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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The World Table: Transforming our Incivility for Clarity of Thinking and Persuasion

There seems to be a growing recognition that something is not quite right about the way in which we engage each other over our differences on the Internet. In fact, some websites are changing their procedures in this area, and others are calling for a new platform that helps transform behaviors that make up this problem.

In August of this year The Huffington Post announced that it would no longer allow anonymous comments to be posted in response to their essays. A piece by Lorraine Devon Wilke explained why in "What Trolls Are Doing to Our Politics, Our Culture... Our Brains." She writes, "On a societal level, particularly since the internet opened comment features under most offerings, negative dialogue has become the norm; the loud, persistent, often vicious norm of most online interaction. In fact, the degree of irrational response exchanged online is so high, so automatic, that one expects any article, no matter how logical, fact-based, positive, or even neutral, to be immediately ripped apart by trolls who seem bent on the task." After discussing some findings in Psychology Today on the psychological effects of focusing on negativity, she continues and describes the unfortunate results of such hypercritical and negative commentary on individuals who read it. She says that "the more one sits at a computer spewing savage, hateful criticism, the more one translates life through the filter of hostility and personal attacks, the more one builds brain pathways toward greater and greater negativity. In fact, as online commenters, media pundits and politicians have grown uglier and more malicious, the more the bar seems to have moved, making 'ugly' more accepted, more accessible." For The Huffington Post the way to address this issue is to disallow the posting of anonymous comments. The hope is that if people have to take public ownership of their comments and the way they relate to others that it will contribute to more positive and civil forms of exchange.

More recently PopularScience.com included an essay that went even further in exploring the impact of uncivil exchanges on the Internet. This website is going further than HuffPo, and is removing the ability for readers to comment entirely. Suzanne LeBarre in "Why We're Shutting Off Our Comments," also discusses the impact of trolls on the shaping of perspectives of readers. Although they acknowledge that they receive lots of positive comments, the negative ones have an enormous ability to shape perceptions. LeBarre cites a study by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Broassoard about reader perceptions of a particular technology, which revealed that "even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader's perception of a story."  From a New York Times op-ed the following results were discovered:

Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself.

In the civil group, those who initially did or did not support the technology — whom we identified with preliminary survey questions — continued to feel the same way after reading the comments. Those exposed to rude comments, however, ended up with a much more polarized understanding of the risks connected with the technology.

Simply including an ad hominem attack in a reader comment was enough to make study participants think the downside of the reported technology was greater than they'd previously thought.

LeBarre states that this ability of uncivil comments to negatively alter perceptions of a story is causing readers to think uncritically about accepted scientific notions. For PopularScience.com the way forward is to end the ability of readers to comment and interact with each other over ideas.

The final threads in this discussion come through a new book and another online essay. Os Guinness is the author of The Global Public Square (InterVarsity Press, 2013). In this volume he sets forward a proposal for religious freedom and freedom of conscience, as well as the need for a civil public square. He recognizes that the public square is now far more expansive than it was previously given the importance of "new technologies and social media" which are so influential and formative that the "public square has morphed again through the power of the Internet and has gone from the physical to the metaphorical to the virtual." This worldwide platform means that "...even when we are not speaking to the world, we can be heard by the world," often by way of increased incivility and "degrading rhetoric" from anonymous individuals. Guinness wonders whether we can "in the next twenty-five years forge a new understanding of what it means for global citizens to debate other global citizens in a manner that the issues deserve..."

Related to this, in February of this year Sarah Perez argued at techcrunch.com that "The Best Platform for Online Discussion Doesn't Exist Yet." While not mentioning trolls specifically, Perez does mention the problem of uncivil comments, as well as questions related to credibility. She states, "The problem, which the Internet hasn’t solved at all, and has in fact even made worse, is that opinions are not created equal and therefore shouldn’t be considered in equal measure. The Internet has put people on such an even playing field that we now have to create entirely new systems to verify who’s worth listening to. From Google rankings to Techmeme headlines to retweets and number of followers, we’re still struggling to figure out who deserves to be heard." Perez concludes her essay by writing, "We’re ready for a radical overhaul that reflects how people are communicating and sharing information today; one that shows which comments or shares have resonated and why, and one that understands who deserves to be heard."

