Dialogue and Hand Grenades: Observations from the Majority World

I recently picked up a couple of books by Majority World theologians in order to compliment my theological studies from a Western perspective. One of the books is Vinay Samuel & Chris Sugden (eds), Sharing Jesus In the Two Thirds World (Eerdmans, 1983). This book came out of a meeting of twenty-five theologians from Africa, Asia, and Latin America who met in Bangkok in 1982 to discuss emerging Christologies from the Two Thirds World. Although the book is over twenty years old, it contains a number of gems for Western theologians and missiologists.

One interesting chapter by Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden provides an Indian evangelical perspective on religious dialogue. This chapter laments that in the 1980s "evangelicals are still in the same place as mission thinking was fifty years ago" in terms of dialogue with other religions as an important part of the evangelical agena. This blogger wonders whether we have come much further since that time, at least with respect to new religions in America and the West.

The authors discuss the attitude of disinterest and non-participation in dialogue, and suggest a number of reasons for it. One of the major reasons they cite is fear of syncretism. They write:

The evangelical approach to other religions has been to view them as systems which are pagan, heathen, and closed to the activity of God in history. They are anti-Christian systems which have no signs of redemption in them. Only the people in them are redeemable. The system iteself is not redeemable. Therefore the approach is to confront the systems by hurling gospel grenades over the boundary walls in a process designed to raze the religious system to the ground. While this siege is in progress, the attacking forces rescue what inmates they can, clean them up, baptize them, and then use them as front line troops in the siege operations.

Although these theologians are writing from their Two Thirds World perspective, the same types things could be said about evangelical approaches to other religions in the so-called First World. I have been criticized in certain circles for referring to certain evangelical approaches to new religions as a form of worldview annihilation, but it's difficult to read comments like these without recognizing the legitimacy of such statements. We lob our apologetic and doctrinal hand grenades over worldview boundary walls and wait for the explosion and hope will bring down the system, at least for the individual adherent. We then take the occasional convert, plop them into our evangelical subculture, create new warriors for the faith and place them on the frontlines of apologetic warfare. If Two Thirds World theologians recognize the inappropriateness of this in their contexts, can we recognize it in ours? Perhaps it's time to reassess the lobbing of hand grenades, and to reconsider the appropriateness of dialogue and other missional strategies.

Reflections on McLaren's The Secret Message of Jesus

I recently finished is Brian McLaren's most recent book, The Secret Message of Jesus (Word Publishing Group, 2006). Many evangelicals are familiar with McLaren, the prolific and at times controversial author, who is also an influential figure in the North American emerging church movement. After reading the book I pass along my initial reflections.

Whether by accident or design, this volume was released at a time that coincided with the media hype surrounding the release of The Da Vinci Code film. The provocative title and thesis promise to connect with a post-Christendom audience that hungers for alternative and provocative twists on the Jesus story.

McLaren acknowledges a number of scholars and theologians who have been influential in this thought, particularly that reflected in this volume, with the influence of N. T. Wright standing out most significantly in the author's thinking about a "secret message of Jesus." McLaren clearly points out that he is not articulating a neo-Gnostic Jesus, nor a Jesus of various exotic alternative spiritualities, but instead, a Jesus that even traditional Christians might have misunderstood. McLaren wonders whether there might be something fresh and revolutionary in our understanding of Jesus, something hidden, almost secret, even to evangelicals who are casually dismissed by increasing numbers of people with the skepticism that is attached to "organized religion."

There is much to appreciate in this book. McLaren has an entertaining writing style that engages the reader. While some have complained that he raises more questions than he provides answers, I find this approach engaging in that it encourages reflective thought on the part of the reader rather than spoon feeding of the author's ideas. In addition, it is apparent that McLaren has found a fresh understanding of Jesus through interaction with first century Second Temple Judaism. This understanding can be liberating and invigorating to those who have encountered traditional representations found in various expressions of Christianity in America.

In addition to many positives, there is room for appropriate criticism as well.

First, I wondered who the intended audience was that McLaren had in mind. In the Introduction he writes, "I'm especially hopeful that this book will be helpful to people who consider themselves spiritual but not religious, or interested in Jesus but not Christianity" (xii). I appreciate McLaren's desire to write a book that seeks not only to provide a fresh voice to those in the church, but also to move beyond preaching to the choir to engage a post-Christian, post-modern culture. This book takes a few helpful steps in this direction in painting an alternative portrait of Jesus that moves beyond traditional Christian representations and vocabularly, but McLaren has a way to go in the process of contextualization. McLaren rightly presents Jesus' kingdom message as part of the broader biblical narrative, yet he does so in language and concepts that still resonate more to those with Christian sympathies than to the ear of the post-modern. I am sympathetic to McLaren's shortfallings here: The task of contextualization is a difficult one in cross-cultural communication. Increased engagement with the missions community and reflection on cross-cultural missiology will likely provide McLaren with additional tools to improve upon similar efforts in the future.

Second, McLaren includes a helpful endnote in chapter 1 that refers to "productive and needed interreligious reflection," that includes citations of the Dalai Lama's The Good Heart (Wisdom, 1998) and Thich Nhat Hahn's Living Buddha, Living Christ (Riverhead, 1997). With the religious pluralism of the West, and the increasing popularly of various forms of Buddhism and other religions and spiritualities, it would have been helpful had McLaren made interreligious reflection an essential part of this book's discussion as the author applied the ramifications of the secret message of Jesus to various faiths in America's neighborhoods.

Third, related to the above, McLaren states that he's "not talking about something silly....I don't want to insult anybody, so I won't mention anything specific, but you know what I mean: I'm not talking about Jesus being in league with aliens from the planet Zorcon-3 or anything like that" (xii). I appreciate McLaren's desires for legitimacy with a provocative thesis, but in our post-modern environment many times it is the Christian story of an incarnating and resurrecting God that attacts reactions of incredulity, not the so-called alternative spiritualities that evangelicals dismiss as "silly." We live and minister in a different cultural environment than in the past, and we might remember that in a post-modern, post-Christian environment with many looking at Christianity as "been there, done that," Christianity may be no more credible than aliens from Zorcon-3.

Fourth, McLaren references missiologist Lamin Sanneh, but it would have been nice to see the author interact with the insights of cross-cultural missiology, both in a holistic theology of Jesus and his message (incorporating the wisdom of the West and Majority World), and how the missio Dei plays a central part in that Kingdom message.

I enjoyed this latest effort by McLaren and hope that he continues his journey, while inviting readers to participate in this journey with him. Perhaps evangelicals involved in missiology, religious studies, and cultural studies can walk the path with McLaren and through dialogue along the way we can improve on both our understanding of Jesus and in the ways in which we share his message in the West.

Unveiling the Truth About Islam?

Not long ago I made a post that was critical of comments made by Al Mohler and other evangelicals on their representation of Islam. The current online edition of Christianity Today magazine features an interesting article that compliments some of my earlier comments.

