Review of "Mormon Christianity" in Dialogue

I have written a review for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 47, no. 2 (Summer 2014). The review can be downloaded through my Academia.edu page at this link. Here are the introductory paragraphs.

Stephen Webb is a Roman Catholic scholar who has made a great effort to understand and interact with Mormonism in sympathetic ways. In his prior volume on this topic, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford University Press, 2011), Webb considered the possibility of the materiality and divine embodiment of God by way of elements in the history of Christian thought, specifically “heavenly flesh” Christology. In Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints, he narrows his focus to consider Mormon materialist metaphysics and what this might mean for his own Catholicism, as well as the doctrine of the rest of historic Christendom.

In contrast with classical theism where God is an immaterial spirit, Webb entertains the idea that God possesses a material body (5). He wonders whether this might be a possibility for traditional Christians as they consider the implications of Joseph Smith’s interpretation of his “First Vision” which provided him with an “insight into the materiality of the divine” (9). This has resulted in a Mormon metaphysical teaching on matter wherein God is not only embodied and material, but also, “Most fundamentally speaking, spirit and matter are not opposites at all. Spirit and matter complement each other and are not ultimately different in substance” (34).

Webb recognizes the serious implications of this for traditional Christianity, if true, in that it “calls for the revision of nearly every Christian belief ” (124). For this reason a thoughtful analysis from the perspective of traditional Christianity is in order. At several points Webb calls for civil and respectful engagement of Mormonism (23, 113–14, 159), and notes that unfortunately “skeptics can be tempted to reduce it to a simple set of claims for quick criticism and polemical rebuttal” (23). This reviewer eschews such approaches, and what follows is a respectful and thoughtful critique of Webb’s thesis incorporating Mormon ideas. In the review that follows I bring the perspective of an Evangelical scholar with a background in Mormon studies, appreciation for interreligious engagement, and a desire for religious traditions to critically engage each other in civility. The following areas of critique are especially significant to traditional Christianity both Protestant and Catholic, in my mind.

US and THEM: Religious Rivalry in America Screening in Salt Lake City

Experience a Change of Heart

Learn how to feel differently towards people of another faith
 

Free Religious Film Screening
 

Film: US and THEM: Religious Rivalry in America

When: Saturday, February 8th at 7:00 p.m.
 

Where: First Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City
12 C St, Salt Lake City, UT 84103
(801) 363-3889
 

There will be a Q&A and discussion after the film.
 

Come participate in this great opportunity
to resolve religious misunderstandings.

Review of 'Mormon Christianity' coming in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought

I was asked to submit a review of Stephen Webb's Mormon Christianity (Oxford University Press, 2013) to Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. I was pleased to hear earlier this week that the review has gone through the initial phase of editorial review and was very well received. Dialogue editor Kristine Haglund will have a look at it and it should be published in the near future. I hope it can be posted elsewhere at places like By Common Consent, at least an excerpt, as a conversation starter between Mormons and Evangelicals. I'll post an update when the review is published.

Here's an excerpt from draft's the introductory paragraphs:

Webb recognizes the serious implications of this for traditional Christianity, if true, in that it “calls for the revision of nearly every Christian belief” (124). For this reason a thoughtful analysis from the perspective of traditional Christianity is in order. At several points Webb calls for civil and respectful engagement of Mormonism (23, 113-4, 159), and unfortunately notes that “skeptics can be tempted to reduce it to a simple set of claims for quick criticism and polemical rebuttal” (23). This reviewer eschews such approaches, and what follows is a respectful and thoughtful critique of Webb’s thesis incorporating Mormon ideas. In the review that follows I bring the perspective of an Evangelical scholar with a background in Mormon studies, appreciation for interreligious engagement, and a desire for religious traditions to critically engage each other in civility. The following areas of critique are especially significant to traditional Christianity both Protestant and Catholic, in the mind of this reviewer. 

  

Richard Mouw at Utah Valley University

Tomorrow I will be attending an event at Utah Valley University involving Rich Mouw who will address issues related to Evangelical Christianity generally with additional remarks on Evangelical-Mormon relations, and religious freedoms. This will include a chapel event, a presentation, and interactions with UVU students. On that the UVU website describes the event as follows:

Description
This course explores the relationship between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity with particular attention to the contemporary dynamics of this relationship. Key texts from both traditions will be examined in light of their comparative dimensions and cultural influence. Guest scholars will be invited to engage students from a variety of perspectives.

