Frank Pastore, the host of “The Frank Pastore Show” a radio show dealing with topics on religion and politics, recently discussed his disapproval of the emerging Mormon Evangelical Dialogue. You can hear the audio of his August 15th, and August 16th shows here. (Note: The audio files are unedited and include several minutes of commercial time and a great deal of repetition. Each show is 3 hours long, but it probably could be edited to just 1 hour.)
For those who follow these issues–the November 2004 comment by Richard Mouw of Fuller Theological Seminary at the Mormon Tabernacle, the public discussions with Greg Johnson, of Standing Together Ministries, and Robert L. Millet, professor of religion at Brigham Young University–these things are nothing new.
Specifically, Pastore takes issue with the May 20th event at Mariners Church hosted by Craig Hazen, director of the Christian apologetics program at Biola University, with Johnson and Millet as speakers, and subsequently the August 1st and 15th event which took place at the same location led by Hazen.
Pastore explains his disappointment,
“The problem is, like the event down in Mariners, if you go to these things, and you’re a Christian you come away going where is the beef, where are the tough questions, where’s, you know, all the things that we learn in cult apologetics? If you are Mormon walk away wondering, yep, told you, we’re a denomination, we get a fish on our car too!”
Pastore’s attitudes demonstrate the kind of challenges which both Mormons and Evangelicals face when attempting to engage in interfaith dialogue. Perhaps the most useful segments of the show are Pastore’s interviews with Craig Hazen and Eric Heard, a staff member from the Mariners Church.
Pastore invited Hazen to come on the show and explain himself. Hazen told Pastore that he might have a misunderstanding of what is going on at these events. Hazen informs Pastore that there are different kinds of apologetics, relational apologetics and confrontational apologetics, and that his approach probably lies somewhere in between. Hazen tries to emphasize that it is important that people show respect and kindness, and that this in turn leads to better results.
Pastore questions why the “new” method is needed and why Hazen is distancing himself from the method used by Walter Martin. Pastore believes that the ”new” less-confrontational approach of dialogue with Evangelicals and Mormons is a waste of time.
Pastore: Do they have the correct Jesus?
Hazen: No, they don’t.
Pastore: What then what is the point of advancing your Christology, if they don’t have the right person?
Hazen: Well, they are getting closer…
Hazen refused to say that Millet didn’t trust in Christ and said that it is possible some Mormons are truly Christian. Hazen also chooses to use the term “New Religious Movement” rather than saying “Cult” which Hazen acknowledges is a pejorative term. Pastore disagrees. Hazen feels the more diplomatic approach is better than the confrontational approach. Pastore calls him on it and asks again why a new approach is needed.
Pastore: I’m wondering why this whole new methodology, why the criticism of Walter Martin, why is Richard Mouw…
Hazen: Walter Martin was my mentor and teacher and I hold him in the highest regard. I use his methods all the time, I simply get to know people first, because, here’s the key to it Frank: It is effective. And you know what? I want to be effective. I don’t just want to be brash and bold at my doorstep with the Mormons and give them what for. I actually want the Gospel message to get through…
Pastore: So, was Walter Martin offensive and brash and the antithesis of everything you’ve just said, and that’s why you are changing strategies?
Hazen: No, you know, Walter Martin on a personal level, he could be very relational.
Pastore: Right, right, so why the new methodology?
Hazen: That’s, that’s the key, it’s not new!
Pastore: Wow, really? I could read you quote after quote from Greg Johnson saying a new methodology is needed, I’ve got Richard Mouw’s apology that it was offensive and ‘we sinned against you’ etc…
Pastore interviewed Eric Heard of Mariners Church and asked him to why the Mariners Church had Mormons in their chapel, and how Mariners could be so careless as to allow Christians into the event without equipping them with the proper apologetics training.
Pastore: Eric, that’s the point, you were putting your young baby Christians at risk, by putting the wolves in the sheep pen, and you didn’t put in, you know, the Rambo sheep who had the training, you had a whole bunch of young Christian there who could have been easily lead astray, and it does no good to do the training afterwards.
Heard: Why would you assume that?
