The Evangelical Sales Pitch

I was listening to a recent “The American Life” episode about bait and switch stories. I was surprised to hear them include a debate within Evangelicalism about effective and appropriate evangelism.

Direct link here.

Though I don’t have a strong affection for many of the methods Campus Crusade for Christ uses I found myself getting a bit defensive about their presentation of them as a “bait and switch” (as described by an ex-Evangelical). But I noticed my heart rate come down when they introduced an Evangelical who is seeking different methods to introduce people to our message. (It was an opportunity to feel empathetic to Mormons about ex-Mormon narratives)

I think there is a lot that can be said about Evangelicals not simply viewing people as “sales marks” and a lot more to be said about not introducing people to opportunities that feel like a trap has been set. But I thought the host, Ira Glass, posed an excellent objection to Jim Henderson’s alternative which seems to be “all bait and no switch”. Evangelicals need to find ways to authentically, courageously and regularly engage friends and strangers about spiritual matters and at the same time abandon convert oriented mindsets.

You can hear the entire episode here.

It’s not just the Mormons

Among the assigned readings for my last historical methodology colloquium meeting was an article by Harry S. Stout responding to some things that fellow evangelical historians David White and Iain Murray had said of his writings on George Whitefield. As I read through the article, I was surprised to find myself recognizing the framework of a familiar debate. From Stout’s response:

What about Mr. White’s central complaint that I dwell on Whitefield’s foibles and shortcomings? I object to the word ‘dwell’ for I believe I pay considerable respect to Whitefield’s strength of character alongside the criticism, particularly the mature Whitefield. But beneath this issue is a deeper issue. In fact, there are two different models for Christian history-writing, each with its own legitimately theological justification . . .

[In the first] tradition of history writing, any historical fact or quality that is not salutary or praiseworthy is forgotten for the larger spiritual sake of propagating the gospel. This history-as-propagation is history in the service of witness, and secondarily, history in the service of theology . . . Early historians of the church dwelt on martyrs and the faithful, never acknowledging that there were cowards who renounced their faith . . .

This same perspective informs such works of hagiography as Cotton Mather’s Magnalia or of Mr. Murray’s biography of Jonathan Edwards. One reads Mather in vain for any ambivalent consideration of the Puritans’ expropriation of Indian lands, or wars of national extermination. In the case of Mr. Murray’s biography of Edwards, one reads in vain for any consideration of Jonathan Edwards’s bill of sale for Negro slaves, or Sarah Edwards’s purchase of a slave from the Rev. Joseph Bellamy. These do not reflect well on the subjects, so they are left out. The omissions are justified out of loyalty to the faith and its propagation. (Henry S. Stout & Iain H. Murray, “Reviewers Reviewed,” Banner of Truth March (1995): 8-9)

Stout goes on to talk about the second method of doing Christian history, by telling the entire story with “warts and all,” and he insists that this was the approach of the biblical writers, citing the Bible’s examples of patriarchs and prophets doing less than praiseworthy things. This is Stout’s preferred method of doing history, and the one for which he’s being criticized by those who would prefer to leave out the not-so-faith-promoting bits where possible.

This article took me somewhat by surprise. Evangelical critics of Mormonism routinely point out that LDS leaders are quite fond of leaving out and glossing over the objectionable parts of the church’s history—a criticism I wholeheartedly agree with. Yet this article leaves me wondering: how often have we bothered to point those fingers back at ourselves and examine the way we’ve been doing history? How often have we been guilty of the same “whitewashing” which we accuse Mormons of?

I have no idea, but I intend to find out. And I happen to be a big fan of “warts and all” history.

(I have uploaded the PDF of the entire article here if you would like to read the whole thing. It is only five pages long and includes Iain Murray’s reply).

How We Know What We Know

My favorite author, hands down, is Dallas Willard. Those familiar with popular Evangelical author John Ortberg will be familiar with Willard’s ideas as Ortberg’s books are often “Willard Light”. Willard’s latest book “Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge” offers some insight into how we obtain knowledge.

Willard states:
“Historically, three presumed sources of knowledge have dominated human life in turn, and they have been set in opposition to one another because of the political dynamics into which they have fallen. (1) Authority based on historical or social position (mainly in church and government) has mostly dominated human life and is still dominant today in many parts of the world — often where it is least suspected. In European history, the power to know by (2) thinking, by reason (by Rene Descartes and others), came to dominance in “intellectual” circles in response to the failures and breakdown of the old systems of authority. The excessive claims of reason led to revolt against it and to the emergence of (3) experience as the preferred source of knowledge (the empiricism of John Locke and David Hume, later to become naturalism).”

