but that we are “more concerned.”

I completely agree that all too often people are trying to win points or prove someone false.  Often this is done for personal educational purposes and in many cases people can learn new things from engaging in debate and can practice their argumentation skills.  However, in the context of inter-faith dialogue rarely does this have a positive effect on those of other faiths.  Rather, it pushes others away, increases misunderstanding, perpetuates stereotypes and victimology.

Still, I often wonder why there is such a strong pull towards debate and argumentation.  While I fully agree that good questions are critical in our conversations, as the author points out, the spirit of understanding is central.  Any question, even one intended to enhance understanding can by hijacked for debate and argumentation.  We need to ask ourselves, am I asking this question for ammunition I can use at a later time in separate debate with someone else, or do I really care about understanding how this person sees the world in order to better understand and love my neighbor?

While I wish to end on that note, I must sadly admit that this kind of attitude also gets drawn back into debate with those claiming we should never give up or concede calling those who believe in heretical views to repentance, and others claiming that this simply isn’t effective.  I’ve heard those who lament that inter-faith dialogue merely subverts evangelism/missionary work and that it is better to hurt someone to save them (just like surgery is painful but necessary to save), than to gain someone’s love and respect just to have them end up in hell (salvation is better than understanding), with each side marshaling bible verses and personal experiences to demonstrate that their way is the best way.  I can only add my personal experiences to those of Adam F.  He writes:

I think one of the keys to this is giving up on the idea of debating for the purpose of trying to win. Understanding each other is much more important, especially on a site like this. There is a lot we can learn from each other, and through my association with a Catholic friend I have come to respect and understand better Christians who believe differently about God than I do.

This too has been my experience.  Others have understood my beliefs much more accurately and richly through dialogue than through debate. In addition, I’ve learned more about my own faith and the faith of others though respectful dialogue than would have ever been possible in a debate.

Yet the temptation to debate and win the argument is ever so strong, it is always there, with an open invitation and the siren call: “Victory is yours for the taking.”

I’m always on the look out for excellent audio lectures and interviews and I’d like to share one I’ve recently come across.  Dr. Maxie B. Burch, Associate Pastor for Faith Development at North Phoenix Baptist Church is presenting several lecture series on the History of Christianity.  “What is Christian Theology” (total time 1:48:27, listen or download mp3), given January 22, 2008 is the first lecture in his course “Introduction to Historical Theology.”

Dr. Burch has a M.Div. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and a Ph.D. from Baylor University.  As a historian of Christian theology, he has taught courses at Grand Canyon University, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Arizona State University.  In this introductory lecture, Dr. Burch gives a fresh and balanced introduction to the fundamental principles in Christian theology and I believe Evangelicals, Catholics and Latter-day Saints will find much in his lecture which would challenge them as well as affirm their faith.

If you’ve never been exposed to the study of Christian Theology I highly recommend this lecture.  If you have studied Christian theology, you will appreciate Dr. Burch’s balanced and open approach to the subject.

Enjoy the full series “History of Christianity” available via iTunes.

Dr. Burch takes the approach that “Theology is taught by God, teaches of God, and leads to God.”
(Theologia a Deo docetur, Deum docet, et ad Deum ducit - St. Thomas Aquinas).

Last October, at a book signing, Robert Millet spoke on his various adventures in interfaith relations.  A transcript has been provided courtesy of The Juvenile Instructor.  Recently, they have put out transcripts on some excellent lectures and it seems there will be more to come.

The majority of the lecture is in response to questions asked by the audience.  Millet relates his experience with outreach; where he’s been, where he is now, and what the future holds for interfaith relations.  Enjoy.

Every now and then there is a claim or even a passing observation that Mormonism is changing. In many cases these claims are made without understanding the broader environment in which they are made, and not fully appreciating the implications of the statement. I hope to outline the cause of this perception and explain the different reactions to this perception both among Mormons and Evangelicals and the relationship between these reactions. Continue reading ‘The Changing Perceptions of Mormonism’

It’s been several months since venturing into the blogging community. Overall it has been a great learning experience and I value the people I’ve met. I’m continually asking myself: what are the barriers and obstacles to dialogue, and to interfaith dialogue in particular? I’ve been encouraged by those of different faiths who have come into conversation with civility and class.

For me, it has been easy to predict and anticipate the reaction from segments of the Evangelical community when a Mormon and Evangelical engage in dialogue. From Robinson and Blomberg to Millet and Johnson and McDermott and others, a backlash from the counter-cult movement is inevitable, and the spill over to less-apologetic Evangelicals, who have been influenced by the counter-cult movement, is predictable and perhaps even ‘normal’ given the long history and dynamics that these groups share.

What has been more difficult to anticipate is the reaction from the Latter-day Saint community as a result of Mormon-Evangelical dialogue.  Due to a long, unfortunate and polemical past, one would think Latter-day Saints would welcome with open arms not only something different from the typical bland anti-Mormon fare, but appreciate the opportunity for mutual understanding that results from the ‘novel’ and ‘innovative’ approach of dialogue.  For the most part, I believe this to be the case.