The article is written by Warren Larson, director of the Zwemer Center for Muslim Studies at Columbia International University, Columbia, South Carolina. It states that, unsurprisingly, "evangelical attitudes toward Islam have hardened since the attacks [of 9/11], positing that Islam is an essentially violent religion." It is easy to understand the reasons behind the negative perceptions of Islam by American evangelicals, not only in light of 9/11, but also with the steadily rising death toll of American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we must remember that Christians are members of two nations, with citizenship in America and the Kingdom of God. As Christians, we have a responsibility to accurately understand and fairly represent other religions, including those American evangelicals find distasteful.

Larson notes that evangelicals have produced a plethora of books on Islam but he states that, "unfortunately, too many of these evangelical polemics are historically inaccurate, theologically misinformed, and missiologically misguided. Apparently, a lot of us simply dislike Muslims (usually without knowing any)." Larson provides a suggested remedy to this situation:

When we critique Islam, we need to be fair and accurate. Those of us who make Muslim-Christian comparisons must do so from a position of informed engagement, as those who have worked with Muslims. When we review historical tensions between the two faiths, we must apply rigorous historical analysis. When we write about Islam, we must remember that love is the greatest apologetic.

Larson's article provides examples of what he labels as some of the worst evangelical treatments of Islam, as well as examples of those that do a better job. Larson is not only concernd with "unveiling" or "exposing" Islamic history and teachings in contrast with Christianity, but also with missional sensitivity and love. Evangelicals writing books and educating fellow evangelicals might take note of not only Larson's call for fairness in research and representation, but also his approach incorporating missional sensitivity. This is crucial in that ultimately the Muslim world will move beyond terrorism not through bombs and diplomacy, but through the grace of Christ:

...we Christians must discuss irreconcilable differences with Muslims, but we should also recognize similarities, bridges, and common themes. There is a place for "unveiling" Islam, provided we do it with sensitivity, understanding, and careful research.

Religious Others as "Satanic" and the Paranoid Worldview

I was intrigued last semester by some of my Old Testament professor's thinking on Satan in the Old Testament, and by extension, the topics of the demonic and the principalities and powers in the New Testament. One of the books he recommended to explore this topic was Nigel Wright's The Satan Syndrome: Putting the Power of Darkness In Its Place (Acadamie Books, 1990). I recently finished the book and found an interesting quote in chapter 9, under the subheading "The identity of the enemy:"

Here we need to return to what we have described elsewhere as the 'paranoid worldview'. All of us, under pressure, will resort to paranoid attitudes. We will identify our enemies and blame them for our misfortune. So we will gain a degree of personal relief because we feel we have bottomed the situation. Paranoia pushes the blame on to another and enables us to feel relatively blameless. It is a psychological defence mechanism which helps us preserve an inner sense of being in the right. When spiritual warfare leads to our becoming paranoid about individuals, or groups of individuals we need to be wary. Paranoia and love cannot coexist. In naming the power of Islam, or witchcraft, or spiritualism as 'satanic', it becomes difficult to view those who are involved in these activities in any other way than as enemies. It erects a barrier between them and us which becomes difficult to cross, since fear and love do not easily dwell together. In denoting any of the structures of society as demonic we need to guard that we do not 'demonise' those who are involved in them. In the first chapter we referred to the witchcraft crazes of former generations, a horrible example of this tendency.

The Missing Criteria of Methodology: Rethinking Why We Do What We Do

Few parents have not experienced the frustration that comes with the following parent-child exchange:

Parent: Why did you do what you just did?
Child: I don't know.
Parent: That's not a good reason. Why did you do it?
Child: I don't know. I saw someone else do it.

Why do we do the things the way we do? More specifically, why do we engage in ministry in the ways in which we do? Do we ever stop and step back mentally in an effort to reflect critically on these things? And how might we do so?

Last July I attended the Mormon Miracle Pageant in Manti, Utah. Even now evangelicals are preparing for this year’s pageant, just as they are for the latest LDS temple set to begin its open house later this summer in Sacramento, California. Sadly, the results will be the same: evangelicals will feel as if they have defended the faith and evangelized the LDS, while LDS will have experienced a mixture of amusement, apathy, and anger at these evangelical efforts. I have raised significant questions about the missiological and cultural appropriateness of the evangelical presence and efforts at such venues in light of cultural symbolism as it relates to temples and pageants. None of these questions have been answered by evangelicals engaged in “outreach” at these venues. Evangelicals are largely content to continue with long-held strategies at these and other venues, but might we stop and think about why we engage in the methods that we do?

As a result of my experience at Manti I wrote an article on the topic and I will post some excerpts from it for reflection here. While my primary consideration is for ministry among alternative spiritualities in the West, the following discussion also has application for other ministry contexts for the local church, including traditional, contemporary, seeker and emerging church. As I have thought about why we do what we do in ministry strategy I came up with the following list:

1. Because we think it’s biblical.
2. We have different personality types.
3. We can point to historical precedent.
4. We received our methods as a tradition and inheritance.
5. In LDS venues, we use approaches to “shock” Mormons out of their indoctrination.
6. We are subconsciously defending our theological and personal boundaries.

And while we may not like the sounds of this one especially, I wonder whether their might be another reason:

7. We use methods that give us a high profile in “enemy territory” that provides good photo opportunities and stories for our individual and ministry fundraising activities.

My purpose with this post is not to debate the validity of each of these reasons for mission strategy (and believe it or not, it is not to anger those in ministry to alternative spiritualties either), but rather to help us reflect on more a more meaningful criteria for ministry strategy. In my discussions with those in ministry to alternative spiritualities it seems as if one or more of the above mentioned reasons provide a motivation for ministry, but I have yet to encounter individuals or ministries with a well thought out and defined criteria of methodology. I’d like to suggest one for consideration. As I wrote in my Manti article:

But why should an evangelical in ministry to Mormons (or any other new religion) in Utah (or any other region) utilize one methodology or strategy over another? What criteria might be available that can be used to assess the appropriateness of strategy? To answer this question we turn to the discipline of missiology and consider the missional helix as a tool for defining ministry strategy.

Missiologist Gailyn Van Rheenen describes a spiral, or a helix, that exemplifies a process of effective ministry formation. He calls this spiral the missional helix: "The missional helix is a spiral because the missionary returns time and time again to reflect theologically, culturally, historically, and strategically in order to develop ministry models appropriate to the local context. Theology, social understandings, history of missions, and strategy all work together and interpenetrate each other. The helix is comprised of four strands of theological reflection, cultural analysis, historical perspective, and strategy of ministry within the missions environment." As Van Rheenen applies the insights of the helix to strategy formation he notes that missions practitioners should never merely ask “Does a given strategy work?” Rather, says Van Rheenen, “A question that better reflects the Missional Helix Model is: ‘Does this model of praxis reflect the purposes of God within this historical, cultural context?’”