Willard goes on to say:
“We need to realize that the three presumed sources of knowledge — authority, reason and experience — are not inherently opposed, but are well-suited to supplement each other in the course of real life.” “John Wesley, a remarkably deep and clear thinker, held that four sources of information and truth should be brought systematically to bear in determining religious/Christian truth: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.”

. . .

“The concrete progression toward knowledge, in real life, is always rather messy. Various aspects from the three traditional sources of knowledge are usually — probably always — involved. The attempt to avoid or simplify this “messiness” is one of the things that has driven some people to try to restrict knowledge to a very narrow range. But the result of that, when pushed, always leads to an elimination of most of the clear cases of knowledge from the domain of knowledge. (Thus arises the pervasive but utterly insincere “skepticism” of the academy and the classroom.) Usually those restrictions on knowledge themselves do not then qualify as knowledge and can be “politically” enforced only by pressure and power. This is very much the story of “epistemology” or the “theory of knowledge” in Western thought since the collapse of traditional authority.”

I really like Willard’s presentation of knowledge here and his assessment that all sources of knowledge should work together not in opposition to one another. It’s to our own determent when we prefer one source of knowledge over the others. I think this is the essence of JP Moreland’s paper “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It“. Though the title is provocative, I think that most Evangelicals, given a charitable reading and time to process the paper, will agree with Moreland.

I have often offered the critique that Mormons are too committed to feelings or spiritual experience in explaining how they know the Book of Mormon is true or that Thomas Monson is a prophet. It’s not that I think such experiences are categorically unreliable or prone to be false, it’s that they should be evaluated based on the testimony of authority and reason. Many Mormons (though not all) I’ve spoken to are reluctant to even entertain the question of how other sources of knowledge have informed their faith much less utilize any other source. In the same way, I think Christian fundamentalism holds to an unrealistic (and ironically unBiblical) view of Biblical inerrancy; posturing a literal reading of the Bible, even when inappropriate, as the only source of truth claims.

Some links you may be interested in

• Over at Energetic Procession, Perry Robinson offers a critique of Keith E. Norman’s dissertation on deification.
• Richard N. Ostling, co-author of Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, has published an article in Christianity Today on the recent state of LDS-evangelical dialogue. (H/T: Todd Wood)
• Aquinas has offered a critique of Ostling’s piece at Summa Theologica. (H/T: Todd again)
• Are Mormons taking cues from the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood in defending their gender system? Embodying Womanhood sure strikes me as CBMW for Mormons. My personal disagreements with the philosophy aside, I think it’s a well-done site and I’m pleased to see defenders of the status quo exploring new ways of grappling with these issues.
• And last but not least, be sure to pick up your copy of the “Hot Mormon Muffins: A Taste of Motherhood” calendar, which has just been released. Calendar creator Chad Hardy may be a rabble-rouser and an attention whore, but he certainly isn’t objectifying women any more than the LDS church did with its 1969 Improvement Era “Calendar of Hope.” Guess payback’s a [expletive deleted because this is a Christian blog].

National Student Dialogue Conference III

Friday & Saturday
November 13-14th, 2009
Biola University

Student Price: $29 before Nov. 5th, $39 After
Non-Student Price: $39 before Nov. 5th, $49 After

This two-day conference on dialogue will involve key religious leaders and thinkers who will speak from both LDS and evangelical perspectives.
Click here for full event poster. (1 MB file)

Speakers Include:

Dr. Robert Millet, Brigham Young University
Rev. Gregory Johnson, President of Standing Together
Dr. Jerry Root, Wheaton College
Dr. Spencer Fluhman, Brigham Young University
Dr. Dennis Okholm, Azusa Pacific University
Dr. Richard Bennett, Brigham Young University
Dr. Travis Kerns, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. Richard Bushman, Claremont Graduate University
David Golding, Claremont Graduate University Masters Program
Cory Wilson, Fuller Theological Seminary PhD Candidate

Click here to register.

The Evangelical Culture of Critique

I listened to this BreakPoint segment and it highlighted a cultural difference between Evangelicals and Mormons to me.

What I heard as the reason that people should sign up for the Centurions program was that philosophical problems creep into various churches and they must be defended against.  A number of critiques of modern day Evangelical churches were used as examples.

Because of the vast diversity in Evangelicalism and Protestantism, Evangelicals are familiar with and expect philosophical and theological excesses to exist among their churches. Various denominations swing the pendulum too far on any number of pet doctrines or practices.  Though it shouldn’t be the case, Evangelicals know this happens and as a counter measure are always critiquing and evaluating the latest fads in the church.

Every church fad is in fact a critique of an older more faded church fad.  The Holiness movement was a reaction to the “only-grace” excesses of Calvinism.  The recent “feminization” of worship is a reaction to cold, hard “Bible-only” Fundamentalism.