Key Themes
* Contemporary Mormon/Evangelical Dialogues
* Contested concepts of grace, Trinity, and the nature of God
* Social cooperation in the public square
* The religious dimensions of American politics *
* The fundamentalist challenge Mormonism and evangelicalism in the 21st century

Cognitive Empathy in Interreligious Engagement

This is a video from the RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce) and I found it on a blog called The Crooked Mouth posted with the title "Empathy and the Conservative/Progressive Theological Divide," where the author, Anderson Campbell, connects the discussion to Christian concerns. Campbell has an intrafaith context in mind when he writes:

Much like the social, political, and economic realms, the Christian theological realm has become highly polarized in the past several decades. The distance between conservative and progressive theological camps is growing wider by the day. Conversation between people of differing theologies is becoming less frequent and is often derisive, not charitable. We have become very good at “othering” because we have a failure of empathy within the Christian church.

 Of particular interest is the discussion is the idea of "cognitive empathy" in application to theology. On this Campbell distills and teases out the relevant section of the video for us:

When most people think of empathy, they often think of a kind of emotional mirroring. When you see someone in distress and you feel badly for that person, you are empathizing with them. This is affective empathy. It is the ability to recognize what the other is feeling and respond appropriately. We often characterize this kind of empathy as soft and passive, largely emotive. Contrast this with cognitive empathy, which is the ability to understand or put on someone else’s perspective, when you don’t necessarily share that same perspective. It is the ability to move past labeling the other and step into their shoes, so to speak. This empathy is more potent for change, asserts Krznaric. In contrast “touchy-feely” affective empathy, cognitive empathy ”is actually quite dangerous, because [it] can create revolution . . . a revolution of human relationships.”

I appreciate Campbell's application of this to the divide between progressives and conservatives in the church. I have found value in the thought of certain progressives, such as (dare I say their names?) Marcus Borg on the atonement, and Brian McLaren on interreligious encounters, and had no difficulty engaging progressive thought, but I've taken some heat from conservatives for doing so. I am a part of the Evangelical subculture, and in my experience we tend toward a faith identity that is hostile and confrontational with others, not only in intrafaith contexts, but interfaith ones as well.
Cognitive empathy has potential for addressing this, especially in the context of a theology and praxis of interreligious engagement. Some similarities can be found in my prior proposal on this in my essay on this at Patheos in "A Generous Orthopathy: Evangelicals and a Transformed Affective Dimension of Faith."

Plenty of food for thought here for those Evangelicals involved in interreligious dialogue and religious diplomacy. 

The Benefits of "Weaker Arguments"

Previously I've shared my concerns about the way in which Evangelicals try to share their heart-felt concerns about their religious convictions with others. Many times it takes the form of sternly presenting the doctrinal propositions of our faith, which seem all too true and reasonable to us, and coupling that with strong arguments if not attacks against others. In its most extreme forms, this takes place when "street preachers" go to Mormon General Conference, homosexual gatherings, or Muslims festivals in places like Dearborn, Michigan, but also when Evangelicals go to Mormon pageants and hold up signs and shout sermons on the sacred turf of others. More often than not, we end up confirming the truth of our own views in our minds, and those we are trying to persuade end up never ever hearing what we have to say, they become defensive and entrenched in their own positions, and in the end Evangelicals have a huge perception as well as persuasion problem.

At The World Table discussion forum I was pleased to see someone post a great essay that provides a counter-intuitive suggestion on how to be heard when we want share contrary perspectives with those that we seriously disagree with. The piece is titled "Want to Win a Political Debate?: Try Making a Weaker Argument" by Eric Horowitz from the Pacific Standard. The byline for the essay is "Gun control? Abortion? The new social science behind why you're never able to convince friends or foes to even consider things from your side." The essay is directed more toward the political end of the things, something desperately needed right now with the dysfunction in Washington, but it also has application to religion.

The foundation for the essay comes from research in psychology which indicates that people are rarely likely to find the arguments of others persuasive when they undercut those foundational ideas that contribute to their self-identity and self-worth. In fact, research shows then when shown data and arguments that strongly counter our cherished ideas, we tend to doubledown in our commitments to such ideas, even to the extreme. Horowitz calls this the "backfire effect:"

"Research by Nyhan and Reifler on what they've termed the "backfire effect" also suggests that the more a piece of information lowers self-worth, the less likely it is to have the desired impact. Specifically, they have found that when people are presented with corrective information that runs counter to their ideology, those who most strongly identify with the ideology will intensify their incorrect beliefs."

Instead, Horowitz suggests that the better way forward that will help people begin to consider our perspective is to offer a "weaker argument." He writes, "We argue like boxers wildly throwing powerful haymakers that have no chance of landing. What if instead we threw carefully planned jabs that were weaker but stood a good chance of connecting?"

As I read and continue to reflect on this essay it seems to me that it has great ramifications for our rhetorical, dialogical, and apologetic strategies. Instead of firing our apologetic salvos that we think provide the unanswerable argument that our opponents should fall over and accept in defeat, what if we softened and “weakened” this approach and presented something that others might be willing to entertain because it’s not so threatening? Such a rhetorical approach sounds similar to the Apostle Paul’s recognition of God’s strength working through his personal weakness (1 Cor. 1:2-5; 2 Cor. 12:10).  

I also think this essay has much to offer those who are tired of the frequent disconnect between people who are passionate and disagree about things like religion and politics, and who are not content with merely preaching to the choir. Take a look, give it some though, and share your thoughts here and at The World Table.

Stephen Webb on Mormon Christianity

I recently became aware of a new volume by Catholic scholar, Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints (Oxford University Press, 2013). Webb caught attention previously with his work on the idea of divine embodiment, wherein he made the case that Mormon ideas of God having a body have connections to elements of more traditional Christian theologies. (See Sacred Tribes Journal for a dialogue between a Catholic and a Mormon on this topic.) In this new volume Webb takes up a more expansive agenda. From the OUP website:

Mormons are adamant that they are Christian, and eloquent writers within their own faith have tried to make this case, but no theologian outside the LDS church has ever tried to demonstrate just how Christian they are. Stephen H. Webb's Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints fills this void, as the author writes neither as a critic nor a defender of Mormonism but as a sympathetic observer who is deeply committed to engaging with Mormon ideas.

Webb is unique in taking Mormon theology seriously by showing how it provides plausible and in some instances even persuasive alternatives to many traditional Christian doctrines. His book can serve as an introduction to Mormonism, but it goes far beyond that: Webb explains how Mormonism is a branch of the Christian family tree that extends well beyond what most Christians have ever imagined. His account of their creative appropriation of the Christian tradition is meant to inspire more traditional Christians to reconsider the shape of many basic Christian beliefs.

Mormon Christianity is not all affirming and celebratory. It ends with a call to Mormons to be more focused on Christian essentials and an invitation to other Christians to be more imaginative in considering Mormon alternatives to traditional doctrines.

Those interested in reading an accessible summary of some of Webb's thoughts related to the thesis of this volume can read his guest post on Sam Rocha's Catholic Channel at Patheos.

Are Mormons Christian?: Evangelicals, Modernity, and Cognitive, Propositional Definitions

 

There is a saying frequently attributed to a Chinese proverb: "If you want to know what water is like don't ask a fish." Regardless of the source the idea behind it is true: when someone is too familiar with their surroundings it becomes a blind spot that so influences their perspective that they aren't aware of it. It simply becomes something that is taken for granted. This is the case with Evangelicals and modernity. As Myron Bradley Penner argues in his new book on apologetics, modernity influences Evangelical assumptions on apologetics, theology, and as I will note in this post, it is also what is behind Evangelical definitions of Christianity that then serve as the backdrop for a major sticking point in Evangelical-Mormon dialogue.

I am currently reading and enjoying The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Baker Academic, 2013), by Myron Penner. The main thesis the author develops is that Evangelical apologetic approaches of whatever type are based upon the assumptions of modernity and its perspectives on reason. In particular, Penner states that, "In the modern philosophical paradigm, then, reason forms what I will call the 'objective-universal-neutral complex' (OUNCE)" (32). Penner identifies these features of reason in modernity in distinction to premodern views wherein, "reason is internal to (and possessed only by) human beings in a way that is universal, objective, and neutral" (32). Given these assumptions, apologists like William Lane Craig, and many conservative Evangelical theologians, present arguments, evidence, and theological propositions in ways that conform to the assumptions of modernity in regards to reason and epistemological justifications of belief. Penner takes issue with these assumptions and finds them far more secular than Evangelicals assume in the name of reason and its alleged objectivity and neutrality.

As Penner goes further in his description of Evangelicalism and modernity, he makes the interesting observation that, for  many (most?) conservative Evangelicals, "What is essential to being a Christian is an objective event: the cognitive acceptance (belief) of specific propositions (doctrines)" (36). While Penner explores this in relation to Evangelical apologetics, and to a lesser extent theology (after all, apologetics is a branch of theology), I want to consider this in relation to Evangelical-Mormon dialogue.

You don't have to search for or read much in dialogue and conversations between Evangelicals and Mormons to find the question "Are Mormons Christian?" raised by concerned Mormons. Evangelicals usually respond in the negative, and with certain historic, creedal, and doctrinal assumptions providing the foundation for that response. Mormons are naturally offended by this idea, as they have a different set of assumptions, with the idea that Mormons believe in and follow Christ, therefore they should be considered Christians. 

As Evangelicals and Mormons pass each other like two ships in the night on this topic I would note that members of both groups are missing an important element in exactly why Evangelicals would answer this question negatively. It goes beyond historic creeds and doctrines to some underlying philosophical assumptions. Evangelicals have so imbibed at the well of modernity and its philosophical assumptions that for them, as Penner notes, "What is essential to being a Christian is an objective event: the cognitive acceptance (belief) of specific propositions (doctrines)." This means that while Evangelicals connect these propositions to a relationship with Christ, even so, the cognitive acceptance of certain specific propositions are primary in their definition of what it means to be a Christian. The assumptions of modernity have become so intertwined with Evangelical thinking that, like the fish in water that knows nothing else other than its daily experience of its environment, that Evangelicals may not be aware of the extent to which these modernist assumptions impact not only its apologetics and theology, but also its ways of relating to those of other religions, as well as the formation of perceptions by those of other religions because of the views Evangelicals have of them that are shaped in part by the assumptions of modernity.

My friend and colleague at the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, Charles Randall Paul, once shared his observation that Evangelicals are the scientists and philosophers of their religion. I agreed with his assessment, and made my own observation that Mormons are the performers and artists of their religion. We certainly approach our religious pathways very differently. But the more I reflect on the "scientists and science of Evangelicalism" the more I realize how modernity has impacted us, even in the way in which we define what it means to be a Christian and relate our message to those in other religions.

Maybe it's time for Evangelical fish to jump out of the bowl and look around for a bit.

Krister Stendahl, Mormon Temples, and Jesus as Temple: Further Thoughts for "Holy Envy" and Dialogue

The late Lutheran Bishop is well known for his articulation of various principles related to understanding other religions. These include:

 (1) When trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.
(3) Leave room for “holy envy.”

 Stendahl is perhaps best known for the last item, that of "holy envy," the attempt to find something that you value in another religion and even wish was found within your own religious tradition. The Bishop practiced this in his own life, including helping to arrange a press conference at the opening of a Mormon temple in his native Sweden and speaking favorably about his appreciation of the Mormon ritual connection between the dead and the living. Stendahl then appeared in a Mormon video, Mormon Temples: Between Heaven and Earth, where he articulated his views on this subject. In the video clip that accompanies this post you can see a segment of the temple video, and hear Truman Madsen describe Stendahl's efforts at expressing "holy envy" in connection with Mormon death rituals. I want to express agreement and disagreement with Stendahl, and in so doing point Mormons and Evangelicals toward another area for dialogue.

First, I strongly support Stendahl's principles for religious understanding, including and especially holy envy. I can point to elements that I appreciate in other religious traditions that I wish was found within my own Christianity. I've even commented previously on the poor way in which Western Christianity deals with death, and in my view Mormonism, Paganism, and transformational festivals like Burning Man do a better job of addressing death and grieving, and maintaining a sense of ongoing connectedness between the living and the dead. I disagree with their larger views and practices on the matter, but there remains a lot to envy in this area. Evangelicals should practice holy envy whenever possible in regards to other religious and spiritual traditions.

But I also want to state my disagreement with Stendahl, at least on the specifics related to the Mormon temple. While Mormon rituals connected with death and the temple are interesting, they represent a significant theological departure from historic Christianity. I was reminded of this when I came across Nicholas Perrin's book Jesus the Temple (Baker Academic, 2010). Perrin argues that there were a number of counter-temple movement's in Palestine in the time of Jesus, including John the Baptist's, Qumran, and the Jesus movement itself. Perrin writes:

If both John the Baptizer’s following and the early Church were counter-temple movements…, then this grants basic plausibility to the hypothesis that Jesus, who straddled both groups, also saw his own mission and destiny in similar terms. In other words, … Jesus found the temple of his day to be corrupt, [and] inferred from this … the onset of messianic tribulation, and then finally saw his own calling as a response to this divinely ordained crisis (78).

He argues argues that "the idea of Jesus as temple dates back to Christ himself and that he saw his following as the new temple movement, the social and confessional boundaries of which were marked off by allegiance to him." This makes for an interesting consideration in light of the theology of the book of Hebrews and elsewhere in the New Testament where Jesus is not only presented as temple, but also as High Priest and offering as well.

If Perrin's analysis holds up, and represents an accurate representation of Jesus' self-understanding and New Testament theology, then it is seemingly at odds with the theology and ritual associated with Mormon temples. It would make for a fascinating topic for discussion between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints.

Intersecting Convictions Conference Video Available

In a previous post I mentioned the interreligious dialogue conference at Utah Valley University on March 1 of this year. The event brought together representatives from Mormonism, Judaism, Atheism, and Evangelicalism for conversations. You can learn more about the conference here. The video for the entire conference is now online. It is worthwhile, with almost five hours of material.

UVU Conference Flyer

Utah Valley University - Intersecting Convictions: Core Beliefs and Civil Dialogue

Intersecting Convictions: Core Beliefs and Civil Dialogue 

Utah Valley University Interreligious Engagement Initiative 

Friday, March 1, 2013 

Conference Description 
Human history is marred by conflict rooted in religious differences. A key component in the advancement of humanity toward mutual respect and peaceful coexistence is the practice of interreligious diplomacy between competing traditions. Productive engagement across religious lines includes the exploration of foundational principles and points of contact. This conference is designed to both examine and model the highest standards of interreligious engagement free from coercion, disrespect, and uncivil exchange.

Format and Participants
The conference sessions will include a range of religious and nonreligious voices. The aim of this dynamic blend of panelists is to develop a richer understanding of contemporary American and world religious landscapes. The conference will be an opportunity to: 1) adhere to Krister Stendahl’s (former dean of the Harvard Divinity School) charge to ask adherents of a tradition directly about their beliefs or positions and not its enemies; 2) observe civil dialogue between presenters that requires the communication of complex core convictions; and 3) allow conference attendees to engage presenters and, panelists, in productive and stimulating dialogue.

Schedule of Events
Welcome and Introduction: 
9:30-9:50
Blair Van Dyke, Interfaith Dialogue—Discipline and Diplomacy

Session 1
10:00-10:50
Judaism & Mormonism 
Joshua Stanton (Jewish)
Joanna Brooks (Mormon)

11:00-11:50
Jewish-Mormon Dialogue 

Lunch
12:00-12:50

Session 2
1:00-1:50

Evangelicalism & Atheism 
Chris Stedman (Atheist-former Evangelical)
John Morehead (Evangelical)

2:00-2:50
Evangelical-Atheist Dialogue

Session 3

3:00-3:50

Intersecting Convictions
Panel Discussion
Joanna Brooks
Joshua Stanton
Chris Stedman
John Morehead

Conference Presenters 
Joanna Brooks is a national voice on religion and American life. She is the author of The Book of Mormon Girl: A Memoir of an American Faith, a senior correspondent for Religion Dispatches, an award-winning scholar and teacher, and chair of the Department of English and Comparative Literature at San Diego State University.

John Morehead is the Custodian for the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy and Director of the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies. He is the co-editor and contributing author for Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach, and the editor of Beyond the Burning Times: A Pagan and Christian in Dialogue, and co-founder and editor of Sacred Tribes Journal. He has been involved for many years in interreligious relationships and conversations in the contexts of Islam, Mormonism, and Paganism.

Joshua Stanton is Associate Director of the Center for Global Judaism at Hebrew College and Director of Communications at the Coexist Foundation. He is Founding co-Editor of the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue, which is helping to build inter-religious studies as an academic field. Josh likewise co-edits O.N. Scripture -- The Torah, a weekly online Torah commentary featured on The Huffington Post. Joshua Stanton will be ordained a rabbi in May 2013 and received his Masters in Hebrew Literature in 2012 from Hebrew Union College, where he studied as a Schusterman Rabbinical Fellow. Josh serves on the Board of Directors of Odyssey Networks, WorldFaith, and Education as Transformation, as well as the Editorial Advisory Boards of CrossCurrents Magazine and The Interfaith Observer.

Chris Stedman is the Assistant Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University and the Values in Action Coordinator for the Humanist Community at Harvard. He is also the Emeritus Managing Director of State of Formation at the Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue and founder of the first blog
 dedicated to exploring atheist-interfaith engagement, NonProphet Status. He has written articles for The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, and Religion Dispatches, among other forums. Chris is an atheist working to foster positive and productive dialogue and collaborative action between faith communities and the nonreligious.

Blair Van Dyke coordinates Interfaith Engagement and Mormon Studies at the Orem Institute of Religion and also is an adjunct professor in the Department of Philosophy at Utah Valley University. He serves on the advisory board of the Mormon Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. He has published articles in domestic and international journals and has co-authored a book on the history of Mormonism in the Middle East. His recent interreligious undertakings have engaged Mormons, Muslims, Methodists, Catholics, Evangelicals, Hindus, and Adventists in constructive dialogue.

Sponsors
Interreligious Engagement Initiative - Utah Valley University
Richard L. Evans Chair of Religious Understanding - Brigham Young University
Foundation for Religious Diplomacy - Evangelical & Mormon Chapters

Unresolvable? documentary screening at UVU

There will be a free screening of the new FRD documentary Unresolvable? The Kingdom of God on Earth next Tuesday night, October 30, at 7:30 p.m. on the campus of Utah Valley University at the Library. There will be a panel that includes FRD Chapter Custodians, including myself, who share their thoughts on the film.

McLaren Review at Englewood Books

My review of Brian McLaren's book Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road?: Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World (Jericho Books, 2012) is now available online at The Englewood Review of Books. (A shorter review combined with my review of Eboo Patel's book Sacred Ground: Pluralism, Prejudice and the Promise of America will be published later at the Evangelical Channel at Patheos.) My thanks goes to Brian and Jericho for making a review copy of this book available and for the opportunity to begin a conversation over its ideas, and to Chris Smith at Englewood for the publishing and allowing me an extended word limit to engage the subject matter.

The review brings my background in theology, missiology, and dialogue to bear on the subject matter. This involves a summary of McLaren's thesis on hope for a reformulation of Christian faith identity related to other religions, and an interaction with the major elements of the book including evangelicalism and critical self-reflection, Christological hermeneutics, pnuematological considerations, liturgy and Christ's resurrection, missions and the commonwealth of God, competitive superiority and religious supremacy, and a new way forward for Evangelicals.

Here is a sample from the review that I hope will stimulate conversation in the Evangelical community:

Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? purposefully draws upon the fact that the title sounds like the introduction to familiar jokes. But McLaren uses this a rhetorical strategy in order to provide a thought provoking discussion related to his agenda for the church’s reformulation of various areas of theology and praxis. The subject matter should not be understood as a treatise on interreligious dialogue, but instead as addressing pre-dialogue considerations. The central thesis McLaren advances relates to what he labels “Conflicted Religious Identity Syndrome,” which he defines as a part of the Christian’s faith identity that involves the extension of hostility or opposition to the other as enemy in regards to those in other religions (19). He expands on this idea with these words:

"Our root problem is neither religious difference nor religious identity nor even strong religious identity. Our root problem is the hostility that we often employ to make and keep our identities strong – whether those identities are political, economic, philosophical, scientific, or religious." (emphasis in original) (63)

McLaren hopes that Christians will consider a change of their identity, moving away from the extension of hostility to one that is ”strongly benevolent toward people of other faiths, accepting them not in spite of the religion they love, but with the religion they love” (emphasis in original) (32).

Fall 2012 Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue journal

The Fall 2012 issue of Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue journal is now available online. It is a special format which takes a dialogical approach as it looks at Evangelical-Mormon interactions. I have a contribution by way of a review of Richard Mouw's book Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals (Eerdmans, 2012). The format and length limitations precluded more than a cursory suggestion of critical comments, but opens the door for further discussion among Evangelicals as an option beyond apologetic and uncritical dialogical approaches.

Guest at Mormon Matters podcast 127: Grace

I was one of the guests in a new edition of Mormon Matters podcast 127: Grace.

Grace is one of the central concepts in all of Christianity, yet also one of its most contested. What is it? How does it work? Do we as human beings have to do something first for it to perform its healing work? Can we even turn from sin without Grace first being extended to us? What, exactly happened in the Garden of Eden (literally or metaphorically) that caused separation from God (a Fall), and what are its effects on (or the state of) our souls that requires the transformative action of Grace?

Certainly, the concept of Grace is no less debated in Mormonism–or at least, as is suggested in this podcast, it is beginning to now enjoy more focused attention. Is Grace a substance/thing that fills in the “gap” between a standard of perfection that God sets forth and everything we can do on our own in showing our desires and faith? Is it the suffering in the Garden and on the Cross that satisfies the demands of an eternal law of Justice? Is it more like an event–our “getting it” regarding God’s love and our worth that leads us to transformation and a new life in Christ, one in which we yield ever and ever more fully to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, becoming godlike in our compassion for all?

And what about all the Grace vs. Works passages we find in both in the Bible and Mormon scriptures? Is Paul’s meditations in Romans about his own sinful nature and the need for Grace the key text for viewing Grace and our own human abilities to respond to God? What are alternative readings of those passages or others within wider Christianity? And, for Mormons, how might one read what seems to be the key passage in the Book of Mormon that declares we are saved by grace “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23) in different ways? Is it really a temporal “after” (feeding into the God filling the “gaps” model)? Is this really what Nephi is saying? And does this interpretation even jive with other Book of Mormon passages on Grace?

All these ideas and many more are discussed in this terrific discussion among Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists John Morehead, Katie Langston, and Joe Spencer. We hope you’ll listen and then join in the discussion.

Franklin Spencer Spalding: "Stupid forms of argument"

I am currently providing editing commentary for a doctoral dissertation by Charles Randall Paul of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy to be submitted for consideration as an academic volume on 19th century missionary conflicts in Utah. This book provides lessons for contemporary religious disputations which advocates peaceful contestation in religion. One of the chapters is on Franklin Spencer Spalding, an Episcopalian minister and missionary to Mormons. He differed from others during his time in the state and wrote the following:

"The theologian is a kind of philosopher who cannot avoid a sense of duty to proselytize. Yea, surely it is clear that sarcasm and ridicule are not only discourteous but stupid forms of argument. . . .  the universal flood of derision which has been poured out upon Mormonism has only made Mormons more loyal." 

These are important historical words for reflection and my hope is that other elements like this, as well as the entire volume, provides food for thought by evangelicals and Mormons alike.

News Items on Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue

Mormon-Evangelical dialogue is in the news.

First, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will serve as commencement speaker at Liberty University tomorrow. When the announcement was made it stirred a minor controversy among some students and alumni who took issue with the invitation of a Mormon. CNN's Belief Blog reported on this, and mentioned the Evangelical concerns about Mormonism as a cult, but also those supportive of the invitation:

Mark DeMoss, a Liberty graduate, member of the Board of Trustees and a senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said on Friday, “We have had a Jewish commencement speaker, we have had a Catholic commencement speaker, and so, I think people are certainly entitled to their opinion. Social Media certainly provides an outlet for people’s opinions, but I think it is a great thing for the university.”

Neither the invitation nor the controversy are surprising in my view. Jerry Falwell Jr. is friends with Glenn Beck, a nationally known radio talk show host who is a Mormon. This indicates that Falwell is supportive of and involved in Mormon-Evangelical relationships and dialogue. On the other hand the negative reaction is also easy to understand as many Evangelicals continue to understand Mormonism as a cult, and that the best response comes by way of apologetic and boundary maintenance approaches.

The second news item is the new book by Richard Mouw titled Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals (Eerdmans, 2012). The publisher's website describes the book as follows:

For over a decade Fuller Seminary president Richard Mouw has participated in Mormon-evangelical dialogue with a view to developing a better understanding between the two groups. His participation in these discussions has drawn severe criticism and even anger from people who believe such talks are pointless or even dangerous.

This brief, highly accessible book is his answer. Advocating humility, patience, and a willingness to admit our own shortcomings, Mouw shows why it is necessary to move beyond stark denunciation to a dialogue that allows both parties to express differences and explore common ground. Without papering over significantly divergent perspectives on important issues like the role of prophecy, the nature of God, and the creeds, Mouw points to areas in which Mormon-evangelical dialogue evidences hope for the future. In so doing, he not only informs readers but also models respectful evangelical debate. 

Unfortunately, Eerdman's website does not include a listing of chapter titles and topics, but a sample is found on their blog

An interesting facet of this book is its attempt to commend dialogue with Mormons to an Evangelical audience. Although many segments of Evangelicalism seem more open to dialogue than in the past, this may prove to be a tough sell in other quarters as demonstrated by an article written by Peggy Fletcher Stack in The Salt Lake Tribune where Mouw's book was discussed. Reader comments accompanying the article are not encouraging. I am quoted in the piece, and several negative comments and allegations are made.

Some readers may be interested in my views on a couple of areas where concerns were raised. One was in the area of how my approach at dialogue with Mormons can be "biblical." Please see Bob Robinson's essay where he discusses how dialogue can be both positive and non-compromising, which includes an appeal to the biblical basis for dialogue which supports my thoughts expressed in the article.  The other area of concern was how one could move beyond the false prophet/true prophet dichotomy in relation to religious figures like Muhammed and Joseph Smith. In a previous blog post I set forth my ideas in this area by way of reflection on the proposals of others.

Stephen Webb on Mormon Dialogue and Alternative Rules of the Game

An excerpt from Stephen Webb's Jesus Christ, Eternal God (Oxford University Press, 2011):

Bluntly put, Mormons do not play by the rules of the Nicene Creed. Their theological arguments can look like a form of cheating when, in reality, they are trying to change the way the game is played. Mormonism is like an alternative reality come to
life—a counterfactual history of post-Nicene developments of pre-Nicene theology, the ultimate “what if ” theological parlor game. ... Mormonism invites creedal Christians into a world where everything is slightly but significantly skewed from what they are used to. It is as if you are hearing stories you had never heard before about someone you love and thought you knew perfectly well. Better put, it is as if you had discovered another branch of your family that you did not know existed. For most non-Mormon Christians (I will call them traditional or creedal Christians in this chapter), suspicion of Mormonism runs so high that taking Mormonism seriously requires something like an intellectual if not spiritual conversion. Indeed, part of the problem is that conflict between estranged relatives can be more heated than arguments among strangers. Only a movement so close to traditional Christianity could incite such strong feelings.

Webb offers these thoughts in his chapter on Mormonism in light of his overall thesis concerning divine embodiment. But in addition, he also raises them in light of dialogue between traditional Christianity and Mormonism. So my addition to his questions would be, "What would dialogue between Evangelicals and Mormons be different if Evangelicals allowed the 'rules of the game' to change so that we discussed not only items that fit within the dialogical framework of creedal Christendom, but also the very different framework of Mormonism?"

An attempt at exploring this will be pursued in the upcoming issue of Sacred Tribes Journal where Catholic scholar Frank Beckwith, and Mormon scholar Charles Randall Paul, contribute essays that interact with Webb's thesis on divine embodiment and the contributionof Mormon theology in this regard.

At the Crossroads, Again: Mormon & Methodist Encounters in the 19th and 21st Centuries

The Foundation for Religious Diplomacy is very pleased to announce the second conference hosted by the Mormon Chapter on February 24-5 in Washington DC. The event will be hosted by Wesley Theological Seminary and will be entitled "At the Crossroads, Again: Mormon & Methodist Encounters in the 19th and 21st Centuries." The conference is designed to bring practitioners and scholars from both traditions into a conversation to build understanding, trust, and friendship. Attached you will find the conference announcement with further details. Wehope your schedule allows you to attend.

Scheduled Participants include:

Frances Adeney, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Senator Robert Bennett
David Campbell, University of Notre Dame
Kathleen Flake, Vanderbilt University
Terryl Givens, University of Richmond
Eileen Guenther, Wesley Theological Seminary
Elaine Heath, Southern Methodist University
Matthew Holland, Utah Valley University (President)
David McAllister-Wilson, Wesley Theological Seminary (President)
Warner Woodworth, Brigham Young University
others to be announced

The conference website can be found here.

Links to the 2010 Mormon Engagement with the World Religions Conference

Video Footage
http://religious-diplomacy.org/June2010Conference

Conference Schedule & Information
http://fidweb.org/projects/fid-events/2010/mormonism-and-world-religions

We are also pleased to note that February 2012 will be a banner month for outstanding conferences on Mormonism on the East Coast as more than a few of our FRD Mormon chapter colleagues will be participating in a Columbia University event on Mormonism and politics in early February (http://ircpl.org/2011/event/mormonism-conference). Jana Riess is among the organizers and will be sending more information soon.