Van Rheenen urges the missions practitioner to constantly return to reflect upon each of the elements of the missional helix as complimentary and interpenetrating ways of forming appropriate ministry strategy and praxis. He concludes his discussion by stating that the missional helix,"provides the Christian practitioner with a model of decision-making that is both intentional and instinctive. In other words, the missionary or minister should seek theological understandings, cultural analysis, historical perspective, and strategy formation in the process of developing patterns for ministry."

As evangelicals prepare to engage in ministry in the ways they have long engaged in it with little thought on why, missiology and the Missional Helix provides us with the tools for developing a sound criteria of methodology. It just might change the way we do ministry.

Newbigin and International Conference on Western Missions

Ryan Bolger's blog has a current post in response to an invitation he received to speak at an International Think Tank on Mission to Western Culture, sponsored by Allelon, and to be held June 25-29 in Idaho.

Bolger's post comprises a summary of his contribution to the conference, reflections on the work of the late missiologist Lesslie Newbigin to the subject of Western missions. I have copied excerpts of Bolger's post (in italics) followed by a few reflections of my own.

Newbigin created a space for Western churches to analyze their relationship to Western culture.

While Newbigin and others may have contributed to a space for reflection, we might question the extent to which this reflection has been engaged. While important networks such as the Gospel and Our Culture Network have come about in part as a response to Newbigin's work, in my experience Western churches, particularly in America, have yet to recognize, let alone seriously consider the place of a missional identity and focus for the local church. It seems that within a post-Christendom culture many are still functioning with a Christendom mindset. An American Society of Church Growth conference I attended at Fuller a few years ago included speakers representing a diversity of approaches, from the megachurch to the missional, and it was apparent that ASCG had not developed its own opinions on these issues. If a major American society and conference has yet to think through these issues then I wonder to what extent local churches have adequately grappled with them.

Newbigin returned to a church held captive by the culture and its own church traditions.

This point was recently driven home in a recent conversation I had with a friend actively in volved in leadership with a large church. This church, like many in the U.S., has had difficulties in reaching young people, and with this demographic being one of the foci for the church's immediate future, they have begun to think about engagement strategies. As the church contemplates how it might connect with young people one of its initial ideas has been to visit large mega-churches for ideas, such as Saddleback and Graceland.

With all due respect to Rick Warren and Dan Kimball, this approach assumes that these churches are in fact successfully and appropriately engaging young people, and that they are engaging not only those with some kind of Christian experience, memory or sympathies, but also those with no Christian background as well. This approach also assumes that a programmatic approach used by mega-churches in their local contexts is appropriate, and if a local church can simply transplant the right program then young people will be reached.

What if the leadership in my friend's began not with church culture for answers, but began with a fresh theological consideration of the gospel, the Kingdom of God, and the centrality of missions for the local church? What if they then considered the cultures and subcultures that they want to reach? How might the church be transformed and strategies be implemented by beginning from these starting points rather than by looking at seeker church cultures?

The gospel can handle pluralism, provided the gospel is located at the center. The church, not the culture, sets the agenda, speaking from within the biblical narratives to the wider world.

While evangelicals frequently worry about the negative challenges posed by pluralism, I agree with Bolger and Newbigin that the church "can handle pluralism," particularly when we consider that Israel and the church's experience was often within pluralistic contexts. And while the church should indeed set the agenda in light of the gospel and mission, the agenda must be set through the biblical narrative in dialogue with culture, after careful exegesis of both the Scriptures and the local cultural contexts. Western evangelicals tend to exegetic Scripture and form strategy in light of Western modernist and Christendom assumptions, and only fresh exegesis in both the realms of Scripture and culture will address our challenges.

While I am hopeful that this international conference will indeed bring the much-needed insights of cross-cultural missionsto bear on the local church contexts of America and the West I am more than a little skeptical. In my experience through study of missional church and interactions with churches in America, whether in contemporary church, seeker church, or emerging church contexts, there has yet to be a solid recognition and implementation of missional church ideas.

As I read the description of the Allelon conference I wondered abut two aspects that will be crucial to the success of this event. First, the conference is thankfully international rather than American or Western focused. I wonder to what extent Third World theologians will be given a voice at this conference, and to what extent First World Christians will be humble enough to listen and engage their insights and experiences. Second, in our post-Christendom and pluralistic environment we must be sensitive not only to multi-culturalism, but also to the religiously plural nature of the West. I wonder whether this conference will address the importance and implications of religious pluralism for mission and the local church. Perhaps Allelon's website and Bolger's blog will share positive reports in these and other areas as a result of this conference.

Discourses on Emerging Church

A few colleagues of mine have been posting some interesting thoughts related to the Emerging Church, which has resulted in an interesting series of exchanges in one instance.

First, Jon Trott discussed his thoughts concerning an article at the The Ooze website (an EC electronic journal) that endorses panentheism.

Philip Johnson has discussed the need for the EC to be more culturally and theologially savvy.

And Matt Stone posted an article discussing his concerns about EC which has resulted in a spirited discussion on panentheism within some EC circles.

These posts and continuing discussions by like-minded colleagues are not meant to denigrate the EC, or to dismiss it wholesale as heresy, but rather represent attempts to come alongside EC participants in order to assist them in grapping with the theological, cultural, missional, and apologetic issues posed by postmodernity. I hope my readers will review the sources above and join the conversation and experimentation in this spirit.

Of Pentacles and Tombstones

I am a member of several Yahoo groups related to religious studies and mission to new religions and alternative spiritualities. One of the groups, NUREL, recently included a post in the form of a story about a controversy in Reno, Nevada. The Associated Press is reporting that the family of an American soldier killed in Afghanistan is trying to get the Department of Veteran Affairs to approve the placement of a Wiccan pentagram on the tombstone of the fallen soldier. The family says that the pentagram would be the appropriate symbol for the young man who practiced this form of spirituality.

While Nevada officials work to speed up the probable approval of this request, the AP story states:

The Veterans Affairs' National Cemetery Administration allows only approved emblems of religious beliefs on government headstones. Over the years, it has approved more than 30, including symbols for theTenrikyo Church, United Moravian Church and Sikhs. There's also an emblem for atheists - but none for
Wiccans.

This news story reminds me of the firestorm of controversy that erupted a few years ago when it became known that an Army Base was permitting Wiccan ceremonies to be conducted on the military facility. There was a minor public uproar, including complaints from many evangelicals who felt that somehow the government should be in the position of disapproving certain spiritualities such as Wicca.

In light of the controversy in Reno, and as we remember our fallen war dead and other lost loved ones, Christians in religiously plural America might be thinking about the practical aspects of our theology of religions, and remember that freedom of religion means all religions, even ones evangelicals find distasteful. That seems to me to be the Christian thing to do.

Have Western Evangelicals Become the New Judaizers?

This week I received the latest edition of Missiology journal, Vol. 34, no. 2 (April 2006). This issue is devoted to discussion of issues surrounding the shift in Christianity’s growth from the Northern to Southern Hemispheres, with decline in Western Europe and North America and growth in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This shift has been recognized for some time by the missions community, and has been explored by a number of authors, including Philip Jenkins in his book The Next Christendom, the subject of a few previous posts and an interview with the author on this blog.