While it comes as no shock that certain apologists in the counter-cult movement would consider some one like Robert Millet as less than forthcoming in his articulation of Mormon teaching, I am puzzled when certain voices in the Mormon online community express concern that somehow one man, Robert Millet, is playing down ‘distinctives’ of Mormon doctrine to the extent that eventually Mormonism may become a watered-down version of its former self, a faint shadow of the past, lacking any of its original potency. From whence does such suspicion spring?  As I’ve listened to these concerns and pondered over the issues, I’m beginning to sense that something else is afoot.

Often when Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals engage in discussion and discover areas of commonality, I have observed a few Mormons who are quick to quip, “I’m not an Evangelical and I don’t want to be one, so don’t tell me I have anything in common with Evangelicals because I don’t!”  The message is: “Don’t try to define me!”  As a matter of fact, I’ve observed some Mormons, albeit a minority, who relish and specifically enjoy rubbing ‘distinctive’ doctrines into the face of their ‘opponents,’ not because such teachings are prominent in worship or church discourse, or even in daily life, but because it allows these individuals to define themselves vis-à-vis Evangelicals in some unique way.  Certain individuals intentionally choose particular doctrines as the vehicle or mechanism by which to clothe themselves with a particular identity.  In this sense, the Gospel becomes a means to an end; a mere tool used to define oneself in relation to others.

Without a doubt, the concept of identity plays a critical and important role in these discussions and debates and in interfaith dialogue generally.  I’ve begun to realize that when some Mormons argue the merits of dialogue, they don’t do so out of theological or doctrinal concerns.  Rather, the more I listen to these arguments, I’ve come to understand that they are grounding their argument in identity concerns.  In other words, the criteria for evaluating interfaith dialogue comes down to the issue of “how does this impact my identity?”  To be more precise, these debates have nothing to do with the Gospel at all, but at their very core, the whole debate is all about “me.”

Why is this inappropriate?  To be sure, the Gospel in its purest form reveals our true nature and relationship with God; it teaches us who we are.  Identity is a complex issue and surely our religion and faith play a significant role in our personal makeup.  My concern is not that the Gospel plays a role in our identity.  It should play this role.  My concern is when the process is turned on its head.  Rather than allowing the Gospel to teach us about ourselves, we manipulate the Gospel as a means to an end and we tell the Gospel how it is supposed to define us and others.  Before we ask whether something is good or praiseworthy, or whether it advances mutual understanding, our first and many times only question is: “Does what you say, strengthen or weaken the identity that I have constructed for myself?”

I think this is the wrong approach for two reasons.

First, such an attitude inhibits dialogue.  As stated above, when the criteria of whether dialogue should be advanced hinges on how it impacts my self-identity, then no longer am I looking at the benefits of dialogue.  If someone’s identity is founded upon particular doctrinal notions, then naturally they will lash out if they perceive someone to come along and ‘de-emphasize’ such an idea.  But they are not upset because the communication is or is not true or because it reflects or does not reflect reality or the sacred texts, they are upset specifically because it impacts their sense of identity.  They don’t realize this, and they perhaps don’t intend to do so, but in the final analysis, their resistance to dialogue is founded upon self-identity.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, when the Gospel becomes merely a pawn in a game fought out between parties concerned with defining themselves and others; when we become inundated with ’hyphenated Mormons’ of every persuasion having a political message for the world, I can’t help but to fear the results.  In the Mormon idiom, all manner of ‘-ites’ are back in the land, where Paul reminds us that we are to be “no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.”

One thing is clear.  People are passionate about the things that define them.  My question is whether we allowing the Gospel to define us, or whether we are exploiting the Gospel for our own benefit?  We must not let the Gospel be held hostage by our particularistic notions of self-identity.

On December 26, 2007 Christ Presbyterian Church in Utah aired the third episode of the television program “The Ancient Paths.” (total run time: 58:53).  In this episode, Jason Wallace, pastor of the Christ Presbyterian Church in Utah, engages in dialogue with Alma Allred who teaches church history at the Latter-day Saint Institute of Religion at the University of Utah.  The program also accepts questions from callers.

Wallace gives an interesting introduction to this episode. He affirms the value of debates but explains that he desires to include dialogue:

Since we have been we here we have tried to chart a course between two extremes that seem to dominate to a great extent, we’re not unique in what we are trying to do, but I think that unfortunately its been hard for people to find middle ground. On the one hand among Evangelicals dealing with Latter-Day Saints, you have people who are very critical of the LDS and yet they seem almost incapable of actually engaging them and speaking the truth in love and hearing them out on terms of what they actually believe and carrying on a conversation. Then on the other hand you have people that seem to be so interested in the relationship that they seem almost incapable of critiquing what the LDS actual believe. And so what we’re trying to do is to have a respectful dialogue about the things that we believe and there is going to be things that we agree on and there is going to be things that we disagree on and hopefully there is going to be light shed on misconceptions in some areas, but also there is going to be engagement on things where we actually believe very different things.

