| |
|
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
|
|
Open Theism, an emerging theological approach adopting a somewhat constrained view of God's omniscience, is rather controversial to orthodox Evangelicals. I blogged on Open Theism in November; the newly formed Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology will host a conference on that theme in March, 2004. The two keynote speakers at the conference will be Evangelical scholars Dr. Clark Pinnock and Dr. John Sanders. Well, it turns out these two scholars were the target of a membership challenge by the Evangelical Theological Society for advocating Open Theism in their published writings. Orthodox Evangelicals take their doctrine of inerrancy very seriously, so seriously they are willing to kick these two scholars out of their club if they don't reaffirm inerrancy to the satisfaction of the Society. Go read the documents for a fascinating view of a scholarly Christian food fight.
I'll give ETS credit, it gave both scholars an extended and fair hearing at which they were given the opportunity to present and defend their views at length with members of the Executive Committee. That's two cuts above the Mormon practice of knifing scholars in the back and doing everything behind closed doors. In a letter, the President of the Society characterized the discussions as serious, sober, substantive, respectful, and collegial. . . . I was pleased to see the cordial mood and tone that prevailed, even in the midst of some very intense questioning and discussion. On the other hand, it reminds the general public how inflexible and picayune fundamentalist Christians can be, even the scholars. However, I have no doubt these two Evangelical scholars will find a warm welcome and a great deal of sympathy for both their views and their recent difficulties at the upcoming conference.
9:51:59 PM 
|
|
|
|
Friday, January 30, 2004
|
|
Christianity Today posted a talk by the noted scholar of American religion Martin E. Marty about Evangelicalism. He summarizes the success the movement has enjoyed the last thirty years, but suggests that compromises with the surrounding culture have also transformed the movement. His point seems to be that it's harder to rail against Babylon once you start to share a lot in common. This post and link kind of balance out my Evangelicals at the Rose Bowl post (see below). Incidentally, Marty lumps Mormons in with the successful Evangelicals--he noted how in recent decades the public has moved away from Catholic and mainline Protestant churches toward other forces that had voices of their own: nonwhite Christians, Mormons, evangelicals, Jews. Interesting neighborhood.
12:20:32 AM
|
|
|
|
Thursday, January 29, 2004
|
|
In an editorial posted over at Christianity Today today, a professor of theology named Telford Work illustrates a few aspects of modern Evangelical Christianity. Sure enough, as 20,000 Evangelicals trooped into the Rose Bowl to sing, dance, and pray, a few noisy ones with signs and pamphlets told the rest of them they were all dancing with the devil. The Evangelical worldview suffers from an overabundance of enemies. Work gamely explains that this experience "showed me what Evangelicalism is all about." Yeah, me too. He notes, It hit me that day that there are two kinds of evangelicals: those who make distinctions, and those who don't. I guess one could call them ecumenicals and sectarians. Mormons, who excel at making distinctions, would be sectarians under this analysis. But "ecumenical" Evangelicals are ecumenical only toward other Evangelicals--not much to brag about there. Perhaps we're all sectarians at heart. I liked Work's comments on mixed metaphors, which might better be described as "metaphors in tension," or perhaps antinomies.
So the article gives a nice summary of modern Evangelicalism: Too many metaphors, too many enemies, a goodly measure of singing and praying, with a few noisy Christians spewing tainted charity at people as they leave the stadium. Mormons are actually pretty familiar with the noisy spewers. I'm heartened there were only three of them at the Rose Bowl.
11:53:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
|
|
Telford Work, an Assistant Professor of theology at Westmont College, posted an interesting article entitled I Belong to the One True Church. In this short essay, he recounts how he and many young Evangelical scholars training for the ministry at Fuller Seminary had a belief that "theological differences . . . between denominations necessitate a search for the One True Church and emigration to it (after all, God must have provided one for the diligent seekers to find)." Sound familiar? This article relates how Professor Work developed an alternative and broader view of the Christian Church. Sample:
The most popular opinions of denominationalism in American Christianity, both evangelical and liberal, are theologically poor, and getting poorer. Denominational partisanship is losing its appeal, as ecumenists had hoped. Sadly, so is the theological confidence that produced the hard-won strengths of the denominations in the first place. They are being replaced not by Christocentric, evangelical, ecumenical ecclesiology, but by pragmatism, consumerism, pluralism, relativism, and theological apathy. . . . In their own ways, all such ecumenical heresies accept a divine household divided against itself. They settle either for ecclesiological anarchy, or for a "reconciled diversity" which is institutionalized ecclesiological incoherence and denominational pride.