One of the articles in this issue discusses the missiological implications of the southern shift (“The Changing Face of Mission: Implications for the Southern Shift in Christianity,” by Mark Lang, pp. 164-177). In a sub-section of the article titled “Blessed Reflex,” the author discusses the revitalization of the early Jewish church that came with the growth and strength of the Gentile church. He then discusses the possibility of the Western church being revitalized and renewed by interaction with southern Christianity’s mission and theologizing, unencumbered by the Enlightenment and other Western cultural assumptions. Lang writes:

Missionaries are being sent from vibrant southern churches to the North bringing renewal and revitalizing northern churches. Coming from contexts unaffected by an Enlightenment worldview, many are able to naturally connect and communicate with the post-Christian post-modern world, where in contrast, the Western church often struggles to do so. In fact there is the danger for Western Christians, that in their quest to maintain orthodoxy, they may find themselves unwittingly defending the plausibility structures of the Enlightenment rather than defending Christianity, guarding a cultural form of Christian Enlightenment. (p. 175)

In light of my own cultural and missional studies and experience in the West I find this statement interesting. As I considered its ramifications it dawned on me that evangelicals might have unwittingly become the new Judaizers. Let me briefly explain.

One of the groups that surface polemically in the New Testament, such as in the Pauline epistles like Galatians, have been labeled the Judaizers. Scholars believe that this was a group of Jewish converts to Christianity who believed that it was also necessary to not only accept the gospel, but also to keep the law of Moses. Their error arose because of a their connection of the gospel and Christian identity with aspects of Jewish culture. In the process of this connection the gospel itself, and the unity of Jew and Gentile in one united community in Christ was undermined.

With the syncretism of the Western church with aspects of modernity and Enlightenment presuppositions I believe that we may indeed by guarding and promoting a particular cultural expression of Western Christianity as the universal and orthodox expression of the faith. This may be happening on an even grander scale among those ministries that evangelize adherents of new spiritualities in the West, where the tendency is to extract them from their subculture and to reinculturate them in the evangelical subculture, rather than presenting the gospel contextually in their cultural context and permitting the development of indigenous expressions of the faith in new cultural forms. (If this is an accurate assement it would indeed be ironic in that such ministries frequently cite Galatians and other texts addressing the Judaizers in refuting many new religions.) If this indeed the case then the Western church can learn a lot from the southern church, and my hope is that we in the West can exercise the humility and teachability necessary to learn and adapt to new roles, theologies, and ways of being in the twenty-first century.

Apologetics as Love and Relevant Communication

Some of my interactions with those who have sent along comments to recent posts made me think of John Stackhouse, author of Humble Apologetics (Oxford University Press, 2002). Salt Lake Seminary is working to secure his teaching in the upcoming fall semester as part of the intercultural studies program, and I look forward to benefitting from his instruction.

Quotes from his book on apologetics provide evangelicals with pause for reflection. The first addresses the areas of the purpose of apologetics and the attitudes of the apologist (p. 141):

Apologetics must alway look like God's love at work...Apologetics is not, primarily, about me. I can read apologetics in order to strengthen and sophisticate my faith, yes. I can engage in apologetics that can benefit me in various ways. But I ought to be commending the faith to my neighbor primarily for her benefit, to the glory of God. I ought not to be engaging in apologetic conversation out of some need of my own, whether a need to save face, or show up an enemy, or congratulate myself on my fervor. Apologetics, again, is a form of Christian speech, and as such it is always and only to offer a gift to the recipient - not aggrandize the speaker. Fundamentally, then, apologetic is about winning the friend, not the argument.

The second collection of quotes addresses adapting apologetic approaches for diverse audiences (pp. 142-3):

With love for God and love for our neighbor guiding and motivating us, therefore, when it comes to apologetics we will take each audience seriously on its own terms. We will not, that is, present apologetics to discharge a duty to our own satisfaction and then depart. In particular, we will not devise an apologetic that impresses us, but an apologetic that meets the needs of the particular audience we are addressing...Many Christians, and particularly those in the evangelical tradition to which I belong, are typically better at speaking, at proclamation, than at these two necessary skills: asking questions and listening to answers. Yet we must begin by asking questions. Who am I dealing with? What are their questions, their cognitive style or styles, their concerns, and their criteria for deciding about religious matters? Before I rush in with my package of stirring apologetic arguments, I need to ask just what my audience cares about, and how they will likely hear and respond to what I have to say.

I wonder if more evangelicals took these words to heart and modified their thinking and action as result, then would not the complexion of many apologetic and countercult ministries have to change dramatically?

Alister McGrath on Postmodern Apologetics

My friend and ministry colleague Philip Johnson recently made me aware of an article by Alister McGrath on the necessity of apologetics in postmodernity titled "To Capture the Imagination of Our Culture: Reflections on Christian Apologetics," that appears in Anvil, volume 17, number 1 (2006), pp 5-15. Philip discusses this article as it relates to the emerging church movement's emphasis on embodied apologetics at his Circle of Pneuma blog. If by an "embodied apologetic" the emerging church refers to the need for greater emphasis on incarnating in postmodern subcultures and engaging in acts of service and hospitality, then I am all for it, provided this is done in connection with other forms of mission and apologetic as well. The emerging church needs to resist the false dichotomy of "embodied apologetic" vs. "rational apologetic."

But before evangelical apologists shout a hearty "Amen!" they need to remember that apologetics within postmodernity needs to be done very differently than in a modernist context. Apologetics, like missions, must be contextually appropriate and relevant to a culture. Evangelical apologists' penchant for modernist apologetic approaches need to be revisited in light of social and cultural shifts. Readers might be interested in a popular article I wrote on that touched on this area in "A Fresh Agenda for Apologetics in the Twenty-First Century."

Emerging church participants and apologists alike are encouraged to click on the link above to Circle of Pneuma for Johnson's comments on this issue, and to secure this issue of Anvil.

Da Vinci Code Film and Evangelical Responses: Boundary Maintenance to Missional Engagement?

A few years ago when I was participating in a short-term mission trip in Australia, I came across an issue of What is Enlightenment? magazine in a New Spirituality bookstore that caught my attention. The cover featured an illustration of an older male figure with long hair and a long flowing beard, a traditional representation of the God of Christian theism, sitting fretfully at a computer keyboard with mouse in hand. The cover story that accompanied the illustration was titled "can God handle the 21st century?" Of course the answer to this question is "yes," just as God has "handled" all the previous centuries of human existence, but I believe the question posed in the article's title should be altered to reflect a more serious question for Christians in the West. The real question is: can the church handle the 21st century? I'm not so sure this question can be answered in the affirmitive. Uni-dimensional evangelical responses to a pop culture phenomenon illustrate my thinking.