These various elements come together to paint a picture of a tremendous challenge. Serious issues need to be discussed, but it is usually the negative and polarizing voices that are the most influential. The result is that critical, thoughtful, and civil discussion and persuasion is stifled, and opinions are unfairly shaped along the way. The Internet has become a cyber extension of the physical public square and a very important place for discussion of the pressing issues of the day, but it is presently hampered by incivility. We need a new platform, a new mechanism to transform the way in which we engage each other to empower the best of what the Internet has to offer.

But while Perez opines that the best platform for online discussion doesn't yet exist, I'd beg to differ. The Foundation for Religious Diplomacy is currently involved in beta testing for The World Table. Participants must verify their identity and allegiances, and then agree to a set of ethical guidelines called The Way of Openness. Participants are then rated on the way in which they engage others, and rate others in similar fashion. The goal is to earn the highest rating possible as a badge of honor. Drawing upon accepted principles of social psychology that resonate with many religious traditions and ideologies, The World Table promises to change behaviors by shaming the trolls and making civil conversations a highly desired virtue, thus setting a new tone for exchanges about the most serious issues that divide us, from religion to politics and beyond.

A new movement for civility in the way in which treat each other over our deepest differences is taking shape. It's happening at The World Table. Come and take your seat.

WIFE SWAP's Atheists and Christians: Reality Television and Lessons on Civility

I don't share many of my teenage daughter's interests in television, particularly the expressions of reality TV that she enjoys, but yesterday I found an episode of a program she turned on interesting. It was a past episode from the show WIFE SWAP from 2007 as it turns out. The basic premise of the show is to find two very different families and lifestyles and then swap the wives to live with the other families in order to set up a very uncomfortable two weeks for the women and the families they are staying with. The first week the wives have to live as the wife who lives in the home, and the second week the wives get to turn the tables and make the families live as they do in their own homes. Depending upon the types of families that participate, the program can be very interesting to say the least.

The episode re-aired yesterday brought together a family of white atheists and a black family of Evangelical Christians. These families could not have been more different as each embodied the stereotypes often attributed to them, the atheist family being heavily tattooed with edgy hairstyles and a wife with a shaved head, and the Christian family being very conservatively dressed. The atheist family prided themselves on being freethinkers, not only in the area of religion but also in regards to letting their children do whatever they wanted, and exposing them to almost everything in life, including their parents liberal attitudes toward sex. The Christian family prided themselves on the centrality of their faith that informed every aspect of their lives, including ideas about male and female gender roles in the home and workplace to the influence of God in every aspect of life such as having their children pray before tests so that God could remind them of answers for higher grades. In the atheist home the wife worked long days in an in-home Internet business while the husband took care of the cooking and cleaning, while in the Christian home they followed "what God's Word says" as the husband worked outside the home and the wife and daughter were responsible for all the cooking and cleaning. The husband and son did none of it because of "Man Law," the allegedly biblical ideas related to masculine and feminine roles.

After the wives swapped homes there was the much anticipated shock of the women and the families they were staying with. The clashes were expected by the audience, but what was most interesting was the way in which each of the wives and families attempted to present their alternative worldview perspectives to others who were at odds with them. Being at such polar opposites it was clear that the families would never likely persuade each other and held irreconcilable differences. What then to do? Unfortunately, each took the path of coercion and ridicule. For the atheist family with the swapped Christian wife, they made it clear that God was a myth and a crutch, and Christians were anything but freethinkers, conspiring to force their limited view of reality and restrictions on fun on others. The constantly reminded the Christian woman of not only their choice in skepticism, but their need to mock what others held sacred. In the Christian home with the swapped atheist wife, they too felt compelled to share their beliefs with a lack of any sensitivity or framing for the perspectives of their unbelieving guest. They forced the atheist woman to go to church and participate in a Bible study against her express desires. She relented only because of the rules of the television program. When it was time for the wives to impose their will and perspectives on the other families, they followed suit and coerced family members into conformity with their understanding of reality. The atheist wife took away all religious items and icons, and the Christian wife forced the family to go to church and made her temporary "husband" preach with a Bible in hand in public "like he believed it" as punishment for violating her rules. The result of much of this was anger, conflict, shouting, ridicule, and confirmation on both sides that the perceptions of "the other" was confirmed and their lifestyle with its supporting worldview was justified and the only legitimate way to see things.