Pastore: Why did I assume that? Because you cannot guarantee that every Christian who was at that event had apologetics training and knew they were going into battle!
Pastore had the daughter of Walter Martin, Jill, on the show as well. She lamented, “When you have Christians and Mormons praying together, you have a problem.” Jill took issue with Hazen who offered a prayer at the Mormon Tabernacle in November 2004. Pastore played the audio of this prayer on his show.
Who is [Craig Hazen] praying to? You are praying to two separate deities or two separate entities! One is our Lord and Savior and the other is demonic. So, here you have a worship Service in a Mormon tabernacle and the head of an apologetics program offering a prayer and Mormons are praying right along with him, and there is no clarification!
The underlying question in this two part radio show is: which method of apologetics is superior? While the terms confrontational and relational came up in the show, it’s unclear exactly what they refer to. Pastore believes you can do both or that you can be a friend with someone and still confront them on the tough issues. At any rate, I believe one can see, regardless of the label, two opposing views on how to approach dialogue bewteen Mormons and Evangelicals. Pastore believes that the new “let’s just have a dialogue” school of thought (headed up by Craig Hazen, Richard Mouw and Greg Johnson) is fundamentally flawed and risky. He argues that the old approach of confrontational apologetics, as exemplified in his view by Jesus, Paul and Walter Martin, is the only method a responsible Christian can utilize. While there is an argument that apologetics and interfaith dialogue are two different animals (or at the very least, that apologetics is only small subsection within the larger rubric of interfaith dialogue), this show does illustrate the difficulties with engaging in interreligious discussion.
You know, we Mormons have this idea of “milk before meat” that usually suggests that it is best to build fragile testimonies and not expose them to “difficult information” until they are ready for it.
The counter-cultists absolutely LOVE to hammer us for this practice. They say that it’s just an excuse for us to lie to, or mislead our membership.
Well, turns out counter-cultist Pastore is doing the exact same thing with his own flock. Nice.
I’m getting a definite suspicion that Mormonism’s evangelical opponents are not applying the same critical lens to themselves that they are applying to us.
Seth, a big difference is that Christians don’t want their people deceived by false and misleading information, while the “milk before meat” principle in Mormonism extends to withholding true and factual information about Mormon doctrine–even when directly asked for it–from those who won’t accept it. According to some Mormons who have tried to explain Hinckley’s alarming public interviews, Hinckley said, “I don’t know that we teach that” because he didn’t want to reveal “meat” to those who were still on “milk”. I invite you to read my short wiki section entitled, “‘Milk before meat’, and then some dessert”.
It is true that in Seth’s example the information is about one’s own faith, whereas in the Pastore’s situation the information is about the faith of another person.
There is a question about whether “apologetics training” is necessary in order to allow Evangelicals to dialogue or engage in a conversation with Mormons.
Pastore seems to hold the position that no Evangelical should be allowed to engage in conversation or dialogue with an LDS unless they have proper apologetics training, and that barring such training, it would be irresponsible for any Evangelical leader to allow their congregation to listen to things Mormons have to say. This does sound awful close to saying that Pastore simply does not trust Evangelicals to understand and recognize truth. In his conversation with Eric Heard of Mariners Church, Pastore was not satisfied that “some” or “many” of the Evangelicals who attended the meeting did have apologetics training. Pastore was not satisfied because Eric could not guarantee that every single Evangelical who attended the meeting had apologetics training. That was unacceptable to Pastore. Is it reasonable to bar Evangelicals from conversing with Mormons until they have had a course in Apologetics?
Aaron, I see that there’s a distinction. But I think for our purposes, it’s a distinction without a difference. For the record, I’ve never had much use for the milk before meat idea. I’m a bit of a fan of what some LDS commentators are calling “innoculation” – teaching Mormons about our history, including the uncomfortable parts, in a supportive and faith-affirming environment, and from a young age.
By the way, I believe you are referring to ONE interview Hinckley had with Time Magazine. That interview wasn’t really “alarming” to me, but I did find it a bit exasperating.
But in the end, it’s all the same to me. You try to protect your fragile members, and we try to protect ours. Ultimately, I think neither is really helpful.