On May 19 The Da Vinci Code movie will premiere in the U.S. The movie is, of course, an adaptation of the best-selling novel by Dan Brown. It is directed by Ron Howard and stars Tom Hanks. The combination of a story loved by millions who purchased the book, and an Academy Award winning director and actor suggests that this film will be a blockbuster.

Evangelicals have been responding to concerns ab0ut the Da Vinci Code since the book was first published. With the film ready to debut, evangelicals are cranking up their responses to the movie as well. Some of the responses by evangelicals have been well done, providing a reasoned consideration of the church's traditional understandings of the Bible, the life of Jesus, and the history of the church. Of course, the church does have a responsibility to respond to the historical and theological inaccuracies within Brown's fictionalized novel. Nevertheless, thus far Christian groups seem largely (or solely) focused on defensive reactions to issues of theology and history, while ignoring equally significant cultural aspects of Brown's novel.

For examples of the types of evangelical responses, Tyndale House Publishers is organizing a "Da Vinci didn't convince me" marketing campaign for churches, while the Josh McDowell Ministry has included "Da Vinci packs" in their Beyond Belief campaign. Again, the church does need to understand its history and theology in light of the counter-claims of Da Vinci Code, but in the process we're assuming the church will be heard outside of its walls when we engage the culture, and we're ignoring another imporant angle for cultural engagement. In light of America's post-Christendom and post-modern culture, the church must engage culture in different ways and address the specfic concerns of that culture. Christendom culture approaches will not work in a post-Christendom environment. In addition, not only should we be thinking about what the church will say to the culture, but what is the culture's interest in Da Vinci Code saying back to the church? The Da Vinci Code raises several interesting isues for the church's critical self-reflection:

Concepts of the Divine (masculine and feminine imagery, particularly with concerns over patriarchy).

Christ (emphasizing his humanity as well as his deity, where the church may overemphasize one at the expense of the other).

Gnosticism (the church's denunciation of "New Age" in the 1980s and beyond did little to address the West's continuing fascination with various forms of Gnosticism and neo-Gnosticism).

Women (gender roles in church and society).

Sexuality and the body (moving beyond Puritanical concepts).

Conspiracy theories (why they continue to grip our imagination).

Church (as authority structure, and its relationship to popular culture).

The church in the West must discover ways in which to move beyond mere confrontation in order to embrace missional engagement with the culture that is self-critical, positive, proactive, and holisitic, addressing not only theology and history but contemporary culture as well. If we continue to merely respond defensively, outside the church as well as within, we will perpetuate our continuing marginalization and isolation. Can we move beyond confrontational approaches to popular culture and our propensity to preach to the choir to seize the opportunity presented by this new movie? I'm afraid I'm not very optimistic.

Symbol Wars: Cautions and Considerations for Evangelical Approaches

As I mentioned in my last post, I recently completed the Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics course at Salt Lake Theological Seminary, and in our last session one of the topics we discussed was symbolic anthropology, specifically the work of Victor Turner. I had read some of Turner previously, and read other anthropological commentary on his perspectives, while completing my work on a project for this course, and I immediately recognized the implications of symbolic anthropology for not only my project, but for evangelical engagement with LDS culture as well.

In this post I will briefly summarize some of the thinking from Turner's symbolic anthropology (at the risk of oversimplification), and will then apply it to a clash of symbols in popular culture, and will conclude with consideration of the ramifications of all of this for ministry among the religions. I beg the reader's patience with the initial academic discussion of anthropology.

Symbolic anthropology, especially as presented via the work of Victor Turner, understands culture as composed of symbols which sustain society. Turner's work obviously includes both a methodology of studying the symbols as well as a theory of the symbol. In terms of theory, every culture may be thought of as made up of both signs and symbols. Signs (also called referential symbols) have a one-to-one relation between the signifier and the signified and the connection between the two is arbitrary. The meaning is referential. We master our world by signs.

Symbols, on the other hand (also called condensation symbols) fuse affect and value. That is, they have both affective and moral poles associated with them. Primacy is on feeling and willing, not on referential thought. Because of this emphasis on the affective, symbols have mobilization efficacy. If it is said that we master our world by signs, then we master ourselves by symbols.

We might also note that given the strong connection of the affective or feeling to symbols, individuals and cultures often attach a strong sense of individual and corporate identity to them. The significance of symbols to a culture, the importance of the deep affective dimension of symbols, and how this plays out in cross-cultural interaction, can be illustrated through an example from popular culture.

It is not possible to drive along America's roadways for long without encountering the Christian fish symbol on car bumpers. The fish has long been a historic symbol of the Christian faith stretching back to the early centuries of the religion. As an expression of their identification with Christ and their faith, contemporary Christians created various expressions of this ancient symbol and proudly displayed them on their car bumpers. However, it did not take long for another American subculture, atheism and agnosticism, to recognize the significance of the fish symbol for the Christian community, and they responded with a modification of the symbol. The addition of "Darwin" and feet to the symbol provide an evolutionary twist that is included as a means of both establishing atheist cultural identity while also mocking both Christianity and individual Christians through the use of symbol.


Not surprisingly, when the conservative Christian community noticed that their symbolism was being appropriated and mocked, this did not lead to their interest in exploring the secular worldview and the rejection of Christianity. Instead, Christians responded with a further modification of the symbolism wherein the Christian fish was depicted as carnivorous and devouring the atheist evolving fish symbol. In this development of the symbolism, Christians responded defensively to the attack on their symbol, which was interpreted as an attack on the essence of the sacred in their culture, Christ himself, as well as Christianity and individual Christians.

There are at least a few things we might take away from a consideration of symbols and their place in culture, as well as the popular culture example of symbol wars.

1. Symbols are significant to a culture as an embodiment of the sacred or the highly valued.
2. Individual and community identity is attached to symbols and their expression.
3. The manipulation of symbols by cultural others leads to perceptions of threat to individual and community identity, and attack on the culture.
4. A defensive reaction may follow from attack on cultural symbols.

Given the strong connection between a culture, identity, and the affective and symbolism, it is not surprising to expect a negative reaction when a given culture perceives that its symbolism is being attacked by a cultural other. For this reason missionaries would be ill advised to engage Hindus during their life-cycle initiations (samskaras) pilgrimage, or Muslims during the hajj. The presence of cultural outsiders at places associated with a symbolic sense of the sacred would provoke a strong negative reaction by the culture, thus alienating the missionary from the participants of the culture making effective communication difficult if not impossible. The insights of symbolic anthropology in dialogue with missiology teaches us that there are appropriate and inappropriate cultural venues in which to engage those we are called to reach.

With these considerations in mind we might this discussion a little more close to home. Scholars have noted several aspects of Mormon culture, including its emphasis on ritual, the significance of death and death conquest, as well as pilgrimage. While we might not normally think of Mormon participation in community celebrations (such as Pioneer Day), pageants (such as the Mormon Miracle Pageant at Manti), and temple visits as pilgrimage, Douglas Davies has stated that, "Mormon spirituality cannot be interpreted without some idiom of pilgrimage" and that "the Mormon practice of temple visiting" is legitimately understood as an aspect of pilgrimage.