This statement illustrates well the ‘perception’ that exists in the minds of Evangelicals concerning dialogue and those who engage in it.  While I question the accuracy of this perception, I believe Wallace is trying to appeal to those Evangelicals who disagree with dialogue by essentially saying “Hey, we are going to dialogue but with critique too!”  I don’t feel it is necessary to begin interfaith dialogue with a disclaimer where both sides say, “I think you are wrong.” “No problem. I think you are wrong too.” “Now that we have that taken care of, let’s dialogue.” I don’t think that dance is necessary at all, but if it will help people to feel more comfortable with interfaith dialogue then perhaps they need it.

Wallace and Allred discuss the method and influence of street preachers. They seem to both agree that the typical street preachers aren’t really offering anything valuable.  Wallace believes their methods are unbiblical and Allred explains that most Latter-day Saints do not see them as offering anything of good report or praiseworthy.

Wallace recites the apology given by Richard Mouw on November 14, 2004 and other statements by Mouw and asks Allred to comment on them.  Wallace seems to offer the view that dialogue between Evangelicals and Mormons will never lead to the Church rejecting restoration doctrines, similar to how the World Wide Church of God brought its teachings in conformity with mainstream Christianity following the death of its founder.  And because of this, many of the hopes and dreams for those who engage in dialogue with the Latter-day Saints is unfounded and unwarranted.  Allred, on the other hand, believes that the benefit of dialogue is that many misconceptions about Mormonism will be cleared up such as the view that Mormons do not believe in the deity of Christ.

Wallace relates an interesting story when Evangelical pastors had engaged in dialogue with the LDS Institute of Religion.  Wallace explains that he felt that Evangelicalism had become too emotional and that some Evangelicals let their emotions move them to the point where they thought if Latter-day Saints could experience Evangelical worship services that Latter-day Saints would jump ship and join the Evangelicals.  Wallace seems to be more comfortable discussing substance rather than sharing experiences.  Allred explains his side of the story that in meetings at the Institute open with a prayer and word came that some of the Evangelicals felt that they were so diametrically opposed theologically that they said they simply could not pray together in the same room: “My position was, if we can’t be comfortable praying in the Institute of Religion, it’s not a meeting we should be holding in the Institute of Religion, being sponsored by the Institute of Religion. My position was if we can’t pray, it’s probably not going to be a beneficial experience.” While Wallace sympathizes with this position he remarks that its not uncommon for other Christians to not be willing to pray with him as a Presbyterian either.

Wallace and Allred discuss the role of the institutional church in Mormonism, the role of faith and works, Jesus and Lucifer, the virgin birth, polygamy, the priesthood, eternal progression. They do not discuss these topics exhaustively, but do touch on them from time to time.  One thing I appreciated was that Wallace would say something like, “In my debates, I often say that…” or Allred would say, “Well, how I would respond to that comment would be to say…”  This allows each side to offer their positions and perspectives but to allow the discussion to go forward.

On January 24, 2008, Speaking of Faith with Krista Tippet, a public radio program focusing on religion through first-person conversations, interviewed Dr. Robert Millet.  Tippet, who holds a M.Div from Yale, is well qualified to fill the usual gap in traditional journalism’s understanding of things religious.

This interview was a breath of fresh air as Tippet’s well formulated questions allowed listeners to hear, possibly for the first time, the way that Latter-day Saint doctrine actually influences life.  As readers of my blog are aware, so often discussions of Mormonism are based merely on textual inquiry, without ever examining the role that the faith tradition plays in the actual life of the believer.  Such issues are examined through this Tippet-Millet conversation.  Audio files are available in mp3 and podcast format (total time: 53:00).  In addition, the complete unedited interview has been made available (total time: 1:36:34).  Download it and listen to it while you drive to work or run errands.   If you prefer reading, the transcript is also available.

Tippet:

And I mean, you do have lots of dialogue going on with other kinds of Christians and with Evangelicals.  I wonder, are there any Jewish Mormon dialogues?  Because, I could imagine this would be…

Millet: 

Oh I think it…We’ve had some, but not too much.  I’m having more and more people say-I was with Richard [John] Neuhaus, not too long ago, and he made this statement to me that we really do-he commended me for doing work with Rich[ard Mouw] and with Evangelicals, and said how excited he was.  He said: ”Now, when you do plan to start doing this with Roman Catholics?”  I said, “It has to be done, I just need to raise up a few successors right now.”  I said, “I’m pretty busy trying to keep up with Evangelicals.”  But it has to be done, and of course, we want to do it with our Jewish friends and for that matter with our Muslim friends.  I think there is a greater openness in the church now than ever before to this kind of thing.  I’ve been doing it for ten years and I’ve received, just keep at it, it’s good, we need more friendships.  (1:14:47 - 1:16:04 unedited cut).

Towards the end of the program, Millet remarked:

As I’ve said in this whole business of outreach and interfaith relations, I’ve learned a ton about, in my case, Christian history, Christian theology in the last decade, but Krista, I’ve learned half a ton about Mormonism.  Because you cannot help but better understand your faith when you engage others who either disagree with you or take a different slant. (marker 1:28:34 - 1:28:57 unedited cut).