Even with these clashes there were positive aspects of this program. At one point when the atheist family went to church with the Christian woman they expressed their surprise that rather than being preached at they were able to play games and socialize with others that seemed to care for them. The atheist father goes on record sharing his appreciation for these kinds of expressions of Christianity. In another segment the Christian father comes to reassess his assumptions about the roles of men and women that he has connected to his faith, along with a willingness to allow his teenage daughters greater freedom in socializing with boys and girls. When the participants in this television program were willing to move beyond coercing and abusing others with and through their respective traditions and ideologies then positive things happened.

And this is where we can learn something positive and important from an unlikely source in pop culture. While WIFE SWAP thrives on the drama of the clash of personalities, and in so doing presents the all too common ways in which human beings interact with each other over their differences, at times it can also remind us of the way in which to navigate more carefully through them. While retaining confidence in our convictions, rather than using coercion to impose our perspectives upon others in the hopes of persuading them to join us, there is great value in respect and a softer hand. At the conclusion of this program the two couples come together to discuss their experiences and what they learned. At one point the topic of forcing perspectives on others comes up with examples on both sides, and the Christian woman states that at least the atheist father could have respected her in her faith commitments even while seriously disagreeing with her choices. At the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy we practice The Way of Openness, a set of guidelines that are put into place as we interact with others. One of these guidelines is "Be Kind:"

Kindness will go further towards building trust than any other virtue listed here. Kindness is never outdated. It is not weak, or naive, or small. It changes hearts and minds and can quickly tear down walls because genuine kindness is easily recognized and understood by everyone. BUT...nothing is more offensive or destructive than kindness that is forced, phony, or insincere.

WIFE SWAP is produced for entertainment, for viewers to take joy in the clash of competing family perspectives. When an atheist and a Christian family go head to head, the audience is given the fight that it was hoping for. But in this episode it got a little bit more. The clash of these families is not contained within the walls of the family homes, but instead is found within the public square. It is also not restricted to these two groups but involves a multiplicity of religious and ideological perspectives. For those interested in moving beyond the clash of perspectives we are reminded that kindness and respect not only work toward civility in a mutifaith public square, but they also hold greater persuasive power.

Patheos Review of Os Guinness' "The Global Public Square"

I highly recommend Os Guinness' new book The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity (IVP Books, 2013). The volume's website provides this overview description:

How do we live with our deepest differences?

In a world torn by religious conflict, the threats to human dignity are terrifyingly real. Some societies face harsh government repression and brutal sectarian violence, while others are divided by bitter conflicts over religion's place in public life. Is there any hope for living together peacefully?

Os Guinness argues that the way forward for the world lies in promoting freedom of religion and belief for people of all faiths and none. He sets out a vision of a civil and cosmopolitan global public square, and how it can be established by championing the freedom of the soul—the inviolable freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In particular he calls for leadership that has the courage to act on behalf of the common good.

Far from utopian, this constructive vision charts a course for the future of the world. Soul freedom is not only a shining ideal but a dire necessity and an eminently practical solution to the predicaments of our time. We can indeed maximize freedom and justice and learn to negotiate deep differences in public life. For a world desperate for hope at a critical juncture of human history, here is a way forward, for the good of all. Guinness' perspectives and the proposal he sets forward for a public square that embraces freedom, civility, and diversity dovetails quite a bit with my own perspectives and work, and that of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. 