Other aspects of Mormon culture are worth considering, including the connection between Mormon identity and ideology of place connected to sacred geography, temples serving as a social symbol, and pilgrimage as a social context where Mormons participate in a narrative rehearsal of the collective sacred.

If we connect the dots of our discussion, including the significance of symbols to culture, and the defensive reaction of a culture when its symbolism is attacked (or the mere perception of threat exists), we might reflect once again as to whether outreach at Mormon temples is culturally appropriate. In light of the preceding discussion the answer must be a resounding "no." Just as evangelicals were not motivated to consider a secular worldview when one of its sacred symbols was attacked, but instead reacted defensively, Mormons are not motivated to consider a traditional Christian worldview when their cultural symbol is attacked by the presence of evangelicals as cultural outsiders. I submit that while evangelicals have the best intentions in their outreach programs at various expressions of Mormon pilgrimage, and worthy goals of education and evangelism, ignoring the symbolism of Mormon culture results in not only a widening of the divide between our subcultures, but also deepens their commitment to their worldview in response to perceptions of attack. While evangelicals may disagree with this assessment, they will have to carefully consider symbolic anthropology and its ramifications for ministry before immediately dismissing this thesis.

Worldview Approach to Culture: Assumptions, Shortcomings and Benefits

Last Friday and Saturday I participated in the final classes of the Cross-Cultural Hermeneutics course at the seminary, led by Robert Priest of Trinity. One item of discussion was the worldview approach to culture. Evangelicals tend to utilize this particular approach to culture in general, as well as various new religions and world religions as well (consider Jim Sire's book The Universe Next Door as an example). What follows are notes from Priest on the topic.

Priest noted that a worldview approach to culture is affirmed by a minority of anthropologists, but is used by a majority of missiologists and evangelicals who think about culture. The worldview approach to culture assumes that the order observable in culture is primarily cognitive and rational; that such order is related to basic philosophical categories; that such worldview order is deep, implicit, assumed, and largely unconscious; and it assumes a direction of causality in which cognitive order provided by worldview determines other things. Worldview is the base, the first cause, the primary root.

Priest continues by describing the worldview perspective on persons whereby it assumes they have a strong drive for rational order and consistency, and also assumes that humans act rationally, given their cognitive assumptions.

Moving to a theoretical critique, Priest notes that many times culture is shaped by other forms of order, other organizing principles than that of cognitive order. He also states that even the cognitive order which is there is grounded in and shaped by metaphor, symbol and story rather than by abstract rational thought. He continued by noting that human action and speech is often less rational and less rationally determined than is often thought.

In terms of methodological problems, Priest noted that worldview analysis tends to be removed from lived reality. It is often abstract and distant from the data. Other approaches are more closely tied to the data and the method of engaging data. He notes the problem of etic (outsider's perspective) as the starting point, and the propensity to privilege the intellectual's explanations and justifications as the correct ones.

In terms of missiological problems with the worldview approach to culture, Priest states that the language of worldview frames things in philosophical terms, as a question of truth or error. If every cultural difference is thought to be the result of a worldview difference, then every cultural difference invites people who think they have the right worldview to enter into judgment.

Priest concluded this discussion by stating that worldview analysis is valuable if:

1. Worldview is treated as one kind of order, not the only kind of order.
2. If direction of causality is understood to move in more than one direction. It is one contributor to action, not the only or necessarily the primary contributor in any given situation. Much of culture is not contingently dependent on a particular worldview.
3. If it is studied by sophisticated anthropologist with profound knowledge of culture at multiple levels. (It results from multiple research steps beginning with empirical.)
4. If it includes a judicious mix of emic (insider) and etic (outsider) perspectives.
5. It is especially important in context where systematic efforts at rational order are pursued by members of the society.

As I reflected on this discussion I noted the importance of its application to both missional expressions of church in Western culture, as well as to engagement with the cultures of new religions and alternative spiritualities. Evangelicals can benefit from considerations of worldview, but we must also recognize its limitations, and balance it with other considerations in order to arrive at a full orbed understanding of the culture's we seek to engage.

Brueggemann on emerging church

ReligionLink recently disseminated a piece on the emerging church. The brief resource written as an aid for religion writers included a list of contacts that could be approached for further comment on this phenomenon. One of the scholars listed caught my attention when I saw the name of Old Testament scholar Walter Brueggemann. Dr. Brueggemann is described by ReligionLink as “an appreciative observer of the emergent conversation. Brueggemann is professor emeritus from Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, GA. He is also the author of a number of books including An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination, The Prophetic Imagination, Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination, and Deep Memory, Exuberant Hope: Contested Truth in a Post-Christian World.

I found an appreciation for the emerging church by a noted Old Testament scholar of great interest and I gave him a call to discuss it. We spoke briefly, and Dr. Brueggemann told me that his introduction to the emerging church came by way of a phone conversation and later lunch with Brian McLaren. While Brueggemann does not claim to have an in-depth knowledge of the complex and diverse movement of the emerging church, he said that he is appreciative of its desires to seriously engage the culture, and he appreciates its social and missional activities. Brueggemann also shared concerns about evangelicals who condemn the entire movement as heresy.

I was glad to see that a respected scholar was open to a different expression and experimentation with church forms and ways of being in the West. Perhaps others might consider such openness, or at least be more willing to withhold judgment against the movement, and pause before raising red flags relative to missional Christians who include emerging church links on their blogs.

Cornerstone Festival 2006: Attend if you can!

It will be my pleasure to participate in my fourth Cornerstone Festival this July 4-8 in Bushnell, IL. This year I am privileged to present seminars in two tracks, including Cornerstone You and the Imaginarium. Both sets of presentations look at differing issues from the perspective of intercultural studies. My series in the Cornerstone You venue looks cross-culturally at the rage directed at the West by the Majority World:

“The West and the Rest: Where Does Their Rage Come From?”
Americans scratch their heads at the constant protests and expressions of hatred against our country around the world. In reality, our lack of cultural appreciation and perspective causes us to misunderstand other cultures and their rage, but also to misunderstand the Scriptures and the Christian faith.

This year’s Imaginarium will be looking at various Day of the Dead celebrations in differing cultural contexts, and analyzing it from differing cultural expressions. My contribution to this fascinating topic is the following seminar series:

"Incarnation Means Becoming Human: Body, Soul & Imagination"
Image, myth, symbol and ceremony are the bread and butter of the Imaginarium, a fare people respond to as if they'd been starved. Often, they have been - by a Modern culture that prizes abstraction over incarnation. Missionaries worry about syncretism - mixing with non-Christian cultural forms - but have rarely scrutinized Modernity's conquest of the faith. Yet recent developments in missiology parallel the Imaginarium's journey in seeking a more sophisticated approach to culture. This seminar surveys those overlapping trails, and serves as the theoretical counterpart to our evening series: "Death Takes a Holiday: Celebrations of All Saints, Souls, & Bodies."

