Interfaith Dialogue for Teens and Young Adults
After considering the possible ways I might describe these videos, I’ve decided to let these videos speak for themselves. Titled “Grounded” this program is for teens and young adults “from mainstream Christian backgrounds who are seeking ways to balance commitment to their faith with the friendships they have developed with Latter-day Saints.” Grounded was produced by David Pascoe and the Salt Lake Theological Seminary and is promoted by John W. Morehead, who served as a consultant, and the Neighboring Faiths Project.
Video One: Sample Session of “Grounded: Relating to Your Mormon Friends in Truth and Love,” a training program for youth ministries.
Video Two: An Overview of the Grounded Program.
Whether you are LDS, Evangelical or of another faith, what are your impressions and responses to “Grounded”?
sideblog – delicious
- Why Everyone Needs Theology
- Organizing the Doctrine and Covenants Lessons: Or, Why the Topical Approach Doesn’t Work
- Doctrine & Covenants in 2013: Introduction
- Studying the Doctrines of the Gospel in the D&C; and Church History this year by Jeffrey Marsh: A response
- The Pedagogy of Sunday School (part 1)
- The Burden of Church History and its implications for Mormon History
- Relief Society Lesson: The Life and Ministry of Lorenzo Snow
- How the Early Church Made Peace with Prosperity
- Its a Destructive Life: A Critique of George Bailey
- A Reply to Nate Oman’s Reply to my Reply to His Post on Liberal Mormons and Prophetic Power or Long Live the Bloggernacle
- Another Surreply: Nate Oman responds to critiques
- Mormons and Gays
- Another Liberal Mormon’s Response to Nate Oman
- New Church Website on Same-Sex Attraction Offers Love, Understanding and Hope
- Previewing 2013: A Look Forward to Exciting Books in Mormon History
I’m a fairly new reader to the blog and I’ve really enjoyed it. I’m a student-leader of the BYU interfaith group so we get to do dialogues every winter semester with Evangelical students. From what I can tell from the videos, the scope of the program is very similar to what we try to accomplish in conjunction with the Evangelical students who come out to visit.
Since this relates to the previous post concerning Frank Pastore’s criticism of Standing Together and Bob Millet, I’d like to point out that the BYU program and (from what it appears) Grounded intend to go beyond lectures or debates and into spawning new relationships between people of different faiths. Although not all distinctives may be made clear in a single conversation, the goal is that with time and further interaction each person will be able to correctly understand the others perspective and in turn be understood. There’s more of course but I’ll stop there for now.
Welcome to the blog Jake, and I appreciate your comments! I’d be interested in hearing more about your interfaith group. Your point is well taken. Incidentally, I didn’t plan on the order of the Pastore post and the Grounded post, but because of the close proximity, it makes for quite the contrast in approaches.
If this helps nice young people be friends with each other, I’m all for it.
But I get the feeling that both sides are secretly thinking – “Well, we will be civil and nice… and patiently wait for your inevitable conversion to our side.” (wink)
I guess that’s OK. But you just know it has to influence how open you REALLY are to the other side’s position.
Seth, is there anything in the video that makes you feel that both sides are secretly thinking that? Ironically, your comment reminds me of Pastore’s position. He feels like dialoguing is just a sham. People should just be honest and upfront with their intentions to convert the other person or lure them away from their church (he said this over and over again in his talk show) rather than pretend to want to “understand” the other side. Your comment seems to suggest one or both sides aren’t really honest (i.e. how open they REALLY are to the other side, as opposed to how open they appear to be). Is that what you see is going on here?
When it comes to dialogues of this kind, at least in our program, I’ve found it much more liberating and healthy for the relationship to lay all the cards on the table. I have many Evangelical friends and it’s no secret in our relationship that we’d like to see the other convert. By being honest in that way we create transparency and trust.
I could see one snippet of the video ( a comment about sharing the gospel with Mormons, I believe) possibly implying the kind of ulterior motive Seth talked about but I would hesitate to say that’s those feelings are ubiquitous for both sides.
Something that has helped breach the mutual desire to proselyte one another is the acceptance that each individual is a sincere seeker of truth. If each party can accept that the other group is totally devoted to discovering God’s will for them then the matter can be handed largely over to God. We still share our witness and convictions to one another but we recognize that ultimately it is God that changes our hearts to know Him and Christ.
I don’t see it as a sham. I consider it totally sincere. But I’m just saying I doubt it’s a totally objective undertaking on either side.
