Dialogue, Creeds and Who is Christian?
On Interfaith Dialogue
The purpose of interfaith dialogue is not so that in the end everyone will agree about everything they discuss. Rather, one of the purposes in my view is that where there is disagreement, the disagreement will be on the right things, where actual disagreement exists. This can only happen when both sides are informed and both sides seek to understand one another.
At times, perhaps part of interfaith dialogue is allowing both sides to vent and express their frustration. We should, however, also have the goal to move beyond venting, to move beyond expressing frustration about how we have been treated, to increasing mutual understanding.
On the Creeds
It is true that many Latter-day Saints say that they reject the historic Christian creeds. In fact, there are two main disagreements. The first is with the content of creeds, the second is with the function of creeds. As to the content, in reality there is very little in the creeds that Latter-day Saint must reject. Many of the creeds only make sense if understood in their historical context and once a person takes the time to learn the history the reason for the creeds become much less confusing. The only term in the Nicene Creed that most Latter-day Saints would feel they cannot accept is to say that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost is “one being.” Latter-day Saints reject this only because they feel it violates their understanding of the Father and the Son being two personages of flesh and bone. In the historic Christian conception, God is immaterial. As to the second disagreement, that creeds serve the function of determining who is included in the Christian polity, historically this has happened.
Creeds, Community, and History
Latter-day Saints, however, should at least acknowledge that most, if not all, religious communities have mechanisms to determine who is part of the community and who is not. Often doctrine is part of this determination. In addition, it is important for Latter-day Saints to realize that creeds also serve the function of preserving the historical understanding of the faith as it has developed in the history of the Church. To say that one accepts creeds is often to say that one accepts the historic understanding of the Christian faith. It is to say that one identifies oneself with the historic Christian Church. Here in lies one of the key points of miscommunication.
We’re Christian but not Christian. Why can’t you understand?
On the one hand, many Latter-day Saints argue that they are “Christian” while simultaneously arguing that they are neither Catholic, Protestant nor Eastern Orthodox, that they reject the Christian creeds, and that their beliefs do not correspond to the doctrines as developed within the historic Christian tradition. Latter-day Saints typically fail to sympathize with the difficulty others have at understanding this position.
On this point, further expressing frustration or disbelief at how any one can not understand this position does little to increase mutual understanding. Rather, we need to proceed with a genuine desire to increase understanding and to really try to see things from each others perspective. There are many who are not willing to do this. Works like How Wide the Divide illustrate what is possible when people make a good faith attempt to understand another.
Note: This is a revised version of a comment posted December 28, 2008 at “The Mormon Trinity” Dave’s Mormon Inquiry. See original post.
My favorite part of this post is the first paragraph:
“The purpose of interfaith dialogue is not so that in the end everyone will agree about everything they discuss. Rather, one of the purposes in my view is that where there is disagreement, the disagreement will be on the right things, where actual disagreement exists. This can only happen when both sides are informed and both sides seek to understand one another.”
Amen.
aquinas, thank you for raising the issue of creeds, and in the context of dialogue. Readers might find a post I did in the past of interest related to this. It was Jaroslav Pelikan and his commentary on the creeds at Speaking of Faith, wherein you also posted some comments in exchange.
Clean Cut, thanks for your comment.
John, I appreciate the link and reminding me of the comments I made there. I had in mind Pelikan’s thoughts on creeds in my third section. I recommend listening to his interview for those who want to better understand Christian creeds throughout history.
aquinas, I always appreciate your insights and those of your readers. Thanks for making them available on the internet.
This post reminded me of a phrase used in the “Scriptural Reasoning” movement in the UK. They phrase their purpose for interfaith dialog as to promote, “a better quality of disagreement.” I thought that was a nice way of encapsulating the balance I strive to find between clarifying differences but not shying away from points of agreement.