How many of Work's "five deadly heresies" afflict contemporary Mormonism? Shooting from the hip, I'd say certainly not pluralism or relativism, but arguably consumerism and pragmatism, and definitely theological apathy. Of course, I'd also argue that pragmatism is not at all a bad thing and that a measure of consumerism is likewise defensible if not overemphasized.
12:02:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, January 10, 2004
|
|
 John Wesley, founder of Methodism
How can a church named The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints, with its first article of faith proclaiming that "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ," with a canonized scripture that reads "we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, [and] we prophesy of Christ," possibly not be considered fully Christian? This question has baffled Mormons for a century.
A committee of Methodist scholars and clergy recently considered a somewhat narrower question, namely whether Mormon baptisms should be considered valid Christian baptisms or whether Mormons converting to Methodism and seeking to formally join a Methodist denomination must receive a proper Christian baptism as a condition of entry. In Sacramental Faithfulness: Guidelines for Receiving People From The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the committee reports their recommendations, based on careful doctrinal comparisons between Methodist and Mormon beliefs in five key doctrinal areas: scripture, God, Jesus Christ, salvation, and baptism (special thanks to Ann for sending me the link to this report). Their findings, summarized below, are a good start toward the Christianity 99R project I outlined in an earlier post. For Mormon doctrine, the committee relied primarily on LDS scriptures, selected entries from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and statements that Elder Jay Jensen, an LDS Seventy, delivered to a Methodist Seminar in Salt Lake City in 1998. Methodist doctrine was based on quotes from official Methodist pronouncements such as "The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church" or similar documents. My quotes from the report (including material they quoted from Methodist or LDS sources) are in italics; see the full document (a fascinating read) for specific references.
1. Scriptural and Doctrinal Authorities. The issue of canon is foundational to establishing the differences between the two traditions, since church doctrine develops from the understanding and interpretation of scripture. Methodists, of course, accept the Holy Bible. Methodist doctrine stems from Scripture as interpreted by tradition, experience, and reason, subject to the basic boundaries already established by the church's historic and ecumenical creeds.
By contrast, the LDS Church clearly rejects the creeds that The United Methodist Church uses to interpret the Bible. The rejection of the historic creeds of the church is actually foundational to the establishment of the LDS religion. The report concludes that the scriptural foundations of Methodism and Mormonism are radically different.
2. The Nature of God. There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This statement of the Methodist position follows the Nicene Creed fairly closely.
By contrast, LDS scripture states that the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also. After citing passages from the Encylopedia of Mormonism, the report summarizes that [LDS] belief regarding a gendered, married, and procreating god is at the core of LDS doctrine of God and makes claims about the essential nature of God that are in sharp contrast to the doctrinal statements of United Methodism.
3. The Nature, Origin, and Work of Jesus Christ. We believe in Jesus Christ, truly God and truly man, in whom the divine and human natures are perfectly and inseparably united. He is the eternal Word made flesh, the only begotton Son of the Father, born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. Again, this Methodist statement follows the Nicene Creed closely.
By contrast, the Jesus of the LDS tradition is not co-eternal with the Father and "of one substance with the Father." The report cites Jay Jensen's statement that the Father and the Son are not united in substance, but only in love, will, focus, and effort. The report concludes that LDS belief cannot be said to constitute a monotheistic theology; it more closely resembles a tritheistic or possibly a polytheistic faith.
4. Creation and the Way of Salvation. The Son is the only Son of God and is begotten, not made. Everything else is created--made. Furthermore, human beings are not begotten of the Father but are, rather, created by the eternal and triune God. To Methodists, there is a very clear distinction between the human and the divine. This is tricky for Mormons to grasp. In the Methodist formulation, only Jesus (the Word) was in the beginning with God; we came later. We are created, not begotten.
By contrast, the report summarizes the LDS belief as follows. [H]uman beings are literally the children of the Heavenly Father (and Mother) in their pre-mortal, spiritual form, as was Jesus. Their spirits are begotten of the Father, not created. This makes them of the same order of existence as God. The LDS insistence on viewing the human condition as one of embryonic godhood clearly offends the Christian sense of humility and submission to God.
5. The Meaning and Role of Baptism. Baptism is a sacrament and means of God's grace. It is first and foremost, about God's action, what God does for us. Baptism is a pardoning both of our actual sins and of our original sin, the "inherent inclination toward evil" with which we are born.