My review of this volume, titled "Beyond Interfaith Dialogue: A Review of 'The Global Public Square:'Os Guinness makes a bold proposal for a new public square, and Evangelicals must work with others to embrace its civility, freedoms, and diversity," was recently published at Patheos and will soon be available at the Patheos Book Club. My review concludes with the following:

Os Guinness has provided a real service in not only raising the issues of religious freedom and civility in diversity, but in also providing a proposal for addressing them. He risks being dismissed as setting forth mere hyperbole, but I believe he is correct to state that, "How we deal with our deepest religious and ideological differences in public life will be a defining issue for the future of mankind" (25). This book needs to be read and discussed widely. It is my hope is that Evangelicals will join Dr. Guinness in wrestling with the challenge of religious freedom, diversity, and civility, and be willing to link arms with other religionists and secularists in navigating a way forward in a new public square.

Os Guinness and 'The Global Public Square'

Os Guinness has a new book out, The Global Public Square: Religious Freedom and the Making of a World Safe for Diversity (InterVarsity, 2013). I have written a review and hope to have it published soon and will post a link. It's one of the best books I've read in a while, and it overlaps significantly with my thinking and work with the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy. Here is a video from a lecture where Guinness touches on some of the main themes of his book.

Fall 2013 Fuller "Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue" journal on New Religions

Cory Wilson, editor of Fuller Seminary's Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue journal, approached me in the recent past about writing the lead essay for a special issue devoted to new religious movements. Since I am a fan of the journal, and have previously written a responsive essay and book review for the publication, I accepted the invitation. In my essay for the forthcoming Fall 2013 issue, I provide a historical consideration of Evangelical responses to new religions, the rise and current dominance of counter-cult apologetic approaches, and the shift toward cross-cultural missions and dialogue means of engagement. Several people respond to my essay, including Sarah Staley, Gerald McDermott, Paul Louis Metzger, Joel Groat, and J. Gordon Melton. Philip Johnson wrote an essay on praxis related to NRMs. This edition also includes some helpful sidebars, including NRM summaries and statistical data, significant personalities, NRM stereotypes, a suggested bibliography, and references to the organizations I work with, including the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies and the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, and Sacred Tribes Journal. This issue will be available soon, primarily in an electronic version via the website, and a limited number in hard copies. I was given an advance electronic copy for distribution that can be accessed on my Academia.edu page.

I would like to thank Cory Wilson, the layout designer, Fuller Seminary, and all the contributors for their part in putting together this great issue.

Evangelicals and Self-Imposed Religious Isolation

Christianity Today magazine online recently posted a troubling essay titled "The Craziest Statistic You'll Read About North American Missions." The essay by Abby Stalker draws upon the research of the Center for the Study of Global Christianity as it relates to the high number of Christians in North America who do not know any no-Christians. The first sentence of the article summarizes this is by saying, "One out of five non-Christians in North America doesn't know any Christians." The perspective of that sentence should perhaps have come at the topic from the other direction, which is more in keeping with the thrust of the rest of the article by saying, "Many Christians in North America don't know any non-Christians."

This problem is even higher outside the United States, as the article tries to address what factors contribute to this. One factor is high immigration rates of non-Christians, but the other is separation between religious groups, which is probably the most important issue because this separation is largely self-imposed. The article quotes Todd M. Johnson who speaks to this:

"The United States is a very strategic place for people to interact," he said. "It's ironic in a place with all the freedoms to interact that people don't do it. In light of the deficit of contact, what better thing could happen than to have a bunch of people move into your neighborhood and build houses of worship?"

The essay goes on to quote Gina Bellofatto, an Evangelical FRD Chapter charter member:

CSGC research associate Gina Bellofatto said identifying contact between Christians and non-Christians based on location, age, and gender is "on her list" for further research. In the meantime, she notes that burgeoning movements have arisen to initiate purposeful interreligious dialogue and community service projects. They're still rare compared to the apparent apathy among Christians about befriending non-Christians, especially if it means reaching across neighborhoods and towns into more ethnic enclaves. "I don't know how many more million Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews need to come to this country before it becomes a priority," she said.

