So, you’ve read How Wide the Divide and you want more? Per your request, I’m listing just a few pertinent articles published in the wake of HWD as well at Blomberg’s excellent 11-year recap of How Wide the Divide. The authors below differ in backgrounds, perspectives and personalities.
I think it is important for those interested in the Mormon and Evangelical dialogue to keep abreast of the various ideas and concepts that have been discussed in order to effectively build upon the efforts of others and interact with the thoughts of others.
The better we are acquainted with the literature, the better informed our future discussions and dialogues will become.
Connelly, Matthew R., Craig L. Blomberg, Stephen E. Robinson and BYU Studies Staff. “Sizing Up the Divide: Reviews and Replies,” BYU Studies, 38/3 (1999):163-190. [HTML]
This is a great introduction to the reactions to HWD. Connelly provides a wide and ranging review of the many responses to HWD. Also, Blomberg and Robinson get a chance to respond to criticisms.
Eugene England, “The Good News—and the Bad,” review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, BYU Studies 38/3 (1999): 191-201. [HTML]
England provides an example of a Mormon who is critical of interfaith dialogue and while he continually praises Blomberg and Robinson for their civil and responsible dialogue, England is also very suspicious of Evangelicals and their theology. In many ways, England doesn’t necessarily review HWD, but rather seeks to distinguish Mormonism from Evangelicalism in his own way.
Ostler, Blake T. “Bridging the Gulf.” FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177. [PDF] [HTML]
Ostler provides an excellent and rigorous critique of Blomberg and Robinson. Ostler spends quite a bit of time on inerrancy and inspiration theory, and explains the problems in speaking of God exclusively in finite or absolute terms.
Mosser, Carl and Paul Owen, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” [including Appendix: Hellenism, Greek Philosophy, and the Creedal “Straightjacket” of Christian Orthodoxy] FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177. [PDF] [HTML]
Mosser and Owen, authors of the Fall 1998 article in Trinity Journal in which they exhaustively reviewed a great deal of Mormon scholarship, are aptly qualified to review and critique HWD. They further defend the Evangelical position. They also provide an important appendix where they “hope the sentiment that all things Greek are ‘mad, bad, and dangerous to know’ will be abandoned by Latter-day Saints.”
David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, “How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser’s Review,” FARMS Review of Books, 11/2 (1999): 221–264. [PDF] [HTML]
Paulsen and Potter, both trained in philosophy, reply to Owen and Mosser. They future note the challenges with speaking of God in terms of finite and absolute terms.
Robert M. Sivulka “Similar yet Different,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 31, no. 3 (1998): 196-98. [SITE]
Sivulka (MA from Talbot School of Theology, BIOLA University; MA San Diego University) focuses mostly on inspiration theory and inerrancy, and provides a very needed balance to the literature.
Craig Blomberg. “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation.” Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum, Feb 27, 2008. [AUDIO]
What happened after How Wide the Divide? This audio lecture is absolutely essentially for understanding the origins and history of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue.
“Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Summa Theological Interfaith Dialogue, blog, April 21, 2009. [LINK]
Does Robinson really accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? Many commentators seem to think so. I argue here that the confusion while understandable can be resolved by a closer reading of Robinson and Blomberg.
Like this:
Like Loading...
sideblog – delicious
To How Wide the Divide Graduates: The Secondary Literature
I think it is important for those interested in the Mormon and Evangelical dialogue to keep abreast of the various ideas and concepts that have been discussed in order to effectively build upon the efforts of others and interact with the thoughts of others.
The better we are acquainted with the literature, the better informed our future discussions and dialogues will become.
Connelly, Matthew R., Craig L. Blomberg, Stephen E. Robinson and BYU Studies Staff. “Sizing Up the Divide: Reviews and Replies,” BYU Studies, 38/3 (1999):163-190. [HTML]
This is a great introduction to the reactions to HWD. Connelly provides a wide and ranging review of the many responses to HWD. Also, Blomberg and Robinson get a chance to respond to criticisms.
Eugene England, “The Good News—and the Bad,” review of How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation, by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, BYU Studies 38/3 (1999): 191-201. [HTML]
England provides an example of a Mormon who is critical of interfaith dialogue and while he continually praises Blomberg and Robinson for their civil and responsible dialogue, England is also very suspicious of Evangelicals and their theology. In many ways, England doesn’t necessarily review HWD, but rather seeks to distinguish Mormonism from Evangelicalism in his own way.
Ostler, Blake T. “Bridging the Gulf.” FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177. [PDF] [HTML]
Ostler provides an excellent and rigorous critique of Blomberg and Robinson. Ostler spends quite a bit of time on inerrancy and inspiration theory, and explains the problems in speaking of God exclusively in finite or absolute terms.
Mosser, Carl and Paul Owen, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation” [including Appendix: Hellenism, Greek Philosophy, and the Creedal “Straightjacket” of Christian Orthodoxy] FARMS Review of Books 11, no. 2 (1999): 103-177. [PDF] [HTML]
Mosser and Owen, authors of the Fall 1998 article in Trinity Journal in which they exhaustively reviewed a great deal of Mormon scholarship, are aptly qualified to review and critique HWD. They further defend the Evangelical position. They also provide an important appendix where they “hope the sentiment that all things Greek are ‘mad, bad, and dangerous to know’ will be abandoned by Latter-day Saints.”
David L. Paulsen and R. Dennis Potter, “How Deep the Chasm? A Reply to Owen and Mosser’s Review,” FARMS Review of Books, 11/2 (1999): 221–264. [PDF] [HTML]
Paulsen and Potter, both trained in philosophy, reply to Owen and Mosser. They future note the challenges with speaking of God in terms of finite and absolute terms.
Robert M. Sivulka “Similar yet Different,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 31, no. 3 (1998): 196-98. [SITE]
Sivulka (MA from Talbot School of Theology, BIOLA University; MA San Diego University) focuses mostly on inspiration theory and inerrancy, and provides a very needed balance to the literature.
Craig Blomberg. “How Wide the Divide? Eleven Years Later, Mormons and Evangelicals in Conversation.” Denver Seminary’s Women’s Forum, Feb 27, 2008. [AUDIO]
What happened after How Wide the Divide? This audio lecture is absolutely essentially for understanding the origins and history of the Mormon-Evangelical dialogue.
“Stephen Robinson and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” Summa Theological Interfaith Dialogue, blog, April 21, 2009. [LINK]
Does Robinson really accept the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? Many commentators seem to think so. I argue here that the confusion while understandable can be resolved by a closer reading of Robinson and Blomberg.
Share this:
Like this: