Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue Journal: Special Focus on New Religions

For the last couple of weeks I have had the privilege of working with Cory Wilson of Fuller Seminary's Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue journal. Cory got in touch and asked if I would write the lead essay for a special edition focusing on new religious movements. I accepted the invitation and turned in my draft on Monday. The essay addresses new religious movements and Evangelical approaches toward them, including countercult, cross-cultural missions, and dialogue. Some great people have agreed to write responses, including Gerald McDermott, J. Gordon Melton, and Terry Muck. I also suggested that a countercult perspective be included, and an individual from a significant countercult ministry has expressed a willingness to write a response. This edition will also include an essay on praxis by Philip johnson, a suggested bibliography, and several helpful sidebars. Look for this special issue later this year.

The 'anti-cult" movement and self-construction

The International Journal for the Study of New Religions had an interesting essay in Volume 3, No. 2 from 2012 that touched on the place of anti-cult movements in the process of disaffiliation from new religions. This essay dovetails with my own reflections on the efficacy of Evangelical counter-cult apologetic approaches and allegations of "effectiveness" in strategy. Here is the title and abstract:

"The Significance and Purpose of the 'Anti-Cult Movement' in Facilitating Disaffiliation From a New Religious Movement: Resources for Self-construction or a Justificatory Account" by Dominiek Coates 

Abstract 
The current study investigates the experiences of 23 former members of New Religious Movements (NRMs) or cults with anti-cult practices and discourses in Australia. All the participants in this study report some involvement with anti-cult practices and/or engagement with brainwashing explanations of NRM affiliations; however, they describe the significance of these anti-cult resources for their sense of self in different ways. The findings suggests that for some former members anti-cult resources, in particular the brainwashing discourses, merely served as a convenient account through which to explain or justify their former NRM affiliation and manage embarrassment or possible stigmatisation, while for others these resources served an important identity function at a time of loss and uncertainty. These participants describe their involvement with anti-cult practices as a much needed identity resource in which they could anchor their sense of self following the dramatic loss of identity associated with NRM disaffiliation. To make sense of the variations in the way in which anti-cult practices and discourses informed the participants” sense of self Symbolic Interactionist understandings of the self are applied. 

Translation: Anti-cult organizations provide a secular means by which the individual disaffiliating from a new religion can reduce their cognitive dissonance and construct a new sense of identity. In application to the Evangelical counter-cult an approach is used wherein brainwashing is eschewed (for the most part) in favor of theological narratives of false teaching and demonic ensnarement, whereby the rejection of former identity and teachings in a new religion, coupled with an embrace of new doctrines in an alternative religious community helps provide the formative elements of ongoing identity (re)construction.

Essay and Book Reviews in Journal of Asian Missoin

The Journal of Asian Mission published in the Philippines and edited by Anne Harper, is focusing on new religions in a special Spring edition. Two book reviews of mine will be included, as will the following essay: "Walter Martin was Wrong: A Critique and Alternative to Evangelical Hermeneutical and Methodological Approaches to 'Cults.'"

Abstract: For many decades Evangelicals in America and the West have drawn upon a “counter-cult” approach to certain religious groups. The late Walter Martin is an exemplar of this model. This “heresy-rationalist” approach involves a contrast of Christendom’s orthodox doctrine with heretical deviations, and is often accompanied by an apologetic refutation of a religious group’s doctrine and worldview. This approach can also be found outside the West, impacting places as Asia and India. But what if the assumptions of this approach were wrong? This essay describes popular Evangelical assumptions about “the cults,” both in terms of a biblical hermeneutic, and the methodology of engagement that arises from this. A critique is offered, and then an alternative hermeneutic is presented. Consideration is given to the need for sociological assessment of the effectiveness of Evangelical counter-cult methodologies, and a cross-cultural missions model is presented by way of alternative to contemporary ways of engaging various religions.

The essay can be read here, and a review of George Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, 2nd ed., can be found here. 

"Courageous Christians" and a Film That Sparked a Muslim Flame

As the unrest in the Middle East spills over into other Muslim countries, the debate about the controversial film trailer for Innocence of Muslims said to have sparked the protests continues as well. Print and video media have recently linked it to Steve Klein, an individual connected to an evangelical "counter-cult" ministry called Courageous Christians United. This ministry utilizes confrontational approaches with adherents of various religions, including Mormonism and Islam. In the latter they have an affiliated ministry called MuslimInfo.org. The photo above demonstrates the kinds of approaches they use, pointing people to a website in ways that are sure to outrage Muslims.

When news broke about the Courageous Christians' connection to the film trailer the organization's president, Rob Sivulka, posted the following on their website:

We at Courageous Christians United (CCU) had no knowledge of the film "The Innocence of Muslims" or Steve Klein's involvement in it until September 12, 2012. Steve was removed from the board of CCU as of September 14, 2012 because of his involvement in this film. As the founder of CCU, Steve was an honorary board member, but he has never been to any of our board meetings. In 2006, when I wanted to form my own non-profit corporation, Steve gave me CCU, which he was no longer using.

Steve was in no way acting on behalf of our mission organization in the production of the video. While both Steve and the film maker have a right to express their views, that doesn't mean that we here at CCU endorse this movie as a good means to convey the truth about Islam. In fact, we find this film reprehensible and irresponsible, and serving primarily to provoke a violent response. (emphasis mine)

I appreciate the lack of direct involvement that Klein may have had with the film, and Courageous Christians' desire to distance themselves from it. But this statement from Sivulka and his organization has me confused. It also appears disingenuous. As demonstrated above in the photo, the organization has engaged in forms of "outreach" to Muslims at mosques by holding up signs that insult Muhammed, the prophet of Islam. They do similar things in Mormon contexts, holding up signs that insult the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. In each religio-cultural context their has been anger and resistance on the part of Muslims and Mormons. I submit that holding up signs in front of a mosque demeaning the Muslim prophet should be construed as a parallel to the Arabic-dubbed film trailer for Innocence of Muslims which may have at least partially inflamed large segments of the Muslim world. Therefore, how can Courageous Christians pursue the types of activities they do before American Muslims and at the same time condemn a film that functions in the same way among Muslims overseas? Must not the film and the questionable approaches of Courageous Christians be considered "reprehensible and irresponsible, and serving primarily to provoke a violent response?"

In a recent essay at Aslan Media co-authored with Paul Louis Metzger in response to the recent Islamic uprisings we wrote, "What lessons might be learned by Evangelicals as they seek to respond to and interact with the broader religious world, including Islam, in a context that all too easily leads to violence?" As the article continues, among other things, we suggest the following:

Much of the conservative commentary on this event, within and outside Evangelicalism, has emphasized American freedoms of speech concerning the right to share whatever views one might have about Islam. While it is certainly true that Americans have the right to express our convictions, from a Christian perspective our freedoms are informed by love for others; at times, we must be willing to restrict our freedoms for the brethren (1 Corinthians 8) and the world at large. In this instance, it may very well entail restricting our use of our constitutional freedoms for the greater good in the public square here and abroad. With this in mind, we would do well to remember that with the Internet we live in a global village, and the rhetoric, tactics and approval of a controversial pastor or filmmakers can contribute to an international climate of tension that may lead to violence and death in other parts of the world. Simply because we have such freedoms does not mean we must always exercise them; when we do exercise such freedoms, they should be exercised in ways that come down on the side of caution, seeking to contribute to the way of peace for the sake of Americans living and serving overseas, including our fellow Christians living in Muslim lands.

The events connected with the 11th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on American soil provide evangelicals with an opportunity to reflect on our religious identity often formed in hostile relation to those in other religions, and how our attempts at persuading others of our religious convictions might be dramatically less than persuasive, if not offensive and downright counter-productive. For those interesting in considering an alternative vision, see the website of the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, and our previous essays touching on this at Aslan Media:

"On the Dearborn Drama: Pig-Headed Engagement of Islam"

"Sikhs and Muslims, Shootings and Burnings: A Call to Peaceful Contestation"

Religion Dispatches - Burning Man: Fear of an Alternative Pagan Social Order

Steve Matthews, an evangelical "cult and new religious movement and investigative journalist" with The Worldview Center, has written an essay on Burning Man Festival for SCP Journal. The first of two installments is out in the current edition of the journal, and in light of my past research and writing on this alternative cultural event, and that this week Burners gather from across the country and around the world, I wrote an essay in Religion Dispatches critiquing Matthews' analysis. In my essay I offer the view that Burning Man functions much like a Rorschach test in that individuals see in the cultural phenomenon either their highest aspirations, or their deepest fears. For Burners, it is the former, and for many evangelicals it is the latter, as revealed by Matthews' essay title "Burning Man: Preview to an Alternative Pagan Social Order."

After reading the first installment of Matthews' essay, reading another form of this essay on The Worldview Center website, and listening to his two radio interviews on the topic on the Frank Pastore and Janet Parshall radio programs, I provide my critique of his analysis, which as he told me recently by phone, is the "most fair and balanced treatment of Burning Man" in print. As the reader will see, I beg to differ, as I take issue with several instances of Matthews' analysis, including his understanding of Burning Man participant demographics, the theoretical lens that undergirds his approach, and his misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Paganism.

Matthews' analysis is common within evangelicalism, not only in terms of an understanding of Burning Man, but also the fears associated with Paganism and the New Spirituality in general. This dovetails with the analysis of Jason C. Bivins in his book Religion of Fear: The Politics of Horror in Conservative Evangelicalism (Oxford University Press, 2008). In this volume Bivins describes evangelicalism as involving "a form of religious social criticism produced and sustained in evangelical engagements with pop culture." In his view, this results in 'political orientations [that] are shaped and spread by pop cultural narratives of fear and horror."

Interested readers can find my essay at Religion Dispatches here.

Parallelling the Enemy?: A Consideration of the Pagan Countercult

In past years I was a part of the evangelical countercult community. This segment of evangelicalism exists as a boundary maintenance and apologetic function for the borders of evangelicalism in terms of what it perceives as spiritual danger in terms of "cults" or new and minority religious movements. An examination of the websites of some of these groups reveals certain patterns which includes quotations from group leaders so as to warn the faithful of heresy. In countercult thinking, to the extent that certain evangelicals may get to close to "false prophets" in these groups these evangelical leaders are then viewed as dupes who are contributing to the problem of the false teachers who want to come in by stealth whenever possible to deceive the elect.

I find this interesting in that I just found a pagan parallel in a website titled egregores. Although it does not devote its complete energy to exposing non-pagan dangers, it has created posts that warn the pagan community about certain evangelicals, including little ol' me. Interested readers can click here, here, here, and most recently here, to find posts about me and my work in paganism and in other areas of new religions, missiology, and dialogue. As you read note how this parallels with the evangelical countercult organizations as I've sketched it in the paragraph above.

I contacted the website and asked that one misrepresentation be removed, and it was, an attribution of work to me that was not my own. This was an unfortunate error that should have been more carefully fact checked by the author. In addition, the tone is unfortunate in both the author's posts and some of the comments by fellow pagans. The worst possible motives are assumed on the part of myself, and fellow pagans who "work with" me are considered unfortunate dupes who don't realize that I am trying stealth evangelism. I recognize that many pagans are suspicious of evangelicals and dialogue. That's fine. Many evangelicals are just as suspicious. But let's be fair about it.

As I said in a comment which may or may not be approved on the site, let me clarify. I am not involved in stealth evangelism. Christianity is a missionary religion, and as a disciple of Christ I take just as seriously his command to love my neighbor as myself as I do to share the gospel. However, this is not done in every instance in pagan contexts or otherwise. If the context is inappropriate, or there is no interest, and most of the time there isn't, then there is no sharing. My relationships with pagans and my dialogue work are authentic and stand by themselves and are not pragmatic uses of individuals and relationships as the means to the end of evangelism. (See the interview with me at the Alternative Religions Educational Network for more thoughts from me on this.) Had egregores not assumed the worst in my ethics and motives, and been willing to more fairly assess my work in pagan studies and dialogue, perhaps at least the form of these posts would have been different.

Unfortunately, no mention was made about my critical reviews of evangelical books and approaches to paganism. Neither was there any commentary on the many pagans who have been interviewed at this blog and allowed to express themselves freely on the subject matter under discussion, including the difficult topic of Christian mission. The egregores selection and portrayal of material in representing my views thus exhibits the "pagan countercult" perspective that underlies them.

At any rate, I find it interesting that there is a pagan version of the evangelical countercult. Pagans have unfortunately been misrepresented by countercult apologists over the years (see my reviews of various evangelical books on Paganism as in this example) so it is a pity to see the pagan version of this surface within this fine religious community.

CESNUR Cyberproceedings: Paper Available Online

The cyberproceedings for the recent Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR) conference in Salt Lake City are now being posted online. My paper can be accessed here.

Comments and Discussion of Interest on Mormonism and Dialogue

There are some comments and discussions of interest that I'd like to direct readers to. My friend "Aquinas" at the great blog Summa Theologica - Interfaith Dialogue, made me aware of some of the commentary that some evangelicals have begun to publish in response to the book Claiming Christ (Brazos Press, 2007) by Robert Millet and Gerald McDermott. This is of great interest to me, not only because I am interested and involved in Mormon-Evangelical dialogue, but also because I was asked by Gerry to provide some editorial feedback on his chapters in this book, and I think it represents a wonderful example of scholarly dialogue between qualified representatives of these respective religious communities. Aquinas has a post on how this book has been received by some in the evangelical apologetics community. This intrigued me, and as a result I posted some thoughts by way of response that can be found at the previous link, and in this one here.

From Aquinas' blog I moved over to some critical thoughts Rob Bowman has of the Millet-McDermott book at the Reclaiming the Mind blog, and then found an interesting series of exchanges between Bowman and Paul Owen on Mormonism. Readers can find those exchanges here along with my own colorful interactions with Rob. For some reason the blog is experiencing technical problems where I am concerned and it now rejects any new comments I try to post as spam or duplicate postings. For this reason, and in order to respond to a few of Rob's remaining questions and concerns, I conclude my interactions with him here with these responses to his posts.

In response to comment #40:

Rob, it’s too bad that I have a problem being taken seriously with you. As a step towards remedying this, I acknowledge that you did indeed reference missiology. I was mistaken in my comments in a previous post in this regard. However, I reiterate that I do not see it as having much of an impact on your understanding of and interaction with Mormonism.

In terms of the context of our discussion, if you recall it began with me stating my agreement with Paul Owen’s assertion that perhaps your apologetic framework colors your understanding of Mormonism. I believe this is the case, and while issues of theological contrast, boundary maintenance and definition are important and have their place as I have stated previously, in my view these should not be the only or primary concerns evangelicals have, and I have tried to sketch out a missiological alternative. It seems a stretch to me to move from this context to question what place truth plays in my missiological model. As my work demonstrates, truth is a concern, as is issues of doctrine and worldview, as well as the equally important concerns of person, effective communication, and cultural considerations. In my thinking a missiological approach seems to bring all of these together nicely and in balance, whereas the heresy refutation approach many times favors truth and doctrine over person and culture.

As to being thin-skinned, I’ve received strong criticism and labeled liberal, politically correct, a compromiser, and a part of the emerging church, even outright denouncement of my self-identification as a Christian, all by folks in the countercult community. I’ve learned to take it in stride, so I’m hardly thin-skinned. I’d like to see you and others in the countercult address the issue of peer review, whether we are thin skinned or not.

I recognize the difficulties and frustrations I have in communicating with countercultists. It seems at times as if I am more successful at “receptor-oriented” communication with new religionists than with fellow evangelicals. I recognize this difficult and will redouble my efforts at being more sensitive and patient to the need to communicate in terms that will more readily communicate across the paradigmatic divide. Perhaps countercultists will meet me half way across the bridge.

In response to comment #44:

I realize that you are well read, Rob, as am I. I cited the two resources for reflection on Acts 17 to demonstrate that it is not merely an example of apologetic, particularly in the vein of heresy refutation apologetics, but also includes elements of cross-cultural communication and mission.

I found this statement by you as telling:

"At the same time, the task of responding to a heretical form of Christianity that is vigorously seeking to win converts from Christian churches, as well as from the rest of the world, cannot be adequately characterized or developed as a form of 'cross-cultural mission.'"

I couldn't disagree more. With this statement you seem to see little room for engagement with Mormonism beyond expose and refutation. I and a growing number of others believe that the principles from the history of Christian mission and cross-cultural missiology are indeed applicable to new religions and can "be adequately characterized as a form of cross-cultural mission." A contextual blending of both missions and apologetics is indeed possible where Mormonism and other new religions is concerned.

With this we seem to be, unsurprisingly, at an impasse. Perhaps we'll have to follow Walter Martin's dictum to agree to disagree agreeably.

In response to comment #45:

The correct link to the first issue of Sacred Tribes e-journal is http://www.sacredtribes.com/issue1/index.htm, and the link to Philip Johnson's article that I referenced, which in my view has yet to be interacted with by countercult apologists, is found in four installments with the first at http://www.sacredtribes.com/issue1/apolog1.htm. By way of an update on this publication, the journal is being revamped and will relaunch shortly to republish the first two editions. After the first of the year solicitations for new articles will begin and we plan on publishing a new issue in the first quarter of 2008. In addition, the journal has an expanded editorial board and a general editor, and will announce another significant development and partnership in early 2008.

Questions, Misconceptions, and Responses

I recently received a couple of emails from someone who misunderstood and misconstrued my views on the issue of new religious movements. I thought it might be helpful to list some of the questions and misconceptions I have encountered over the last few years as I work with others to develop and utilize an interdisciplinary and cross-cultural missions model to new religious movements. This will provide both my response to such matters, and provide a post that I can refer to as these issues surface in the future.

I'll begin with a personal issue and will move on to issues of conceptualization and methodology.

1. John Morehead is now postmodern, emerging church, or liberal in his theological views.

While I think there is value in the postmodern critique of modernity; in the emerging church as it seeks to rethink ecclesiology and cultural engagement in light of postmodernity; and in liberal theology in dialogue with conservative theology; and I recognize that it is indeed possible to be Christian and be postmodern, emergent and liberal; none of my critics who classify me in such ways can find any written or verbal statements that would put me into such camps. I may make folks uncomfortable within certain segments of evangelicalism, but I still consider myself evangelical even though I am continually engaged in a process of reflection as to what this means and how it is worked out in the Western post-Christendom, postmodern, pluralistic, and post-9/11 context.

2. It is unfair to attack fellow evangelicals who engage in counter-cult approaches to new religions.

In the disciplines of theology and missiology it is common for people to present their views in the public square and then to have colleagues review and critique these ideas. For example, in theological studies N. T. Wright's views on Pauline theology and justification by faith have been critiqued in scholarly circles, and in missiology various expressions of contextualization in Islamic contexts have been subjected to various forms of debate and critique. This is simply part and parcel of presenting ideas for public scrutiny. It is unfortuante that those who incorporate critique as an essential part of their methodology, but who have no formal peer review process of their own, should cry foul when a former member of their ranks raises critique about their concepts and methods. Perhaps we can raise the bar and recognize the legitimacy of criticism while engaging in critique that is fair and does not engage in personal attacks.

In terms of critique of my views, the cross-cultural missions model that I have advocated has been put forward in the book Encountering New Religious Movements (Kregel Academic & Professional, 2004), which won the Christianity Today Book of the Year Award in 2005 in the category of global affairs/missions, has received favorable reviews across the board from academic theological and missiological journals and publications.

3. Their is little difference between the missional approach that John advocates and counter-cult approaches.

I and others are advocating an interdisciplinary understanding and approach to new religions, and one that is solidly rooted in examples of contextualized engagement exemplified in Scripture, the history of Christian missions, and the discipline of missiology. This involves a cross-cultural missional approach that seeks to contextualize the gospel for the global cultures of the new religions, to communicate the pathway of Jesus in the religious and spiritual context of the "religious other," to identify as much "religious capital" (in the words of Rodney Stark) that can be retained by new followers of Christ from new religions, includes contextualized forms of apologetic when appropriate but which sees apologetics as ancillary to the misisons process, and develops contextualized expressions of Christian community and church in these cultural contexts. This is in dramatic contrast to much of the counter-cult approach that tends to draw upon a heresy-rationalist model that is heavy on the apologetic contrast of Christian orthdoxy with heresy and which seeks to refute the doctrine and worldview of "religious others." These approaches represent differing paradigms with major differences between the two.

4. John uses a relational evangelism approach and doesn't appreciate confrontational forms of engagement.

It is inaccurate to distill the essence of the cross-cultural missions and heresy-rationalist models to relational vs. confrontational. There may be times when both approaches include elements of relationships and confrontation. The issues are more complex and cannot be reduced to these labels.

5. John misconstrues and misrepresents counter-cult ministry.

I would remind those that make this claim of my previous "counter-cult pedigree:" I was on staff with Watchman Fellowship (one of the largest and oldest counter-cult ministries); I utilized a counter-cult methodology for a number of years; I served on the board of Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (EMNR), including two years as president; and I served as a consulting editor for a few select chapters in the current issue of The Kingdom of the Cults (although I have asked that my name be removed from subsequent printings). I understand the counter-cult model.

6. Why did John invite two "cult apologists," Gordon Melton and Douglas Cowan, two speak at an EMNR conference the last year he was president?

Although this incident took place several years ago, it still seems to be an issue for some in the counter-cult community. My philosophy is that we can learn important things from critics in that they have the critical distance that insiders often lack, and both of these gentlemen have written important works that include criticism of typical evangelical approaches to new religions, with Melton's coming in the form of an article in Missiology journal, and Cowan's in his book Bearing False Witness? (Praeger, 2003). I had hoped that members of EMNR could set aside their disagreements with these men in order to think reflectively and critically of their understanding of new religions and how they engage them. Although a firestorm of controversy ensued prior, during, and after their visit, I think their contributions to the conference were valuable, and I consider both of them friends and academic colleagues.

7. When asked about his cross-cultural missions paradigm John frequently refers us to a body of material for reading, thus putting off a response to questions and criticism.

In response to inquiries I receive from those using a heresy-rationalist approach to new religions I will often refer them to Sacred Tribes Journal, the book Encountering New Religious Movements, the Lausanne issue group paper on Religious and Non-Religious Spiritualities ("New Age"), as well as recommended bibliographic materials from various disciplines including the history of Christian missions, missiology, religious studies, and the sociology of religion. This is not done in an intent to avoid answering questins or critique, but rather, to provide the inquirer with the necessary foundation and background information in which to understand the model I am advocating, and to engage in critical reflection on other approaches. Since I bring an informed understanding of counter-cult and missiological approaches to the topic, it is not too much to ask that my critics do their homework as a prelude to dialogue.

I hope these responses are helpful.

Evangelicals and the New McCarthyism?

Sometimes you just have to laugh.

A few years ago when I read Gordon Melton's characterization of evangelical approaches to new religions among the counter-cult as "amateurish" (Missiology Vol. 28, no. 1 [Jan. 2000]: 85-98) I took exception to it. I was only part way through my reassessment of counter-cult methodologies and had not yet experienced a paradigm shift. But the more I observe many of the folks in this community the more I think Melton was correct in his assessment.

I recently had an exchange with a member of the counter-cult on the topic of Mormonism and I came away from that encounter with two images stuck in my mind. The first is a scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the scene where a group of medieval townspeople bring a woman forward with allegations of witchcraft. If you haven't seen this film you can view this scene on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU. This scene came to mind not only in terms of the questionable means of assessment and understandings that many (but not all) evangelicals have of new religions, but also with the glee exhibited in the townspeople over the hopeful burning of the witch, a glee that I see reflected in many an evangelical as they denounce religious others that they claim to care about.

The other image that came to mind, and one far more disturbing, is that of McCarthyism. I recall watching newsreel footage of the political "witch hunts" this country experienced in its zeal to weed out communism, a zeal that often times saw communists in the ranks of fellow Americans that were not there. This image came to mind as I had just experienced a similar zeal on the part of a segment of the counter-cult intent on labeling myself and others as divisive and dangerous to the church. With these kinds of judgments it seems as if at least one segment of the counter-cult is launching a new form of McCarthyism in the church, and demonstrating theological and missiological naivette in the process.

For now I'm be content to chuckle at the "expert" mob that brings forward alleged heretics. Let's just hope that they remain small and marginalized.

Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith Video: Professional Polish on a Counter-Cult Apologetic Misfire

The following was originally posted a week or so ago but was then removed due to the need to consider a request by evangelicals who produced the DVD in question to remove the post and to keep this video project secret until the mass distribution of the video to Latter-day Saints in March. At that time I removed the post and sent an inquiry to a Christian philosopher and ethicist asking his opinion on the request. He said in response, in part, that "I see no reason why their concern for secrecy is greater than your concern for justice" [among Latter-day Saints in the way in which we engage in ways of living and ministry among them that are ethical]. He continued and stated that "Being a Christian means conducting one's relationships, both inside and outside the church, in a virtuous and honorable way." Related to this, I am reviewing Hiebert, Shaw & Tienou's Understanding Folk Religion for an intensive course with Terry Muck next weekend, and in the Preface they describe their foundational assumptions for the book that are based on their commitment to the mission of God. In one of these guiding principles they state that "mission is about principles, not pragmatic answers," and remind us that "Christianity is about truth and righteousness, not only in the ends it seeks, but also the means it uses to achieve those ends." These considerations are relevant to my consideration of the request to maintain secrecy on this DVD project and after careful review I feel that it is appropriate to share my comments publicly on this DVD project for my readers, both evangelical and Latter-day Saint.





A few weeks ago I received a call from a friend in California who was inquiring about a new video he had heard of and he was asking for my opinion on its value. I told him I had not heard of it but was willing to review any information about it that he could pass along. I recently heard of this video again, the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith video, through a friend of mine in Utah and I was able to secure a copy. Tri-Grace Ministries is spearheading this project, and is engaged in a large-scale distibution campaign to LDS doorsteps as well as other distribution methods this month.

After contacting the individuals associated with this project to share my thoughts and concerns, and having given them an opportunity to respond, I thought I might pass along some reflections of mine which came to mind after I reviewed the video.

First, let me state that I appreciated the comments made at the beginning of the film concerning the love those associated with this project have both for traditional Christians and Mormons. I believe that they are sincere and have the best intentions in the production and distribution of this video.

Second, I appreciate the professional production values evident in this video. It is evident that great effort was made to ensure that the look of the film reflected the highest quality possible.

Third, let me state that I share with the video's producers a common desire to help traditional Christians understand Mormonism in contrast with traditional Christianity, and to share our testimony concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ through deed and words with members of the LDS Church. We simply happen to have substantial disagreements on the philosophy and methodology undergirding how these worthy goals should be accomplished.

With these positive considerations in mind please consider the following areas of critique:

1. The title, Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith, will be immediately perceived by Latter-day Saints as a false dichotomy. While evangelicals surely disagree on their understanding of both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, nevertheless, Latter-day Saints will be immediately put off by the notion that they must choose one versus the other when they feel they can maintain both in their proper place in their beliefs. Good communication skills requires that we try to determine how our message is understood by others from their perspective, and if we put ourselves in the shoes of the Latter-day Saints it is clear that the title will be perceived as dichotomous and confrontational.

2. In the beginning of the video the hosts introduce the persons of Jesus and Joseph Smith, and while Jesus is introduced in the most flattering of Christian terms and concepts, Joseph Smith is presented as a deceiver, a madman, or a prophet. Will Latter-day Saints receive these interpretive options positively? Certainly not, and this characterization merely compounds the problematic title of the video.

3. The video criticizes the founder and prophet of the LDS Church and in so doing threatens the sacred narrative of the Latter-day Saints as a foundational element of the video project itself. Scholars have long noted the importance of sacred narratives to individual and community identity, and when these narratives are threatened the usual reaction is defensiveness, not receptivity to the criticism or the critic.

4. The video approaches the subject matter primarily from the perspectives of doctrinal contrast between traditional Christian orthodoxy and heresy and apologetic refutation of historic claims of the LDS Church. Please note that this is a specifically evangelical framework reflecting evangelical concerns for biblical fidelity, rational certitude, and historical veracity. By contrast, Mormonism as a culture tends to emphasize praxis, ethics, and cultural identity and inclusion. Given these differing foundational frameworks for religion, evangelicals will feel as if this video communicates from the appropriate starting point, but this will be lost on Latter-day Saints who simply practice their religion from dramatically different vantage points. Thus, the basic foundation and approach of the video virtually guarantees that this project will miss not communicate to its target audience.

5. In terms of the apologetic orientation of the video, this involves the same types of arguments that evangelicals have been using for years. Australian scholar and former Mormon John Bracht made two observations relevant to this in his masters thesis on Mormonism in the 1980s reflecting on The Godmakers film. He stated in the introduction that evangelical apologetic critiques of Mormonism tend to “simply draw attention to Mormon theology in the most simplistic and sensationalist terms.” He went further and noted that even though The Godmakers was one of the most widely distributed apologetic critiques of Mormonism, worldwide membership in the LDS Church continued to grow, and despite widespread evangelical apologetics against Mormonism, “Mormon proselytizing efforts have not been appreciably affected.” While I have no doubt that some Mormons have been persuaded by apologetic approaches such as that exemplified by Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith, the numbers have not been great, and despite a long history of apologetic interaction with Mormon culture the effects have been minimal. Thus, it would seem that this new project promises little more than what has been offered apologetically for many years by evangelicals, and while it may make evangelicals feel better in they have defined and defended the boundaries of traditional Christian orthodoxy, among the Mormon people it does little and amounts more to an exercise in preaching to the evangelical choir.

6. The video suffers from something Terry Muck has referred to in his book on religious studies methodology as the "error of triumphalism." This refers to depictions of other religions as inadequate with an accompanying idealization of one's own religion. Muck provides an example of unflattering depictions of the shortcomings of Muhammad related to Islam, and then states that "these statements may all be true, but how one then uses this information can be devastating." Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith engages in this error in relation to Joseph Smith by discussing aspects of his life in the most unflattering of ways, going so far at one point as paralleling his polygamous activities with Warren Jeffs. Regardless of whether a sound historical case can be made for this ethical portrait of Smith, quite unsurprisingly the reaction of Latter-day Saints will be extremely negative and will provide yet another reason for the video not to accomplish its purposes.

7. The distribution methods for this video appear to be largely impersonal, through door-to-door distribution, and perhaps through mailings. If this is the case, the videos will likely be distributed without any context of relationships, friendship, interpersonal credibility, and trust, and as a result the videos will likely do little more than see the inside of thousands of trash cans in Latter-Day Saints homes.

Other criticisms should be considered but these serious shortcomings should suffice for critical reflection. With these in mind I can only come to the conclusion that while many evangelicals are putting great hope in this video as a major evangelistic and apologetic that will reach the Latter-day Saints, in all likelihood it will be yet another failed project.

For all of these reasons I feel that it is my responsibility to let churches, pastors, and Christians know that I do not support this project, and that I feel it will set back other efforts by evangelicals while alienating us further from the Mormon people. I must also let my Mormon friends and contacts know that I do not agree with this project and that it does not represent the attitudes and efforts of myself or like-minded colleagues. There are other more promising ways forward and they must be explored.