It’s the classic dilemma of interfaith dialogue. If you really care about your religion, it’s hard to be really indifferent as to whether the opposing side “converts” or not.
I think it’s important to be open and honest in interfaith relationships like this, and the desire to see the other person convert should be candidly admitted. But it is critical that this should not be the only motive for the friendship. In fact, we should approach the friendship with the idea that the other person most likely believes as strongly about their faith as you do about yours, and therefore it is likely that they will never convert. Accepting the premise that the other person is as sincere and honest about their beliefs as you are about yours opens the door to a more honest dialogue.
This reminds me of a segment from the DVD put out by Standing Together Ministries, titled: A Mormon & Evangelical Christian In Conversation. This is a dialogue with Dr. Robert Millet of Brigham Young University and Rev. Greg Johnson of Standing Together. Presented at Boise State University in March 2004.
In the DVD, Millet and Johnson recount the history of their friendship and where it has led them. After having many discussions about their personal beliefs for quite some time, they came to this critical part of their friendship when they had to determine their motives and direction. This quote comes from 16:27 into the DVD:
I don’t think it’s possible to care about a friend and not wish that they could be converted to your faith, but it is unproductive to make that the sole focus of your friendship. The Lord doesn’t want you to have superficial friends that you would drop the instant they show a lack of interest in your faith. He wants you to see them the way He sees them, He wants you to love them as He loves them. And that can only happen if we are also willing to put the matter of conversion into His hands.
I appreciate the comments shared here, and the question (and concern) raised about “conversion agendas.” This is a concern on both sides of the religious divide, and I think an important one, but one with which we eventually need to move on. So long as we recognize up front that we are both missions-minded religions and that as people who take our faiths seriously and love others and want them to embrace the best spiritual pathway as we understand it, is it any wonder that we would be missions-minded and seek conversion of the other? However, how we go about such a process of sharing our faith, and whether conversion is the only item on our agenda are different matters. Perhaps after we lay our agendas on the table in honesty, and recognize that conversions do indeed go both ways, we will be in a position to move beyond concerns over proselytization, and consider a broader framework for dialogue that includes friendship, love for neighbor as ourselves, and recognition of the image of God in the other. With this broader framework conversion is not ignored, but it is put in a broader context with wider concerns on not only our agendas, but perhaps God’s as well.
Food for thought.
I feel several important issues have been brought out and I can only say that I agree with many of these comments. I agree that honesty is important in any relationship. One of my concerns, which John also raised, is the manner in which we “lay all our cards on the table.” I still feel there are many who equate honesty with a confrontational approach, which explains the suspicion and charges of dishonesty at those who are less confrontational. I feel, to use John’s phrase, that we must recognize that both sides are ‘mission-minded.’ I’d like to flesh out a little more what that means to me as well as what ‘conversion’ means.
I think it is important, as Jake pointed out, that we need to accept that each individual is an honest seeker of truth. I would add, as a corollary to that, at least for me personally, if my goal is to see the other person draw closer to Christ, as I myself desire to grow closer to Christ, that just meeting the formalistic aspect of ‘conversion’ shouldn’t be my goal. Rather, it’s critical to allow that individuals in both faith communities can grow closer to God within their own faith community. I have been encouraged by comments given by McDermott, Hazen and others that they believe some Mormons are indeed Christian, and may very well be saved, or that they have grow closer to more traditional aspects of Christianity. I am encouraged by these comments because there is an implicit acceptance of the possibility that a person can grow closer to God within their own faith community. If I am truly mission-minded, I don’t think that I can hold the position that anything short of a formal conversion is meaningless. As Incognitus pointed out, one might also realize that the other side will never convert, but that shouldn’t render dialogue meaningless, nor should that preclude God’s involvement in the lives of both individuals (God’s agenda as John noted).
To put it another way, I don’t think that we need to take the position that interfaith dialogue is merely a conversion tool, and if conversion doesn’t occur, that the tool didn’t serve its purpose. Dialogue has benefits which go beyond proselytization. I do not think that friendship is something that is just nice if it happens. Friendship is an extremely worthy goal, a noble virtue, one of the most valuable experiences humans can have, especially in an increasingly pluralistic and divisive world. Furthermore, there is a great deal of understanding not only of the faith of others but our own faith as we dialogue with others. I think those who engage in interfaith dialogue understand that they’ve often learned just as much or more about their own faith in the process.