McDermott Responds to Critique of First Things Article

On September 18, 2008, I wrote a critique of an article titled “Is Mormonism Christian?” written by Gerald R. McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College.  The article appeared in the October 2008 issue of FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life.

Shortly afterward, Professor McDermott kindly sent me a response to my critique.  With his permission, I am pleased to post his response below.  I want to thank Professor McDermott for taking the time and interest to engage in my review.

Reno & Porter Interview: Is Mormonism Christian?

This post is a joy to write.  Not only am I able to present an audio interview of Bruce D. Porter, but one conducted by a Roman Catholic interviewer.  Here, we have a Roman Catholic interviewing a Latter-day Saint partly in regards to an essay written by an Evangelical.  Listen to the audio here.

Russell R. Reno, is an associate professor in the Department of Theology at Creighton University.  Creighton is a Jesuit university and Reno is Catholic.  I was extremely impressed with his demeanor as well as his questions in sincerely trying to understand Mormonism.  In addition to his interview with Bruce D. Porter, Reno also interviews Gerald McDermott in regards to his First Things Article.  I intend to comment on that interview later, however, I want to focus on Reno and Porter in this post.  In particular I want to emphasize Reno’s questions.

Reno: In terms of the sense in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate beings, I mean, in no sense, do I, in my acquaintance with Mormons, do I have any sense they are polytheistic in any sense.  So the  question I have is, if you think about this, what do you think protects the piety from fragmenting?  (11:00-11:27)

This is an excellent question.  Reno knows from things he has read that Latter-day Saints believe the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three beings.  His question suggests the possibility that, this doctrine could lead to people choosing to worship one being to the exclusion of the other, or as he says it “fragmenting the piety”.  However, and most importantly, he reflects on his own experience with Mormons and from an empirical standpoint knows that he doesn’t see Latter-day Saint factions where some choose to be faithful only to one member of the Godhead.

McDermott & Porter: Explaining What Mormons Believe

Dialogue continues between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals.  The October 2008 issue of FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life includes an essay titled “Is Mormonism Christian?” by Bruce D. Porter, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Gerald R. McDermott, Jordan-Trexler Professor of Religion at Roanoke College. Last month I was interviewed by John W. Morehead and presented a review of Claiming Christ: A Mormon–Evangelical Debate (hereafter “Claiming”), which McDermott co-authored with Robert L. Millet.   Several of the points and arguments that McDermott makes in Claiming was reproduced in his First Things article. I thought this would be a good opportunity to enter into the fray and set forth my disagreements with McDermott’s characterizations of Mormon teaching and belief.

Review of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate at Morehead’s Musings

Last week I was interviewed by John W. Morehead of Morehead’s Musings about my thoughts on “Claming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate” by Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott (Brazos Press 2007).  The interview allowed me to discuss at length some of the various impressions and concerns I had as I read the book.  Read the interview here.

Some of the topics discussed were comparisons and contrasts between Claiming Christ and How Wide the Divide, effective and ineffective methods for interrelgious communication; challenges inherent in dialogue between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals, including the difficulty but absolute necessity of understanding what others have written about a particular topic.  I discuss the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to dialogue and suggest ways that Evangelicals might understand Latter-day Saint interest in the words of early Christian writers.  Lastly, I offer suggestions for how we might overcome perennial problems in dialogue through understanding each other’s metaphors.

If you have read Claiming Christ or have an interest in academic exchange between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals, I hope you find the interview helpful and informative.

Stephen H. Webb on ‘Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate’

Webb, Stephen H. “Review of Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate – By Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott.” Reviews in Religion and Theology 15.3 (July 2008): 426-429(4).

Stephen H. Webb (Ph.d. University of Chicago), describes himself as a ‘conservative Christian theologian’ and is Professor of Religion & Philosophy at Wabash College.  His brief four page review of ‘Claiming Christ’ in Reviews in Religion and Theology came as a refreshing critique packed with amazing vignettes and serious gems.  He applauds Millet and McDermott’s intense and civil religious dialogue.  “I trust [Millett] in part because McDermott trusts him,” Webb explains, “which is to say, the book worked wonders for me.” (427). “Their friendship lets them argue with daring and honesty, but it is their commitment to the truth that makes this book truly edifying.” (426).  Webb explained how for him the book was a powerful experience in “recognizing how another religious movement truly recognizes your own savior in spite of differences in how that savior is described.”  Ibid.

The Changing Perceptions of Mormonism

Every now and then there is a claim or even a passing observation that Mormonism is changing. In many cases these claims are made without understanding the broader environment in which they are made, and not fully appreciating the implications of the statement. I hope to outline the cause of this perception and explain the different reactions to this perception both among Mormons and Evangelicals and the relationship between these reactions.

Criticisms of McDermott & Millet: Dialogue Meets Apologetics

Gerald McDermott and Robert Millet’s book “Claiming Christ” has recently been published and as any one could predict, critiques from several Evangelical commentators has begun to appear in print and on the web.  (See past posts relating to Gerald McDermott)

In this post I am not going to offer a review of the book, but rather, I would like to offer some brief observations of the larger dynamic of joint Evangelical & LDS publications.  Ten years ago in the aftermath of How Wide the Divide a similar situation occurred.  It is here where efforts at Dialogue come into contact with the wider Christian apologetic community.  Generally speaking, Dialogue does not interpret the statements of others in order to defeat or vanquish the other person as an opponent, but rather, Dialogue seeks to better understand the other person.  That understanding may eventually be applied to evangelistic purposes which I think is legitimate and, I might add, much more fruitful than the traditional apologetic methods of refutation.  However, when dialogue results in a book co-authored by an Evangelical, like McDermott, naturally and in accordance with past precedent, the Christian apologetics community will want to see if the book maintains the traditional distinctions on Mormonism.  They want to make sure that Mormonism is properly distinguished from traditional Christianity and that nothing has been conceded in the enterprise of dialogue.  This tension is quite real and it will yet to be seen whether responses from the Evangelical community will be different in the wake of ’Claiming Christ’ than the responses received after How Wide the Divide was published.  I recall Paul Owen’s observations of reactions to How Wide the Divide:

Reexamining Dialogue in the New Testament

Some of the images that Christian apologists often remember are those of Christ speaking harshly against the Pharisees.  Sometimes the simple conclusion is that, as a Christian, if I am to follow Christ, then it is completely justified for me to condemn those I believe are wrong, because Christ did the same thing.  Where is the harm in that?

Recently, I have observed a re-examination of and reflection on the communication and discourse methods in the New Testament between Jesus and Paul and those of other faiths such as the Samaritans and the Athenians.  This re-examination is particularly helpful given the skepticism and suspicion that some have regarding the appropriateness of interfaith dialogue.  I would like to highlight three statements which I have come across in recent months.