By contrast, LDS baptism is, first and foremost, about human acceptance of God's plan. In LDS baptism, God acts to forgive sins in response to human worthiness. The report cites the words of the LDS baptismal prayer with favor, but notes that the intent or meaning of those words varies greatly from traditional use. For example, the LDS Church rejects the historic Christian belief in original sin. Even so, my reading of this rather detailed section of the report is that the words and conduct of LDS baptism is so similar to Methodist baptism that they have a hard time criticizing it, yet they are still unwilling to accept it is as essentially equivalent to a Methodist baptism. It's worth noting, I suppose, that the Mormon Church categorically rejects the sufficiency of Methodist baptism.
Conclusion. The report concludes that the Mormon Church, by self-definition, does not fit within the bounds of the historic, apostolic tradition of Christian faith. . . . It is our recommendation that following a period of catechesis (a time of intensive exploration and instruction in the Christian faith), such a [Mormon] convert should receive the sacrament of Christian baptism. Ouch. I suppose in the interest of full disclosure I should note that I received a fully valid Lutheran baptism when still a babe in arms, long before I received the "not quite Christian enough for the Methodists" LDS baptism. So all this Methodist hand-wringing applies to BIC or otherwise "unbaptized" Mormons, but not to me. I got my Christian ticket punched already.
Two other details noted in the report deserve special mention. First, in light of the rather odd LDS conception of "membership," it is strongly recommended that prior to Christian initiation, the person seeking membership . . . be urged to initiate his or her formal removal from LDS membership rolls. Second, the report urges creation of a special supplement to the general Methodist teaching materials, to be tailored to the special needs of Mormon converts because of the unique and confusing nature of such a conversion.
11:05:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Monday, December 29, 2003
|
|
Nice Albert Mohler editorial on the challenge of being a good Christian in an increasingly secular world, using the Sermon on the Mount as a point of reference. He raises the interpretation question: plainly, it seems unreasonable to take the "pluck out your eye" statement literally. God wants righteous men and women, not sightless ones. Here's a short quote:
The principles revealed in the Sermon on the Mount cannot be reduced to pithy precepts. Christians rightly struggle with how these teachings of the Savior are to be applied in our times. The church must give itself anew in every generation to the task of mature Christian reflection on the Sermon on the Mount and the totality of the biblical revelation. The Sermon on the Mount, like all biblical texts, must be interpreted in light of the total context of Scripture. This Sermon demands a lifetime of study and struggle.
11:55:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Sunday, December 28, 2003
|
|
In 2000, McKeever and Johnson published the cleverly-named Mormonism 101, a guide to Christians about what Mormons believe, complete with "witnessing tips" at the end of every section. The Mormon apologetic machine predictably responded with Mormonism 201, an online chapter-by-chapter refutation of points made by McKeever and Johnson. Of course, no Christian interested in witnessing to Mormons is likely to read 201, and the few Mormons who read 101 are not going to be much influenced by it. So why were so many otherwise busy people were willing to spend a good deal of time writing the 18 chapters for 201? Mormons feel chronically misunderstood by the rest of Christianity. This is understandable, given the persistence of the silly question "Are Mormons Christian?" But apologists and missionaries alike seem certain that there are simple and correct answers to all questions or criticisms of Mormon doctrine, teachings, and history, and that they, as Mormons, can provide these explanations. Of course, when Bruce R. McConkie, a Mormon apostle, tried his hand at a systematic exposition of Mormon doctrine, it was deemed to be riddled with errors by his fellow Mormon leaders. Christian apologists should thus take heart--it is clear that no one can properly explain Mormonism. This fairly obvious point seems lost on the growing Mormon apologetic community, which continues to crank out "explanations" to every criticism, invariably noting that the critic just doesn't understand Mormon doctrine or history.
A more attainable goal is to teach Mormons about Christianity. A lot of Mormons have never read the Bible (which Mormons accept only "as far as it is translated correctly") and don't know much about the twenty centuries of Christian tradition they reject under the empty label "The Great Apostasy." I suppose one can say the same of many Christians, but the zeal with which Mormonism proclaims a fallen Christianity lays a special burden, I would think, on Mormons to at least understand what they condemn. I know, condemn is a strong word, but here are Joseph's own words: "[T]he Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors [i.e., Christian ministers] were all corrupt," and so on (JS-History 1:19).
In fact, there's a good deal to be said for Christian creeds and ministers. They are neither abominable nor corrupt (which is not to say they are necessarily correct or saintly). I don't think Mormons who take Christianity 99R, "Remedial Christianity for Mormons," are likely to change denominations, but it would certainly make them more tolerant and ecumenical. Furthermore, seeing the diverse doctrinal interpretations that Christians draw from the Bible should make Mormons more open to the range of interpretations that can be drawn from Mormon scripture and history. If your fellow Mormon has a different take on Mormon doctrine than you do, that doesn't mean he's wrong. If the Mormon tent were spread wider, I think the Church and its members would be the better for it.