Seth, if I might interject. I think I understand your point, but it might sound to others as if you are saying that LDS are trying to protect LDS from their own doctrines, whereas Evangelicals are trying to protect Evangelicals from the doctrines of other faiths. Framed that way, it doesn’t sound the same at all.
I propose a better way of stating the issue, which is perhaps closer to your intended meaning, is to say that LDS are trying to protect LDS from the “interpretations” of LDS doctrine by counter-cultists. The thrust of “inoculation” isn’t just to present LDS history but to do so with “an interpretation,” and in your words, “a supportive and faith-affirming one.”
In other words, the analogy could be drawn if you say that LDS are trying to protect LDS from negative “interpretations” which others outside the faith are giving to LDS doctrine. Framed this way, your point is well taken, and it might help to understand the purpose of “apologetics training” which one might see as not simply presenting LDS history to Evangelicals but doing so with a certain “interpretation” of that history, or to put it another way, to protect Evangelicals from an LDS interpretation of LDS history and doctrine, as well as an LDS interpretation on the bible and Christian history. Pastore’s argument is that without that “apologetics training,” Evangelicals leaders are putting their congregation at serious risk of accepting the LDS interpretation.
That’s a much better explanation than mine. I’ll defer to aquinas on this.
I do think that Pastore might have a point that it may not be prudent to host this kind of event at a church and to advertise it to all members.
We certainly can’t and shouldn’t ban all Evangelicals from ever speaking to Mormons. But there can be a be a case made that we shouldn’t sponsor the event such an event after our Sunday services.
Well Tim, it’s darn certain that any Mormon bishop or stake president would catch it hot for sponsoring such an event after a Mormon service, so I guess I can’t disagree with you there.
The May 20th event at Mariners was on Sunday at 7 PM. An hour earlier at 6 PM, staff from Mariners gave the LDS visitors a tour of the Mariners large campus. Mariners worship services on Sunday are at 9 AM and 11 AM, so it wasn’t immediately following worship services. Incidentally, the August 1, 15 and 29 events were all held on Wednesday night at 7-8:30 PM.
In fact, Seth to speak to your comment, there was an event of this nature (Evangelicals and Mormons) held at an LDS stake center in Southern California in 2001 and it had the support of the local stake presidency and it was held on a Sunday at 7 PM just as much after worship services as the Sunday event at Mariners. (Note: a stake is roughly the size as a diocese. Stake center refers to the building).
At any rate, I don’t think we should lose sight of the fact that Pastore wasn’t concerned of which day of the week or what time this event was held. He doesn’t want events like this to be held at all. Or, if the event consisted of traditional confrontational apologetics, Pastore probably would have approved of it no matter what time or day it was held.
I think I have a question or thought I’d like perhaps broached here. I’m not even sure if I can word my thoughts eloquently enough, but I’ll give it a shot, and certainly mean no offense to either Evangelicals or Mormons in my process here.
I think there, on the whole, is a real serious difference between the knowledge level of most Evangelicals pertaining to their own church and doctrines, and to most Mormons of theirs. Mormons are by in large, very equipped to combat “anti-mormon” or difficult questions. I’m not sure my LDS friends would particularly agree with that, but it’s my viewpoint. I have seen, in my discussions, that the general LDS public and the general Evangelical public tend to have very different knowledge levels.
I think this is partly what disturbed Pastore, perhaps. He knows that often times LDS members are thoroughly equipped to enter into these sorts of discussions while typical Evangelicals are not.
There is not an even playing field when entering an inter-faith discussion between LDS and evangelicals without some sort of apologetics training.
Knowledge of doctrine and firm foundational knowledge, as well as rote finesse do truly add a level of power.
I don’t know Sarah.
The problem is, Mormons are actually a more diverse bunch than you’d think. I heard one scholar note that there are actually different groups of LDS Mormons. There is a small, committed and dedicated “elite” membership in the LDS church. These people tend to hold most of the teaching and administrative positions in the wards and stakes. They attend the temple on a somewhat regular basis, and they tend to be quite knowledgeable of their religion. These people probably are somewhat equipped for an interfaith debate.
But there are a lot of other Mormons out there as well who are probably no better informed or equipped than the lay evangelicals you just mentioned.