Attack Used to Raise Awareness

wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina | Members and participants of various minority religions have used the one year anniversary of the Sikh Temple shooting in Wisconsin as an opportunity to raise awareness. This video clip is from a report from WISTV 10, and the accompanying article can be read here.

Sacred Tribes Journal podcast interview with Elizabeth Drescher on "The Nones"

In October 2012 the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a survey that documented a significant shift in religious demographics in America. A large and growing number of people identified themselves as "The Nones," those who prefer no affiliation with religious institutions. As a result of this survey data, there has been a lot of discussion and controversy over how to interpret this segment of society. In this first podcast for Sacred Tribes Journal, we are privileged to have Elizabeth Drescher as our guest to discuss this phenomenon. Drescher is is a scholar, researcher, and writer. She is a faculty member in religious studies and pastoral ministries at Santa Clara University. She holds a PhD in Christian Spirituality from the Graduate Theological Union and an MA in Systematic Theology from Duquesne University.

Dr. Drescher is the author of Tweet If You [Heart] Jesus: Practicing Church in the Digital Reformation (Morehouse, 2011) and, with Keith Anderson, Click 2 Save: The Digital Ministry Bible (Morehouse, 2012). Dr. Drescher’s current book project, Choosing Our Religion: The Spiritual Lives of America’s Nones (Oxford University Press, 2014), explores practices of meaning-making, self-fulfillment, ethics, and self-transcendence among America’s fast-growing religious demographic, the religiously unaffiliated. Her website can be found at http://www.elizabethdrescher.com.

"Satanism, The Acid Test" available online at The Alternative Religions Forum

I was approached a while back by Octarine Valur in South Africa about reviewing a document in production titled "Satanism: The Acid Test (STAT)." I was pleased to do so, and also contributed some content and editorial suggestions. The document is now finalized and has been endorsed by a number of individuals, including myself. The website for The Alternative Religions Forum describes this project as follows:

This project comprises many hours of work by volunteers dedicated to the protection of constitutionally guaranteed rights to freedom of religion, identity, dignity, and freedom of association in South Africa.  

What is this project?

 It’s aim is to explain what Satanic Ritual Abuse really is – the dictionary definition, as well as the devastating reality of its potential effects on innocent people.

The project will take the form of documentation and a website which will:

* define and explain what various alternative religions and subcultures which are conflated with SRA and Satanism really are and are about,

* explain what real Satanist religion really is and

* clarify the differences between real religious Satanism and the mythical “Satanism” which is created and perpetuated by SRA hysteria and irresponsible support for SRA hysteria and the religion-based industry behind it.

In its completed form, it will consist of:

* A full-length academic research paper which has been contributed to, verified, critiqued, peer-reviewed and endorsed by various local and international bodies both in and outside of the alternate religious and subculture groups demystified within the document, which will have been distributed internationally to a multitude of human rights and religious bodies and authority figures.

* A shortened or summarized version of the academic document which can be more easily understood and referenced quicker than the full length version.

A brief 20 minute powerpoint presentation with notes carrying the gist of the message of the entire document.

* A website which provides the information contained in the full-length academic paper, broken down into more web-friendly sections and presentation. Downloadable versions of all these documents will be provided on the website for free. 

"Satanism, The Acid Test 1.0" can be downloaded here.

Guest Essay at Faith Line Protestants: "From Polemicist to Peacemaker"

Greg Damhorst at Faith Line Protestants asked me to contribute an essay to their relaunch this month, and I've done so with "From polemics to peacemaker." The essay summarizes my journey from counter-cult apologist to religious diplomat. From the piece:

But perhaps the most significant motivation for me in my current way of engaging those of other religions is Jesus. I recognize that no matter how a Christian interacts with Muslims, Mormons or whoever, they believe they are doing so in a way that reflects Christ. But many times our assumptions here don’t line up with the reality of the Gospels. Yes, there are times when Jesus uses rebuke, such as with the Jewish religious leaders, but we’ve been applying such texts out of context. A fresh reading of the Gospels shows that Jesus’ harsh rhetoric is reserved for those leaders inside his own religious community (Mt. 23:27). To the marginalized and the outsider he offers compassion.

