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.
The part that stuck with me was the comment that most “interfaith dialogue” has thus far focused on the Mormon-Evangelical divide and not much has been done on dialogue-ing with Catholics, or Muslims, or Jews.
I agree that this is too bad. But it is also understandable. The reason Evangelicalism has been such a focus for Mormonism is, I think, twofold:
1. Mormonism’s locus in the United States (a largely “Protestant nation”) has made it natural to place the religion in a Protestant context.
2. Our key critics and antagonists have traditionally been Evangelical.
The result being, it is quite natural to vision Mormonism as being a response to Protestantism.
The reason I think this is unfortunate from a Mormon perspective is that it has put Mormons on the defensive and we’ve allowed the terms of debate to be established by our opponents. I’m not saying the traditional debate points between Mormons and Evangelicals aren’t worth talking about. But I do think Mormonism needs to branch out and place itself within a broader world and I think it can only do that by seriously engaging the other major faith traditions of the world.
Seth, thanks for your comments. One of the things that I think Millet’s talk really illustrated was the importance of personal relationships. It is true that looking at things from a contextual perspective that there are historical and environmental issues at play. For example, Stephen Robinson’s books may not have existed had it not been for that particular critique of Mormonism as not Christian. Be that as it may, one of the lessons, I think, in all of this is that it largely comes down to individuals taking the initiative and deciding they want to do this. Millet discusses how Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg began to engage in conversations that resulted in a book and Millet discusses the pastors who came to visit him resulting in friendships and long-term contacts. So I feel another reason for this focus has to do with the personalities involved and their areas of interest. So much I think depends on the individuals involved and how they want to get involved. In Millet’s interview with Krista Tippet for example, he discusses his personal background growing up in Louisiana with his mother and grandfather as converts. It seems to me that at an early age he had positive experiences with Protestantism.
Secondly, your comments raise the question as to how Mormonism should engage in the major faith traditions of the world. I would ask: Would it be better to do this within an apologetics framework or an interfaith dialogue framework? I think one of the challenges is that for too long the way religions engage one another has been dominated by an apologetic framework. Apologetics to me is largely framed as attack and defense. Military language is often used such as defeating “opponents.” However, this is inappropriate language for interfaith dialogue and this is also a reason why many people have misconceptions about the appropriateness of interfaith dialogue within a Christian context because much of Christian language is militarized with apocalyptic images of us against them, victory and war and enemies, etc.
However, I appreciate Millet when he said:
He isn’t reading his friend’s book in order to refute it or show how it isn’t biblical, but to better understand it and when he explains how he doesn’t accept it, notice how it is very personal. Dialogue isn’t debate. These are two different animals. I know I’ve harped on this issue before but I believe it bears repeating because I often think people are unable to see the world without the lens of apologetics.
One of the unfortunate results of living in an apologetic worldview is that we forget that we can engage in issues without having to refute something or someone. Millet notes that he will be writing a book on the topic of doubt, but what apologist would ever do that? Unless there is an Evangelical critique on the Mormon view of “doubt” no apologist would spend the time doing this. I don’t deny that good can come from apologetics, but I have serious reservations that this is the framework to utilize to engage the broader world religions.
Well, I am definitely certain that an apologetic paradigm would be the wrong approach for the official representatives of a faith tradition. I have no desire to see my own apostles setting up debates with prominent rabbis or archbishops. It seems a little beneath the dignity of both parties if you ask me. Better to let apologetics be something that private individuals within a faith pursue without the official blessing of Salt Lake, or the Vatican or wherever.
I’m a naturally argumentative person. So it’s hard for me personally to step outside the apologetic framework (I wonder if that’s true of a disproportionate number of internet participants?). However, if it’s any comfort, I’ve found that argumentative debates have led to a greater understanding of Protestants than I had just minding my own business and staying within my own faith’s framework. I’ve found myself speaking up in defense of other faiths when they’ve been (mildly) criticized in LDS meetings. Last fall I had the chance, in a Mormon Sunday class, to correct the common, but mistaken Mormon notion that all traditional Christians are modalists (not the term average LDS use – but the meaning is there). So, while my approach is combative, I think there is still scope for progress maybe?
But excellent point about personal relationships being the best start for real dialogue rather than mere debate.