I would also note that, even among the “elite,” there is a certain superficiality of scriptural, doctrinal, and theological knowledge. A lot of us “know enough to be dangerous,” but lack real study or knowledge of biblical history, theological inquiry, ancient languages, philosophy, and sometimes even our own history. I grew up in the LDS faith. I remember in high school watching Jeopardy on TV. Often they would have a category: “The Bible.” We kids always got a kick out of watching grown adults frown and puzzle over biblical questions that we actually found quite simple. So I agree that there is a certain pool of knowledge among active LDS, and it is considerable.
But, on the other hand, even among this “elite” it is still quite common to find people ignorant of the well-recorded historical fact that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, for instance. That’s pretty basic stuff. And with no paid clergy, it’s hit and miss whether their Bishop will be any better equipped to cope with that history than they are.
I’ve found that even “elites” tend to get smacked around a bit when they run up against this kind of uncomfortable history. So I am of the opinion that some training is still necessary for Mormons, in spite of the level of knowledge they do have. Unfortunately, our approach thus far, has been far too head-in-the-sand for my tastes.
Sarah and Seth, thanks for your comments and observations. I think we can agree that, generally speaking, it would be nice to have greater knowledge and understanding about the bible and about one’s beliefs, and that people often have differing levels of understanding. However, it seems to me that “apologetics training” is a specific kind of enterprise with specific goals and methods. Gathered from the interview between Pastore and Heard, apologetics training seems to be quite different from a regular church sermon, or a general course on the bible. I think it might be useful to consider what this training actual entails and whether “apologetics training” is required in order for two people to have a conversation or discussion.
Seth, you used the phrase “interfaith debate” and I don’t think what happened at Mariners was a “debate.” That was perhaps another reason Pastore was opposed to it. In a debate one side has the goal to win. In a dialogue the goal is not to win or defeat the person you are speaking with. The virtue of dialogue, I believe, is that it is precisely through dialogue you become informed and gain greater understanding about the beliefs of others. I think we all can use improvement in our communication, but does ‘apologetic training’ provide this? Does it train people to try to understand another person, to listen to them, with a goal other than defeating them, but with a goal to appreciate their point of view? I think these are some important questions.
Aquinas, another great post, and one that I’m late to the party with in terms of reading and response.
For my contribution to this discussion we might note that these skirmishes on Pastore’s radio program highlight an ongoing paradigm shift in evangelicalism in regards to how it interacts with religious movements like Mormonism. In the past evangelicals largel used what has been labeled a “heresy-rationalist” approach that emphasizes a contrast of Protestant orthodoxy with perceptions of doctrinal heresy, followed by a strong apologetic against the new religion. In this paradigm the new religion is considered from the perspecive of the concerns of American evangelicalism for sound doctrine and distaste for heresy. Little consideration is given to broader considerations that might come from interaction with religious studies, sociology of religion, or intercultural studies. By contrast, a new model has been developed that views new religions in a broader framework as global cultures or subcultures. This interdisciplinary perspective looks to a variety of disciplines, especially the history of Christian missions and cross-cultural missiology, in order to adequately understand new religions (including their doctrine in ways that they might disagree with historic Christian creedal orthodoxy) and to communicate the Christian message in ways that are contextualized so as to be properly understood within these religious cultures. This latter approach may contain an apologetic element, but apologetics is contextualized and ancillary to other considerations.
I and others have articulated this new paradigm (new to American evangelicals but not new in church history to be sure), and it has been met with a great measure of resistance by the countercult and apologetic community, but embraced by many within the evangelical missiological community. As a result of dialogue and argument with many evangelicals who oppose this new paradigm (and who often unfortunately and mistakenly equate it with compromise), I believe that the reason folks like Pastore have issue with Mormon-evangelical dialogue and new approaches for evangelical interactions with new religions is that they are viewing these efforts through the lens of the counter-cult heresy-rationalist paradigm which only permits a negative assessment. In my view it requires a paradigm shift to view the new approaches positively, and until evangelicals are ready to do their homework in terms of gaining a greater familiarity with missiology, religious studies, the sociology of religion and other disciplines, no paradigm shift will be possible, the negative criticisms will continue, and the two paradigms will continue to pass each other like ships in the night.
As the new paradigm continues to be developed and exemplified in a variety of venues it may come down to how the evangelical market responds to the approaches which will then influence the continued spread and popularlity (or lack thereof) of the respective models. In my experience evangelicals gravitate to the heresy-rationalist model because they are not aware of a positive alternative, and once this is articulated and exemplified more often than not they readily and happily accept the new approach. Time will tell, but perhaps these comments help provide some additional background for context.
John, I welcome your contributions. I hope that anyone would feel free to comment on any of the posts, they are all open for discussion as far as I’m concerned. As to this radio program, if I hadn’t pointed it out already, I think I mentioned it on your blog but Pastore referenced the CRJ McKeever and Johnson article numerous times and therefore, your critique of the article was a great contribution. I also felt that the Hazen and Pastore interaction was interesting because it illustrated the dialogue between Evangelicals who advocate a more cultural based and I might add “outcome-oriented” approach (notice Hazen said it that they key was that it was effective) rather than the traditional heresy-refutation approach which I do not believe is outcome-oriented (I hope to write more about that later). Hazen tried to downplay the fact that this is a new approach by saying it is not a new approach. I don’t think Pastore really bought that. What’s new and what’s old is relative to be sure, but I do think it is a new approach in the sense that it certainly isn’t what Latter-day Saints have experienced before in relations with the Evangelical community, and the approach that has been used for the past decade has been the heresy-refutation “boundary maintenance” approach (to borrow language from Cowan and your own writings). I’ve watched with interest how Evangelicals who advocate the new paradigm seek to convince their colleagues who favor the traditional approach of the benefits of dialogue. Ironically, I sense that what ends up happening is that the old guard actually uses the heresy-refutation “boundary maintenance” approach on the Evangelicals who are advocating dialogue! The approach seeks to question the legitimacy of this new paradigm as well as argue that it isn’t biblically justified. Ironically, the fact that LDS tend to respond better to a more culturally sensitive approach just makes more traditional apologists more skeptical and suspicious. It seems as if it is a no win situation. I really appreciate the extremely difficult position faced by those who advocate this new model. I hope you are right that it is more of a matter of not being aware of the positive alternative. Those who are aware of the approach simply fail to see how it can be positive (i.e. how can anything which legitimizes Mormonism be positive?) That can be seen from the criticism of Hazen’s prayer and Pastore’s remark about Mormons getting a fish on their car. In a sense dialogue does legitimize the other. It recognizes the other person’s existence and identity. Perhaps, it is because dialogue has this effect that the traditional approach abhors dialogue, because in the traditional paradigm anything which legitimizes Mormonism is bad and anything which de-legitimizes (i.e. maintains the status quo of heresy) Mormonism is good. I believe this is why those advocating the new model are forced to say that Mormons are not Christian before anyone will listen to them. There is much more to say, but I will leave it at that for now. Again, John I always appreciate your insight and contributions.
Aquinas, as always I enjoy your thoughts. Thanks for your comments on my previous statements. I think you are correct that boundary maintenance approaches are (perhaps subconsiously) used by evangelicals in response to those of us advocating a new model. In addition another dynamic seems to be at work. One of the other ways in which the new religions have been responded to has been labeled the “apostate testimony” approach, or to soften this a little, the “former member testimony” model. In this model, used in ways that are received positively by evangelicals, former members of a given new religion write books and share their story of deconversion and conversion to tradition Christianity, followed by a list of concerns and warnings about the former group and its teachings. This is viewed positively when the conversion dynamic involves a path of migration from a new religion to evangelicalism, but as one might imagine, the reverse is not so well received. In my view, some evangelicals in the countercult community view those of us advocating a new model as suspect in that they are drawing upon a boundary maintenance model that not only protects the boundaries of evangelicalism, but also that of the heresy refutation paradigm. In addition, those of us who used to be part of the countercult and who utilized their paradigm but now speak critically of it and offer an alternative may be perceived in some sense as apostates having migrated out of their subculture and into another. This then results in an unfortuante us. vs. them dynamic that makes understanding and communication over issues even more difficult. And to top it off, I doubt whether any of this is even recognized in countercult circles.