The essay can be read here.

Call for Obama to Address Witchcraft Human Rights Abuses

For Immediate Release – 26^th June 2006

Call for President Obama to Demand Urgent Action to Tackle Widespread Human Rights Abuses that Take Place Throughout Africa Due to the Belief in ‘Witchcraft’

As President Obama commences his visit to Africa, we call upon him to use the tour as an opportunity to demand urgent action to tackle the widespread, and systemic, violations of human rights that take place across the Continent due to harmful practices connected to the belief in ‘witchcraft’.  Such beliefs are strongly held by many in the countries that he will visit – Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania – and they often lead to some of the most horrific human rights abuses imaginable. Vulnerable individuals and groups in society are most at risk, including older women, street children and people with disabilities.

Of many examples that have been catalogued, in April 2013 the body of the 14 year old boy, Nkhumeleni Mukhado, was discovered in a village in South Africa. His skull and genitals had been removed. His is just one of many similar tragic stories where people are killed so that their body parts can be incorporated into concoctions used in what is labelled as ‘witchcraft’. It is often believed that, through ingesting such concoctions, the receiver will gain greater wealth and power.

In Gambia, which borders Senegal, Amnesty International have documented[1] over 1000 cases of suspected ‘witches’ being rounded up by President Jammeh’s special guards who then tortured the suspects and forced to drink potions that caused them to hallucinate and behave erratically. Many were then forced to confess to being a “witch”. In some cases, they were also severely beaten, almost to the point of death.

In Tanzania, according to the Legal and Human Rights Centre (LHRC)[2], an average of 500 people were murdered each year on suspicion of ‘witchcraft’ between 2005 and 2011, whilst numerous people with albinism have been murdered in cold blood for their body parts.

Such beliefs and practices self-evidently constitute a significant obstacle to the reputation, peace and prosperity of the region. They inhibit economic growth, investment and trade; weaken democratic institutions; and prevent hundreds of thousands of Africans from reaching their true potential. President Obama should demand that Africa’s political and faith leaders, and the wider international community, do more to put a stop to the horrific human rights abuses that continue to scar this great Continent.

Signed:

All Party Parliamentary Group for Street Children   Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales
Basic Rights Counsel
Bethany Children’s Trust
Centre for Human Rights and Development
Churches Child Protection Advisory Service (CCPAS)
Consortium for Street Children
Greenwich Inclusion Project
Humane Africa International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) The Pagan Federation
Stepping Stones Nigeria
Street Invest
Witchcraft and Human Rights Information Network (WHRIN) Baroness Sue Miller Kirsty Brimelow QC Professor Susan Edwards, University of Buckinghamshire Dr Christina Oakley Harrington, Treadwells, London. Russell Brown MP Leo Igwe – Nigerian Humanist Movement John W. Morehead, Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy Hugh Davies OBE QC, 3 Raymond Buildings Louisa Young – Author Zoe Young – Film Maker Paul Stockley – Development Worker

---

[1] See article - http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/gambia-hundreds-accused-%E2%80%9Cwitchcraft%E2%80%9D-and-poisoned-government-campaign-20

[2] See article - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/29/tanzania-witchcraft-3000-lynchings-witches_n_1553448.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christian Privilege and Interfaith Relations

Rabbi Seth Goren wrote a piece for Sojourners that touches on an important topic titled "Recognizing 'Christian Privilege.'" Rabbi Goren discusses Christianity's dominance in the United States, and how this privilege is a blindspot that needs to be addressed given its impact upon interfaith relations, even when unrecognized. He writes:

"Talking about Christian privilege is challenging, but essential. For our conversations to be authentic, honest, and justice-based, we must be aware of how each of us perceives and is perceived. It’s difficult to prevent the marginalization that Christians sometimes feel without considering how inter- and intrafaith dynamics play out more broadly for members of other faiths. Moreover, neglecting this topic in intentional interfaith interactions makes it that much more difficult to address in the wider world.