I am really looking forward to the perspective I will contribute to these topics and many of the other seminars as well. This may be the best overall year for the Imaginarium yet.

Most intriguing is a seminar series by Gretchen Passantino Coburn. I was fortunate to meet Gretchen, and her late husband Bob, during a previous Cornerstone event. We developed a relationship that continues to this day. During the course of our discussions I discovered a similar perspective on many issues of theology, apologetics, and missional approaches. Gretchen will also be speaking in the same venues as I am, and one of her sessions in Cornerstone You will be a joint Q&A between the two of us. Gretchen’s series in this venue captures the direction she has been moving in her thinking over the last few years:

“Why Doesn't Apologetics Work?”
Even seasoned apologists like Gretchen Passantino Coburn agree that most people adopt false beliefs and join aberrant groups for reasons other than intellectual, yet a wide spectrum of Christian leaders continue to focus on education and knowledge as the keys to right belief and practice. How do we resolve this paradox?

I know that Gretchen has been rethinking apologetics, theology, and mission in recent years. It will be interesting to hear her presentations and to see where her thinking is at the present time. Perhaps this veteran apologist and past co-worker with the late Walter Martin has moved to the incarnational mission side of the coin alongside this blogger.

If you can attend this year's C'Stone Fest, I wholeheartedly recommend it. And if you attend one of my seminars stop on by and say "hello."

Diverse Faiths in our Neighborhoods: What Does the Lord Require of Us?

In a Yahoo discussion group Amos Yong of Regent College stimulated my thinking about an aspect of the encounter between evangelicals and adherents of other religions. He touched on implications from Jesus’ teachings from the parable of the Good Samaritan, as well Matt. 25 where Jesus states that how we respond to those in need reflect our reception (or denial) of him. Yong wondered how our treatment of the “religious other” might also be included in this passage of Scripture.

I found this perspective of great interest. Evangelicals spend a lot of time considering the soteriological destiny of those in other religions, defining orthodoxy in relation to heresy, and formulating evangelistic and mission strategies in this regard. But we spend little time reflecting on what God is doing in the Christian as they interact with those of other faiths. We are rightly concerned about a number of issues in the interfaith encounter, but we may be neglecting one of the most important issues in the process.

As I continue to consider the importance of this issue I was fortunate recently to come across an organization called Faith to Faith in the United Kingdom. An Internet search turned up this Christian consultancy which addresses the issue raised above as it also attempts to formulate a balanced Christian perspective in light of religious pluralism in the U.K., an approach similar to that of my own Neighboring Faiths Project in the U.S.

Faith to Faith was directed in the past by Ida Glaser, who is now senior teaching and research fellow for the Edinburgh Centre for Muslim-Christian Studies. She is the author of a wonderful book I am now reading (one of several!) titled The Bible and Other Faiths: Christian Responsibility in a World of Religions (IVP, 2005). The book is part of a series on Christian Doctrine in Global Perspective, with John Stott serving as the Consulting Editor. This book is extremely helpful in that it not only provides a global perspective on the question of religious pluralism, but also moves beyond traditional Christian approaches to the topic in order for Christians to reflect on what the Lord requires of us in the interreligious encounter. A brief excerpt from the first chapter provides a hint of the treat this book provides:

In August 2001 I led a seminar for teachers from theological colleges in Uganda. We were thinking about how and why they taught Islam. The key question, I suggested to them, is “How should we as Christians live in relation to Muslims? What does God want of us?” We looked at the Sermon on the Mount, at the great commandment of Matthew 22:39 and at the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20. Then we read Micah 6:8: “He has showed you, O human being, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (author’s translation).

Then I asked, “How are we getting along? Are we living like that in relation to Muslims? What stops us?”

The answers came immediately: “Muslims say that Jesus is not the Son of God. They criticize the Bible. They won’t let us preach. They are setting up lots of new mosques. They want to take over our town. They are persecuting Christians in Sudan. They won’t eat our food. They are trying to marry our daughters …”

I repeated what they had said, and they got the point. Even if all those things are true, is there anything in Muslims that Christians can blame for their own lack of obedience to God? Nothing in Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheist or even other Christians can stop us from doing what God requires. Only what is in us can do that.

Glasser’s book brings a helpful perspective for Christians living amidst America’s increasing religious diversity and who are concerned not only with sharing the faith across religious cultures, but also with the process of transformation through the Spirit that comes with our yielding to a life of service and love for those from the world’s religions (and new religions) that we live with in our neighborhoods.

Sacramento, California Trip Summary and Words of Clarification

My family and I are nearing the completion of our trip to Sacramento in the northern California area. Tomorrow is the last day as we have a few more meetings, luncheons, and time with friends.

The ministry experiences here have been encouraging. I presented Bridges to a combined group from two churches, RiverCity Calvary Chapel of South Sacramento, and LifeSong of Elk Grove. The presentation was well received, and several people expressed appreciation for a missional and relational approach to understanding Mormonism and sharing the gospel with Mormon friends.

This trip to California also included meetings with large churches in the greater Sacramento area. Several of them are considering hosting a Bridges presentation, along with the new Grounded program for teens developed by Salt Lake Theological Seminary. We are well on our way to developing an alternative evangelical approach to the LDS temple opening this summer.

In addition, I was able to touch bases with supporting churches, including First Baptist Church of Elk Grove, and Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church, where I gave a summary of our Utah ministry at the monthly missions potluck. We are thankful for the partnerships with these churches and many of their members who's prayers and financial support literally make our ministry possible.

During this visit I also had an opportunity to meet with a ministry colleague who shared concerns about the missional direction that I have taken. Similar concerns were shared with colleagues of mine in Utah while I was away. I'd like to use the opportunity presented by these concerns to clarify issues and provide further food for thought.

1. Missional paradigm. My colleague shared his concerns that the missional paradigm I am involved in was too academic, it could not be understood, and that he was against it. Several thoughts come to mind in response to this concern.

First, what is the missional model to new religions that I and colleagues from around the world are presenting? Very simply, we are suggesting that the cross-cultural missions approaches that are articulated in the New Testament, and continue into the history of Christian missions overseas, should be applied to the new religious movements in the U.S. and the West. This means viewing Mormonism, for example, as a culture rather than as a "cult," and engaging this culture holistically, drawing not only upon apologetic argument, but also cross-cultural missions.

Second, our missional paradigm has been developed academically, and our book, Encountering New Religious Movements (Kregel Academic & Professional, 2004), was designed as a textbook for Christian university students, Bible college students, missiologists, and other Christian scholars, but this does not mean the book should be dismissed by those who do not feel they are academically inclined. We hope to develop these ideas for the "lay" Christian reader in the near future, but I would encourage those who are tempted to dismiss the articulation of our missional thesis in the academy not to return to the anti-intellectualism that marks Christian fundamentalism.