The agenda for 99R is simply to try and read the New Testament and general Christian history without "Mormon glasses" (that's a metaphor, not a reference to the Urim and Thummim). I don't know anyone who has tried to do this for a Mormon audience with anything but apologetic motives, either for or against, so I will make the attempt in successive "99R" posts to follow. If any reader has particular doctrines or texts of interest, feel free to email me with requests.
2:58:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, December 13, 2003
|
|
Not surprisingly, Albert Mohler comes out squarely against a recent book by John Killinger, entitled Ten Things I Learned Wrong From a Conservative Church. Killinger's perpective is similar to that of noted Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong--he makes the case for liberal Protestantism as the "real" Christian church embodying the spirit of tolerance and charity, as opposed to the fundamentalist, conservative brand of Protestantism that has swept across the Sunbelt in the last fifty years. Just to give you a hint of how different Mr. Killinger is from his conservative cousins, he wrote a book arguing that the Harry Potter books are NOT satanic and evil, they are just good kids books! See God, the Devil, and Harry Potter: A Christian Minister's Defense of the Beloved Novels. (Well, he actually argued that Harry is a Christ-figure of sorts, but you don't need to go that far if you don't want to.)
The topic of liberal versus conservative (theology, not politics) should be of interest to Mormons because Mormonism is much closer to the fundamentalist, conservative Christian outlook than is generally recognized. An overwrought dedication to scriptural literalism, scriptural inerrancy, and supernaturalism characterizes both movements. And both movements consider the liberal wing of their party to be the enemy. Mormonism simply excommunicates Mormons who "go liberal" (or tries to, anyway), so the liberal arm of Mormonism is a disorganized rabble of ex-Mormons, Sunstone Mormons, and closet liberals. The diversity of Protestantism precludes such an easy organizational solution to their "liberal problem," but by forcing a dialogue (of sorts) I think the cause of truth is advanced. Dialogue is good. Mormonism needs less finger-pointing and more dialogue. Mormonism needs more liberal Mormons. And a token liberal GA would be a nice gesture, too.
11:36:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Saturday, November 22, 2003
|
|
Crosswalks.com has an interesting op-ed piece by Albert Mohler, The 'Openness of God' and the Future of Evangelical Theology. What is open theism? As preached by several evangelical theologians such as Gregory Boyd, it argues that God's foreknowledge is limited and that He does not know the outcomes of all the choices we will make in life. Mohler sees this as an affront and a challenge to traditional Christian theology which affirms the omniscience of God. This is interesting, of course, because open theism bears distinct affinities with Mormon theology, which emphatically affirms free agency. Calvinistic determinism retained both God's role as the cause of events and His omniscience. When American Protestants repudiated determinism in favor of free will, they attempted to salvage God's omniscience by emphasizing the compatibility of foreknowledge and agency. But there is always tension--it is difficult to argue that true free agency does not compromise omniscience to some degree. "Open theism" recognizes this by expressly admitting that God lacks certain knowledge of some future events. Under this "open theology," God can be surprised.
This development makes little impact on Mormons, whose theology already downgrades God's omnipotence and transcendance, but it shocks traditional evangelicals. See, for example, this satirical list of 20 things the God of Open Theism might say, topped by "Ooops!". Or see this site for a more balanced discussion of what open theism means from a Christian perspective.
To understand why free agency and foreknowledge are deeply inconsistent, consider this hypothetical. X, a free moral agent, flips a coin. X has decided that if it is heads, he sells all he has, gives the money to the poor, and enters a monastery. If it is tails, X will instead go blow himself up in a crowded gathering of an opposing religious sect, possibly inciting civil unrest and even war. Big impact on human history. Does God know beforehand what's going to happen? No, as long as the agent is truly free and the coin flip is truly random. He is, in the language of open theism, the God of the possible rather than the traditional all-knowing God. But see this argument the two can be reconciled for a contrary view of free will and foreknowledge.
You can't get around this problem by arguing God knows how the coin would land. That was Einstein's objection to quantum mechanics ("God does not play dice"), but it is not sound. It is a probabilistic universe we live in, not a determined one. Open theism is a theology compatible with a stochastic universe.
1:14:11 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2004 Dave's Mormon Inquiry Weblog.
Last update: 2/19/2004; 8:44:03 AM.
|
|
|