All of this makes Evangelicals quite familiar with giving and receiving critique.  In many ways it’s part of our life blood.  The movement wasn’t called “protestant” for nothing.

We, Evangelicals, know we don’t have it all figured out, and we know the culture around is changing, so we find themselves constantly tweaking and experimenting with different forms and practices.  As our Evangelical brother makes some adjustments, we offer our thoughts on what he is doing.  He in turn offers his thoughts on our lack of adjustment. We may not always find agreement, but we don’t get our noses bent out of shape over disagreement. At times, critics can be too aggressive, but generally everyone plays by the rules.

The Mormon church on the other hand is hierarchical and monolithic in its practices and doctrines.  Any and all changes come from the top down and the laymen are discouraged from “righting steadying the ark”.  Little room is made for organizational and cultural critique within Mormonism, so the concept is a bit foreign.

This difference can mean that Mormon and Evangelical interactions can at times resemble something like a Southern gentleman meeting a New Yorker.  The Evangelical is offering what to him is a normal give-and-take of critique and feedback while the Mormon has never heard anyone talk this way, much less about the doctrines and leaders of the LDS church.  The Mormon reaction is “why are you criticizing us” and the Evangelical response is “because that’s what we’re all supposed to be doing”.

A Counter Cultist In His Own Words

Aaron Shaf. was interviewed by the Mormon Expression podcast.  You can hear in his own words what he hopes to accomplish through his evangelism to Mormons and why he does what he does.  I don’t agree with everything Aaron does or says, but I think it is helpful to hear his voice.

http://mormonexpression.com/?p=285

For lack of a better place to discuss it, Aaron and Mormon Research Ministries have also posted an online version of the Journal of Discourses.  All text includes a link to a BYU hosted pdf of each page.

http://jod.mrm.org/

What Mormons Should Know About Evangelicals

This guest article is written by Eric, a frequent participant here who was raised Evangelical and graduated from an Evangelical college. He has been an active member of the LDS church for a dozen years.

Both online and in the real world, I have heard many Mormons display misunderstanding and/or ignorance of Evangelical Christianity — as well as appreciation for the Christian example that many Evangelicals provide. I hope that my observations here can foster less of the former and more of the latter as participants in both great Christian faith traditions seek to follow the example of their Savior.

Evangelical Christianity is incredibly diverse: If you judge Evangelical Christianity from only a few of its adherents, you’re being too hasty. What many Mormons appreciate about their church is that you can go anywhere in the world and participate in worship and instruction that is very much like what you’re used to. But evangelicalism isn’t like that at all. In both theology and practice, evangelicalism is more diverse than you can imagine.

Within Evangelicalism, you can find churches that have rock bands in worship services, and ones where they sing the same types of hymns that we do (some of then even without pianos); you can find churches with thousands of people who attend each Sunday, and churches that meet in homes or small rented facilities; you can find churches with huge professional staffs, and ones that are run by volunteers; you can find ones that teach a doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” and ones that emphasize the need to, in LDS lingo, endure to the end; you can find churches that prohibit the use of alcohol and those that have more conservative behavior standards than Mormons do, and you can find many that accept moderate drinking and other behaviors as a choice that can be made within the bounds of Christian liberty; you can find churches that are open to the teachings of modern science, and you can find ones that insist the world was created in six 24-hour days; you can find churches where members speak in tongues, and you can find ones that condemn the practice; you can find some that baptize infants, and others that baptize only those past an age of accountability; and the list goes on and on.

Even within a single denomination, you can find diversity. If you’ve known one Southern Baptist, for example, you don’t know them all.

What tie Evangelicals together are beliefs that salvation is found through a personal faith in Jesus Christ and that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. There is still debate over what are the boundaries that define Evangelicalism. It is safe to say, however, that one key characteristic of evangelicals is that they believe the Resurrection was a historical, physical event, something that can’t be said of all Protestants. And while Evangelicals don’t define themselves by their views on sexual morality, one way of distinguishing between evangelicals and many mainline Protestants is that evangelicals nearly always are firm in the position that God intended sex only for married male-female couples.

Evangelicals believe in a personal God: Just because Evangelicals don’t believe that our Heavenly Father is corporeal doesn’t mean they see him as an impersonal force, a “blob” or an impassionate being who can’t relate to humans. For Evangelicals, the fact that Jesus came to Earth as a human and underwent suffering and death is evidence that God can understand everything we could possibly go through.

Anti-Mormonism is not a key focus of Evangelicals: While much of the opposition to Mormonism does come from Evangelicals, outside of the Mormon Corridor our church isn’t something that most of Evangelicals concern themselves with all that much, if at all. In most cases, we aren’t even on their radar. (There are exceptions, however.)