Third, if someone cannot understand our missional paradigm then it cannot be dismissed as inappropriate. Recall the maxim of the necessity to be able to say "I understand" before you can say "I disagree." If countercult personalities do not understand the cross-cultural missions paradigm we are articulating then they have a responsibility to ask questions and to seek clarification and understanding before leveling criticism.

Fourth, we might consider the possibility that the reason why the missional paradigm has been reacted to so negatively by many in the countercult is not because the the thesis has not merit, but because it involves a paradigm shift. Shifting from heresy contrast and refutation to cross-cultural missions is not easy, and the heresy refutation filter for countercultists likely results in a skewed interpretation of the missional paradigm.

2. Critique of countercult philosophy and methodology. My colleague also shared his concerns about my critique of countercult theory and praxis. He feels that it is inappropriate to state that a given methodology is problematic and should not be engaged in, even when it comes to the "street preachers" in Utah. Two thoughts come to mind in response to this concern.

First, the cross-cultural missions paradigm to new religions contains within it an implicit critique of countercult approaches. While my vocal critique of the countercult paradigm has no doubt added fuel to the fire for those who disagree with me, eventually the deep differences between the two approaches would have been evident and would have to be dealt with.

Second, why can't criticism be leveled against different paradigms in the free marketplace of ideas, including the arena of ministry? Theologians and missiologists routinely engage each other and critique each other's work and few cry "foul" in these contexts. I also find it curious that a few countercult critics have recently refused to label even the most extreme street preachers in Utah as inappropriate and out of bounds, and yet these same critics feel comfortable leveling criticism against those of us developing a missional model. It seems that those of us who are arguing for a missional model that takes culture and Scripture seriously are more problematic for the countercult than those who hold up derogatory signs and wipe their buttocks with Mormon temple undergarments.

I would ask the critics of the missional model to give this approach a fair consideration. If you don't understand something, ask one of the proponents and we'll do our best to help you understand. Also keep in mind that our thesis was presented in a book that won a Christianity Today Book of the Year Award in the category of missions/global affairs, and the book and its ideas have been favorably reviewed by missiological journals in the U.S. and the U.K. Other academic periodicals have begun to consider the thesis as well, and in the recent issue of Bibliotheca Sacra our book was favorably reviewed. Beyond this, our paradigm has received the support of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, and leading theologians and missiologists as well. There is something credible and exciting here.

But at the end of the day it may be that representatives of our conflicting paradigms must part company. Recall Paul's parting of the ways with Barnabas. One of the great challenges for Christians has always been balancing our diversity with our unity. As the granddaddy of the countercult used to say, let's try to exercise the maturity necessary to "agree to disagree agreeably" even as we wish each other godspeed and pursue our differing pathways.

Off Next Week to California

My family and I leave tomorrow (Friday) for northern California and the Sacramento area. I will be presenting the Bridges training program to the combined churches of RiverCity Calvary Chapel and LifeSong Church. I will also be speaking on the challenge of Western culture and misisonal church to the college group of Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church Sunday night, and return Tuesday evening to update the church on my missions work in Utah at their monthly missions potluck. Beyond that I will be touching bases with various supporters, both individuals and churches, and I will be touching bases with key churches in order to pursue an Evangelical-LDS dialogue and Bridges training as an alternative to the distribution of literature during the opening of the LDS temple this summer in Rancho Cordova.

Given my travels in California I will not be posting on this blog next week. This means that those who enjoy reflecting on my posts will have to wait for a week, and my critics will have a week off as well which will allow their blood pressure and stress level to lower for a while.

I wish all my readers a wonderful Palm Sunday and Easter celebration.

Mormons as Enemies of God?: Reflections on LDS General Conference

Last Saturday and Sunday the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held its General Conference in Salt Lake City. I had the privilege of participating in Operation Loving Kindness sponsored by the ministry of Standing Together in connection with the conference on Saturday. The purpose of Operation Loving Kindness is for traditional Christians from a variety of area churches to share their love and support with Latter-day Saints as they enter and leave from their participation in General Conference. As the throngs of Mormons walked by we stood near the conference center and wished Mormons a good morning, and shared our love and support for them as individuals and as a people.

One of the fascinating aspects of participation in this event was the variety of responses from Mormons as well as the notorious "street preachers."

The response of Latter-day Saints was varied as one might expect, with some expressing an understandable hesitancy and concern over non-Mormons standing near the facility associated with General Conference. But the vast majority received us warmly and expressed their appreciation for our presence and expressions of kindness. A handful even went so far as to approach us, offer us a handshake, and thank us for our efforts and sentiments.

While the reactions of Latter-day Saints was of interest, the reaction of the street preachers was even more interesting. The handful of preachers were scattered up and down the main street that led to the conference, signs with scripture verses and derogatory slogans held high. They alternated between preaching messages of denunciation at Mormon passers by, and when LDS crowds thinned, they took aim at those of us affiliated with Standing Together, even going so far as to denounce us as heretics and unbelievers. (As an aside, the street preachers assumed they were presenting the gospel that was being rejected by heretics, when in fact no contextualized communication was taking place across the subcultures of evangelicalism and Latter-day Saints. Their sermons amounted to little more than a harangue that had no positive appeal and represented poor communication skills, even for evangelicals who might share aspects of their worldview.) During these dismissive sermons I was able to feel for just a moment some of the rejection and judgmentalism that Latter-day Saints must feel when they are the target of this aggressive form of "evangelism."

My experiences at General Conference came during a week when I also received a few emails from a critic of my blog on the topic of Mormonism. He began our brief exchange by asking whether I believed Mormons were rightly viewed as "enemies of God" which included his citation of Romans 11:25 which refers to ethnic Israel's becoming the enemy of God for the grafting in of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God. As our exchanges continued it become increasingly evident that this person was looking for any kind of biblical justification for regarding Mormons as enemies of God, and presumably of evangelicals.

I believe the attitudes and behaviors of the street preachers and my email inquirer share a common thread, and that is a tendency to view the Mormon people (and not merely Mormonism) as an evil worthy of our denunciation and condemnation, but precious little else. While Christ surely engaged in moments of condemnation, a quick review of these instances in the New Testament reveals that he reserved such judgments for the religious leaders, not for the common people of various stripes, whether Jew or Samaritan (whom the Jews presumably thought were the enemies of God as well). Perhaps if Christ were to have made his first appearance in our time he would in like manner have given his most stern rebuke to corrupt Christian leaders while extending his mercy and invitation to the Kingdom to those some evangelicals perceive as enemies of God.

At any rate, I find it interesting that when evangelicals engage in acts of kindness and love for Mormons and engage in ways of ministry that challenge the status quo of confrontation, the attack quickly shifts to an expanded collection of targets that also includes fellow evangelicals. While there are certainly divergences of opinions and methodologies among the countercult community (to a limited degree), my experiences with both the countercult and the street preachers leads me to wonder whether they do not inhabit the same spectrum of ministry separated by degrees rather than by kind.