"I urge us all, but especially Christians, to study and reflect on these matters individually, with coreligionists, and with partners of other faiths. We can integrate questions of religious privilege into conversations we’re already having by asking ourselves what we have that others don’t, how these dynamics affect our interactions, and how we can compensate for resulting inequities."

 This topic has surfaced in conversations between Pagans and Evangelicals related to the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, as can be heard in a podcast at New Wine, New Wineskins. The Pagan dialogue partners raised the issue, and it needs to considered carefully by Evangelicals in America where privilege as a blindspot is a signficant topic.

Bewitched Children: A Human Rights Issue for the Church

Katherine Marshall of The Berkeley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs has a recent piece at The Huffington Post titled "Bewitched Children? A Problem the Church Should Tackle." This is a problem in the Christian community in Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but Marshall notes that this takes place in other places as well. As Marshall's essay describes it:

What is involved? The telling is painful. A community gets the idea that a child is a witch, usually because something painful has taken place, for example a death or illness or a calamity. The children so accused are subject to acid burning, they are set alight, hot wax and oil is poured over them. They may be starved to death. Children are beaten to extract a confession. Some are buried alive or drowned. The list goes on and on.

Here is a story (the name is changed) from a reputable advocacy source:

"When her aunt died, 12-year-old Belinda's mother accused Belinda of killing her aunt through witchcraft. She was taken to a church in Kinshasa, where the pastor confirmed that Belinda was indeed a 'witch' and guilty of cursing her aunt. Her mother took her home, where her uncle held her down and ran a burning iron over her back and legs while her mother looked on. When the uncle went to fetch acid to pour on the burns, Belinda fled. She spent the next two years living on the streets, before being rescued by a Christian child-care agency."

A quick Google search reveals other good sources of information describing this tragic phenomenon. ThinkAboutIt features a piece titled "Brutalities in the name of Jesus Christ," while Free African Media has a piece titled "Witch-hunts: The darkness that won't go away." 

Marshall's essay notes that Christian churches and organizations are involved in combating this problem, but much more needs to be done. In addition to helping the victims and their families, we need to not only address the casualties of this problem but also deal with the root causes, the religio-cultural beliefs and fears related to witchcraft. It would seem to me that an educational program needs to be put together to help Christian pastors and their congregations come to a new understanding, and which helps them move beyond fear to embrace the way of the love of Christ, even toward those perceived as enemies.

I have been involved in various dialogue and peacemaking efforts that dovetail with the Pagan community, such as my support of The West Memphis Three. The alleged "witch-children" is another issue that I care deeply about, and I echo Marshall's call for the church to get involved in this in greater ways. One way to do that is to get in touch with The Witchcraft & Human Rights Information Network.

If you're an Evangelical, will you join me in fighting this injustice?

I'm a Christian Who Hates You: The Problem of Evangelical Perception

I came across this image (by Seth Hahne) in connection with some blog posts on Christian "street preachers" who attend the Arab International Festival in Dearborn and who have created a lot of controversy given their very confrontational ways of engaging Muslims. For me this illustration symbolizes far more than the Dearborn clash to encompass the problem from Evangelicals in interreligious engagement in general. Evangelicals, consider this image. This is how many Muslims, Mormons, Pagans, Jehovah's Witnesses and others see us.

No matter how well meaning and how convinced that we have the truth that others need to hear, the perception of those we want to persuade is that we are disrespectful bigots engaging in hateful actions rather diplomats engaging in love of neighbor. In addition, I have also come to the conclusion that this is not merely a debate among Evangelicals about differences in doctrine or methodology (confrontation, proclamation, apologetic, missional or dialogical). Instead, it needs to be discussed as a problem of Christian ethics. 