Thanks for the thoughts, aquinas. As I’ve argued elsewhere, one approach I favor in religious dialog is a respectful engagement that seeks *first* to understand and respect the beliefs of the other. Morally, this approach fulfills the commandment to “do unto others.” Pragmatically, it reduces the likelihood of arguing past one another, or getting hung up on peripheral issues. One simple way to know if you understand the position of the other is by attempting to restate the position of the other to his or her satisfaction. If you think that position is illogical, faulty, etc. you can articulate those reasons, but at least you should be able to state their position in a way that makes them say “yes, I think you understand me.”
Of course, significant problems remain in this idealistic approach. For instance, the personal beliefs encompassed within any one religious tradition can be remarkably diverse. Identifying “official Mormon doctrine” has been compared to nailing Jell-O to the wall, as you know. The idea of “doctrine” itself is difficult to pin down. Is doctrine equal to “truth”? Is doctrine something all Mormons must accept? What constitutes Mormon doctrine? In order to facilitate better communication between members of other faiths (as well as harmony among Mormons), various efforts have been made to identify a standard for Mormon doctrine.
So one obstacle to religious dialog between Mormons and others comes up when one or the other fails to acknowledge that they do not in fact speak for the entire tradition. (This can be a problem too, because this very assertion serves as its own authority. I know of no official LDS statement that must be accepted by everyone which states such a thing, and if there was, it would seem to self-defeat, no?) But simply recognizing that different Mormons might articulate or understand things differently seems true on its face to the chagrin of people who want to have a systematic theology. (Or people who want a systematic theology with which to beat Mormons over the head!)
Thanks for the thoughts BHodges. I agree with your first paragraph. As to the second, I think one of the problems with critiquing how Mormons define Mormon doctrine (and I know many others have already written on this topic and have done a great job fleshing out the issues) is that most of the time this move by Mormons to evade doctrinal positions and moves by critics to prevent Mormons from being a moving target takes place with in an adversarial and polemic context.
There are Latter-day Saint thinkers who consider what constitutes Mormon doctrine outside this polemical context, but in the realm of apologetics, what is really going on is not a concern for defining doctrine per se, but rather this is indicative of critics who want a target they can hit and Mormons who want to take that target away. Thus, there really isn’t a good incentive by either party to flesh out doctrinal distinctions responsibly.
This is where I think advocating a dialogue built on mutual trust is the better goal. Until we take the discussion outside that polemical context, defining doctrine is merely a tactic to either enlarge or diminish the proverbial bull’s eye and it really has nothing to do with seeking to understand the religious tradition either by critics or Latter-day Saints themselves. It distorts our understanding in my view.
As a corollary, there isn’t an incentive by critics to understand that there are various schools of thought within Mormonism, because it is perceived by them as Mormons trying to evade criticism. And I feel that some Mormons actually consider diversity of viewpoints as a good or healthy thing even in areas where frankly, diversity of viewpoints isn’t really beneficial. Where theology is considered, mere diversity of viewpoints for diversity’s sake doesn’t seem to me to be necessarily an indication of a good thing, it could be an indication that people don’t really understand or are merely perpetuating ideas they haven’t fully evaluated. It is tempting for Mormons to invoke diversity as a strategy in polemical environments, rather than acknowledging diversity in actual theological traditions within Mormonism and critiquing those traditions responsibly. But again, there is less incentive for Mormons to critique their religious tradition in a polemical and adversarial environment where critics want Mormons to criticize the teachings of their leaders.
It is these dynamics that tend to corrupt true understanding, because neither side has an incentive to do what is necessary. Yet, placed in a respectful and trusting relationship, both sides have a great incentive to really probe their own tradition and seek to better understand the other, and they want to know about diversity in each tradition and how various schools of thought seek to resolve perennial theological problems both in their own faith tradition and in the other.
“what is really going on is not a concern for defining doctrine per se, but rather this is indicative of critics who want a target they can hit and Mormons who want to take that target away. Thus, there really isn’t a good incentive by either party to flesh out doctrinal distinctions responsibly. This is where I think advocating a dialogue built on mutual trust is the better goal.”
Right, that’s what I meant with this part: “recognizing that different Mormons might articulate or understand things differently seems true on its face to the chagrin of people who want to have a systematic theology. (Or people who want a systematic theology with which to beat Mormons over the head!)”
