I was gratified to read a piece posted at Patheos last week by Timothy Dalrymple titled "Why Evangelicals Should Defend Mormons From Mockery." The argument, of course, runs both ways: neither group should employ mockery as a tactic or quietly cheer its use by third parties when directed against the other. The author is quite frank about the problem, while also noting it is getting better:
High-level evangelical-Mormon conversations are taking place even now and are clearly edifying both sides. Mormon leaders have been receptive to evangelical experts in historical theology, and have learned why the church historically has avoided some of the formulations Mormons use. The trajectory of Mormonism’s development is a positive one. Yet evangelicals have also, before and alongside these more charitable recent efforts, caricatured Mormons and perpetuated falsehoods about the official doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church.
And Evangelical peacemakers, too, both discussed in Evangelicals vs. Mormons: Blessed Are the Peacemakers at First Things. The short post touches all the usual bases (How Wide the Divide, the Millet-Johnson partnership, Ravi Zacharias, politics makes strange bedfellows), then details some local activities that have promoted Evangelical-Mormon understanding in the Salt Lake City area. The LDS writer concludes:
It is a powerful thing, we discovered in each other’s churches, to be embraced by people with tears in their eyes who have connected with you as a fellow child of God after years of suspicion and presumption.
I took the two-hour drive to Idaho Falls last night to hear Greg Johnson and Robert Millet present their friendly conversation on Mormons and Evangelicals to an audience of six or seven hundred. Johnson is an Evangelical pastor who runs the Standing Together ministry in Utah; Millet is a Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU. Together they coauthored Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical back in 2007. Their live presentation covers some of the same ground as the book, but also takes questions from the audience.
Here's a second post [see Part 1] on Joseph Smith, Jr.: Reappraisals After Two Centuries (OUP, 2009). I didn't find the second and third sections quite as strong as the first section, although I liked Richard Bushman's essay "Joseph Smith and the Creation of the Sacred." But I'll talk a bit about Richard J. Mouw's essay "The Possiblity of Joseph Smith: Some Evangelical Probings." Some of what Mouw has to say rubs me the wrong way, but at the same time I'm grateful that this Evangelical theologian continues to make sincere attempts to engage with Mormonism.
John Mark Reynolds posted "On America, land of cults," leading off with this provocative statement: "An American cult is what happens when radical individualism meets religion and philosophy." I was expecting the usual treatment when he got around to the Mormons, but was pleasantly surprised to read the following later in the post.
A Disciples of Christ minister with an LDS girlfriend posting at an LDS group blog: "Faith and Logic: Finding and Navigating an Individual Balance." The short summary: personal religious experience is good, but so is clear thinking; temper your sense of certainty with open discussion and listening.
This is the long overdue second post on Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson's How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. [See the first post.] This post talks about the Mormon view of scripture, with reference to the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, volumes of scripture that, along with the Bible, are part of the LDS canon.
This is the first of several posts on Blomberg and Robinson's How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation. The format of the book is its biggest strength -- each chapter contains a joint conclusion in which the authors summarize the exchange, with an emphasis on restating the many points of belief that both share (despite the often confusing use of different terminology by Mormons and Evangelicals). That seems like a nice way to approach an interfaith exchange and accounts, I believe, for the success and continuing relevance of the book.
Krister Stendahl died earlier this year (hat tip: Lehi's Library).
He was a Swedish scholar and theologian, and also served for a period
as the Lutheran Bishop of Stockholm. In LDS circles, he is fondly
remembered as the author of three rules of religious understanding,
which he propounded during public debate critical of a planned LDS
temple in Sweden. They are good rules to follow in any religious or
interfaith conversation. Here are Stendahl's three rules.
When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
Don't compare your best to their worst.
Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should
be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or
faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your
own religious tradition or faith.)
At Clean Cut, a short post praising How Wide the Divide?, the first and still, I think, the best Mormon-Evangelical interfaith dialogue book. Says Clean Cut, "I think it should be an absolute required read for any Evangelical and for every Latter-day Saint."
At the Summa Theologica blog, a long commentary on the recent interfaith dialogue exchange between Gerald R. McDermott (a professor of religion) and Bruce D. Porter (an LDS General Authority), recently published at First Things under the predictable title "Is Mormonism Christian?" [The First Things post was discussed last month in a Times & Seasons post.]
Beliefnet is hosting an online debate of sorts on the topic (and I'm sure you've never seen this one before) "Are Mormons Christian?" Albert Mohler, who holds a Ph.D. (in systematic and historical theology) and is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, titles his post "Mormonism Is Not Christianity." Orson Scott Card, an award-winning science fiction writer and an active Latter-day Saint, replies with "Who Gets to Define 'Christian'?" I'll take one paragraph to talk about Mohler, one paragraph to talk about Card, and one paragraph to talk about the mixed bag of comments to Card's post.
After Theory Terry Eagleton on whatever it is that comes after postmodernism. My Post
Experiments in Ethics A moral philosopher's surprisingly entertaining critique of traditional philosophical ethics using modern experimental data. • My post
Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet Is Unique The prolific astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin reviews where Earth came from, why it is here, and how it will end (in a rain of cometary chunks from the Oort Cloud in about a million years). Read all about it in my post The Fate of the Earth.
Ancient Israelite Religion Susan Niditch explores myth, ritual, experience, and ethics in the Hebrew Bible and using surviving archeological artifacts, revealing a surprisingly diverse ancient Israelite religion. • My Post
Davies: The Mormon Culture of Salvation Uses a variety of models to look at LDS doctrine and cultural practice related to death and salvation, with a lengthy consideration of the "world religion" question. My Post • Pub Note
Recent Comments