An Atheist's Perspective on Proselytism

One of the debates in interfaith is the legitimacy or lack thereof of proselytism or evangelism. Here's food for thought in the perspective of atheist Penn Jillette:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

Ramifications of "imago Dei" as fuction rather than ontology

I enjoy the posts at the Musings on Science and Theology blog, and today the author included his interactions with Bill Arnold's Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary). This involves consideration of the ancient near eastern context as it relates to various facets of the creation narrative. In regards to the "image of God" Arnold writes:

On the basis of numerous parallels from both Egypt and Mesopotamia, it has become clear that the phrase is related to royal language, in which a king or pharaoh is the “image of (a) god.” Thus humans are created to function in the divine image through the exercise of “dominion” and “rule,” … The image of God is about the exercise of rulership in the world. p. 45

This means that "image of God" is a functional and representational concept, not an ontological one referring to an aspect or aspects of human nature that somehow sets them apart from the rest of non-human animals. I share Arnold's understanding, and I believe it can be supported not only with reference to Genesis, but also in keeping with the rest of the biblical text as it articulates a monistic anthropology rather than a dualist one found throughout much of Christendom. I'm in the minority here, but I'm in good company with some of the scholars how have articulate this view, such as Nancey Murphy and Joel Green.

I would also slightly supplement Arnold's terminology and concept in the quote to rulership with intimately connected to an ethical sense of stewardship rather than dominion in that dominion and that the idea that humanity is "better' and somehow discontinuous with the rest of creation has contributed many times to the abuse of nature, particularly when combined with some eschatologies where the creation is viewed as temporary and soon to be discarded.

Beyond that we should also note how important a shift in the idea of the image of God is to many areas of theology, not only anthropology, but also the neurotheology, creation care, and animal theology. A shift from viewing humans as created in the divine image and thus having a spirit or soul to living in the creation and tasked as wise stewards representing God has significant ramifications for Christian theology and praxis.

Nicholas Wolterstorff: Love of God = Love of Neighbor

I was pleasantly surprised to discover some comments on love of neighbor in the context of interreligious dialogue made by Nicholas Wolterstorff, the noted Reformed philosopher.

Myron Penner and "Apologetic Violence"

I just became aware of a forthcoming book by Myron Bradley Penner, The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Baker Academic, 2013). The book's description from Amazon reads:

The modern apologetic enterprise, according to Myron Penner, is no longer valid. It tends toward an unbiblical and unchristian form of Christian witness and does not have the ability to attest truthfully to Christ in our postmodern context. In fact, Christians need an entirely new way of conceiving the apologetic task.

This provocative text critiques modern apologetic efforts and offers a concept of faithful Christian witness that is characterized by love and grounded in God's revelation. Penner seeks to reorient the discussion of Christian belief, change a well-entrenched vocabulary that no longer works, and contextualize the enterprise of apologetics for a postmodern generation.

The book caught my eye given an interview with the author by Peter Enns at his blog. One section of the interview is particularly striking in one section where the author discusses the idea of "apologetic violence." When this happens on a personal level, Penner defines this as "apologetic arguments [that] are used to treat people badly...When they are used to demean, ridicule, show-up, or hurt another person in any way, I call that a form of violence."

The term apologetic violence may push the issue too far, and I'm more comfortable with a term like "predatory apologetics," but the idea is the same and I agree with his basic premise. In my view Evangelicals engage in apologetic violence, no matter how well meaning and "evangelistic," when they engage in apologetic argument or doctrine over person, or when they engage in identity contestation through confrontational "preaching" in the sacred spaces of others, whether among Mormons at General Conference and various  pageants, or among Muslims at the annual Arab American International Festival in Dearborn, Michigan. Instead, Penner offers an alternative, a form of apologetichs which he calls “person-preserving” and that "involves Gabriel Marcel’s concept of sympathy, which propounds a fundamental concern with others as persons, not things."

Penner also discusses apologetic violence on a social level, such as

when Christian apologetic practice merely reinforces and defends a given set of power relations operative within an unjust social structure. We then overlook real people and proclaim to them the “truths” of the gospel packaged in “universal” concepts and categories (as well as practices) to which they cannot relate in any personal way and which have often played some role in their mistreatment or exploitation.

I am sensitive to this as well, and in some of my conversations with Pagans I have been reminded that this may also be playing out among Evangelicals in regard to minority religions in America.

Regardless of whether readers agree with Penner's overall thesis, his forthcoming book includes elements that sound tantalizing and worthy of thought by reflective Evangelicals.