You also mention that dialogue legitimizes the “religious other,” and this is of course, correct, and I believe problematic for many evangelicals. As Swidler’s Dialogue Decalogue indicates, in order for genuine dialogue to occur it must take place between equals, that is, between people (and perhaps institutions) of value and worth rather than inferior and suspect. With the cult and heresy models in place it is very difficult for many evangelicals to grant any legitimacy to either the institution of the LDS Church or its members, and it may indeed be that the mere participation in dialogue which presupposes some level of basic legitimation is a bitter pill to swallow. It is a pity that evangelicals cannot distinguish between valuing and respecting the individual, and even their praxis and beliefs, as well as their religious institutions or community, without agreeing with them in totality and sanctioning them, thus providing a foundation for understanding and dialogue.
My extra two cents. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Why is no one using Scripture here?
All your opinions sound plausible, until they are compared to the word of God:
Those who are heretic’s after the first and second admonition REJECT (Tit. 3:10): They have condemned themselves, and are SUBVERTED (3:11); AND we should only greet (GREET meaning defined as;- welcome, meet with, make the acquaintance with, speak with, address, acknowledge) those who love us in the faith: If the grace of God is with us, we should all be able to say Amen to this (3:15). All other activity for or against ORGANIZED HERECY is unprofitable and even vain, because it just leads to foolish questions (3:9).
Anyone who questions THIS sound biblical advice is just playing into foolishness, which is merely into contentions, and strivings (Tit. 3:9). This is the faithful saying that needs to be affirmed: Men of God should be careful to maintain this good work, which is profitable (3:8): Which work is REJECT them! (3:10). This is needful, just because we are justified by God’s grace, and in accordance with hope (3:7); Wherein we were saved according to God’s mercy by the washing and renewing of the Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ our Savior (3:5-6).
Apparently, not many are ready for this good work of God’s gentlemen, who are meek (meaning;- subject to the Scriptures) (Tit. 3:1-2). Just because the kindness and love of God our Savior has appeared unto all men, we should avoid being foolish (meaning;- questioning aChristian’s right to REJECT organized heresy) (3:4-3). I hope that there is no disobedience toward this sound admonition, for those who do so, shall be doing so out of malice, and envy, and even hatefulness, because they are also deceived, and into serving lusts and pleasures, instead of this good work (3:3 & 1 with 10).
True meekness could not speak evil of the man who sets forth these words, which are for all men (Tit. 3:1-2).
I just wanted to make a comment to Seth’s comment…. #8. I have included it in quotes below.
I am LDS and this event was promoted in every congregation in the surrounding area. In my area it was publicized over the pulpit and in the program. I work with the local LDS congregation in Rancho Santa Margarita and personally know that our area would be happy to host such an event on a Sunday right after meetings. We encourage such events. We participate in every interfaith council in California. We have one person that is in charge of this very council for every congregation. This directive comes directly from Salt Lake.
Seth I think you should be careful in making assumptions. What you said is just not true.
Cudos to the Mariner’s Church to have the courage to host two such events and take the heat for building bridges of understanding.
Karen, I really appreciate your comment and for informing readers about the interfaith activities in your area in California. I haven’t seen any indication that any bishop or stake president would be chastised for promoting interfaith dialogue events and as I pointed out in my comment (#9), there have been events of this kind that did indeed have the support of the local stake presidency. It is always a good reminder that we should take as much care, as possible, to offer informed responses.
For readers that may not be aware, Mariners Church hosted another Mormon/Evangelical Dialogue on Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 7PM. See flyer here. The event was hosted with Craig Hazen, Director of the Christian Apologetics Program at Biola University and speakers included:
Dr. Dennis Okholm, professor of theology and philosophy at Azusa Pacific University and pastor at St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach
Pastor Greg Johnson, founder and President of Standing Together Ministry, an organization dedicated to building ties between Mormons and Evangelical Christians
Dr. Robert Millet, professor of religious understanding at Brigham Young University
Dr. Spencer Fluhman, professor of church history at Brigham Young University