Add to it, people who wish to avoid such beatings (ie so-called apologists).
“…rather than acknowledging diversity in actual theological traditions within Mormonism and critiquing those traditions responsibly.”
That’s what I would call for, and it can be done between Mormons themselves or between Mormons and non as well.
“Yet, placed in a respectful and trusting relationship, both sides have a great incentive to really probe their own tradition and seek to better understand the other”
Right, that’s basically what my first paragraph was aiming at as you noted.
BHodges, sounds like we are on the same page. I will say that I’m not so sure its a systematic theology that critics necessarily want. Some critics simply want Mormons to say “Yes, you are right that I do believe that, you got me.” But “systematic theology” is a buzzword among Mormons, with some who think that systematic theology is something Mormons should not pursue and others who are interested in thinking more systematically about their doctrines. I would argue that systematic theology in Mormonism is not new but that it has been done before and I’m not convinced that systematic theology is a negative thing. Anyway, by invoking the phrase “systematic theology” I understand this as gesturing towards a more internal discussion among Latter-day Saint thinkers, rather than at the actual language of critics.
#4 – Jacob, thanks for your comments. I like that phrase “a better quality of disagreement.” That’s a good way to put it.
Ah, gotcha. Words and baggage, etc. I agree that a systematic theology need not be such a terrible thing. I would look more at the pragmatic results of such a theology at the very least. Thanks for helping me think through some ideas. I’m working on a blog post about this right now.
I know that I am coming in late but from an outsider’s perspective systematic theologies would a win for the LDS and outsiders wanting to engage with Mormons. Why should Mormons even worry how critics use it? As a confessional Protestant our theologies are misquoted and taken out of context constantly but we still go back to our dogmatics.
In Concise Reformed Dogmatics a recently translated Dutch systematic Genderen and Velema explain 3 uses for systematic theology; 1 correction of heresy and error, 2 instruction and catechesis, and 3 to express biblical exegetical coherence.
Theologians examine and engage the theologumena of other theologians in systematics. Doctrines are analyzed, words are defined and explained, and if other theologians don’t agree or wants to give a better or clearer rendering they can write another systematic theology.
gundek, thanks. It’s never too late to comment. Just by way of background, there are some Mormon thinkers that argue that a Systematic Theology in Mormonism would run the danger of being overturned by some subsequent revelation. However, I’ve never been persuaded by that argument. Even if that did happen, it seems highly unlikely that such a revelation would overturn every single point of doctrine. In addition, as you point out, just because someone produces a systematic theology does not mean that systematic theologies cease to be produced. There are many systematic theologies and more no doubt will come.
Pure speculation, what would the order of an LDS systematic be?
Well, that’s an interesting question and yes, it would be pure speculation. Take a look at what I would consider an early kind of systematic treatment by John A. Widstoe called “Rational Theology.” It begins with the Will of Man, which seems rather appropriate for Mormonism. On the other hand, if you look at Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, he begins with The Word of God, which also seems quite appropriate to his religious tradition.
The order says quite a lot about one’s religious tradition. I’m sure an LDS systematic theology would no doubt have distinct features both in content as well as in order and possibility in overall approach, but in as much as the Mormon canon also includes the Bible, it seems likely that treatments could cover similar notions. Maxie Burch has a series of lectures on Christian Theology, and while he says he isn’t doing systematics but rather takes a historical approach, I believe he borrows a systematics framework for structure, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
What is Christian Theology?
Revelation
The Person of God
Creation
Sin and The Human Condition
Person and Work of Christ
Holy Spirit
The Sacraments
Sanctification and Justification
The Church
Last Things
The LDS Gospel Principles manual, which is definitely not systematic theology nor intended to be, nevertheless tends to cluster its lessons around a general kind of order of topics. Compare to Burch’s outline, it’s comparable.
I’m inclined to think, however, that with the controversy around whether LDS should even do theology or systematic theology, what we would see is even controversy as to whether an LDS systematic should follow traditional Christian systematics or whether it should be something entirely different and unique. It’s hard to say.