In general, Evangelicals don’t know much about Mormonism, and what they do “know” is likely wrong or incomplete: Visit an Evangelical bookstore, and you’ll find that most of the books that discuss Mormonism do so from an “anti-cult” perspective. They tend to emphasize obscure and/or inflammatory statements made by 19-century leaders (e.g., Jesus was conceived by the Heavenly Father having sex with Mary) or teach beliefs out of context (e.g., Jesus is Satan’s brother). What evangelicals often know about the LDS church (if they know anything significant at all) comes, often indirectly, from such sources. When everyday Evangelicals say incorrect things about Mormon beliefs, it’s usually out of ignorance rather than malice.

Evangelicals have a testimony of Jesus Christ as Savior: Get Evangelicals to talk about their faith, and you’ll hear many of the same things we hear in testimony meetings — gratitude about what the Savior has done for them, an appreciation for the guidance they receive from the Holy Spirit, a firm belief in the Atonement, and so on. They know Jesus lives, just as we do.

Evangelicals use the same Bible as we do: It is true that most American Evangelicals today (as always, there are exceptions) don’t use the King James Version of the Bible. But the modern translations they use have the same books as ours and are generally accurate translations from the best Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts that exist. They don’t take out verses or chapters because they don’t like them. In fact, outside the English- and Spanish-speaking countries, the LDS church typically uses the same translations that other Christians use.

Works do matter: Too many LDS-vs.-Evangelical debates boil down to disagreement over matters of faith and works. And while Evangelicals do emphasize the importance of faith, that doesn’t mean they don’t believe in works. In practical terms, most evangelicals who are active in their churches seek to live good lives, to follow the teachings of Christ, to serve the poor, and so on. Theologically, many of them emphasize the importance of sanctification — following the example of Christ and becoming more like him.

I’m not suggesting there are no differences between evangelicals and Mormon on this issue. But the stereotype of the evangelical being one who says “I can sin all I want because I’ve been saved and am going to heaven anyway” is just that, a stereotype, and represents the type of view that definitely wouldn’t be endorsed from the pulpit.

Just because many Evangelicals have rock music during worship services and pray to God as “you” doesn’t mean they’re irreverent: Read about the musical instruments that were used in the Bible, or about the exuberance of Pentecost (or the opening of the Kirtland temple, for that matter), and you’ll see that the 19th-century American worship style used in the LDS church isn’t the only one that is pleasing to God. Think of the differences as being cultural in nature rather than one stemming from an irreverent attitude.

The same goes for the prevailing (although not universal) evangelical practice of addressing God as “you” rather than “thou.” To many evangelicals, talking to God as “thou” would feel distancing and overly formal, and not recognizing him as someone who can relate to us mortals. It may be worth nothing noting that outside of English-speaking countries, most Mormons speak to God in the same “informal” language that evangelicals do, such as the tú form of “you” in Spanish. The choice of pronoun has more to do with custom than with reverence.

Most Evangelical pastors are not overpaid: While there are some televangelists who become wealthy through their ministries and other who abuse their positions in the interests of wealth, they are the exception rather than the rule. The pay for most is modest, and they’re generally paid with a salary set as part of an open budgeting process (rather than as a percentage of church collections). For those in larger churches, salary levels are probably comparable to what full-time LDS general authorities earn.

We have many things to be grateful to Evangelicals for: Much of the Biblical scholarship we have today comes to us from Evangelicals and other non-LDS Christians. Many of the hymns in the LDS hymnbook were written by Protestants. Evangelicals engage in much humanitarian work throughout the world (sometimes even in cooperation with Mormons). Evangelicals and Catholics are among the few groups in our country today that continue to teach chastity. Evangelicals have been in the forefront of efforts to protect religious freedom. Overall, evangelicals have been a force for good in our nation and world.

Evangelicals have a strong regard for family: They may not have as many children on the average as we do, but they love them just as much. Most evangelical churches place a strong emphasis on Sunday school and activities for children, just as we do, and many of them do a better job than we do in reaching out to unchurched teenagers. And Evangelicals are concerned about the cultural forces that can be destructive to families, just as we are.

Evangelicals don’t have the complete gospel, but they have quite a bit of it: Joseph Smith once taught: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” That is a statement that most evangelicals could agree with. Sit in on an evangelical adult Sunday school class sometime, and you’ll find that many evangelicals deal on a daily basis with the same issues we do — how to live our lives in accordance with Jesus’ teachings, how to understand what God is trying to tell us in the scriptures, how to sense the Holy Spirit guiding us.

I have no desire here to ignore or downplay the differences betweenEvangelical Christians and LDS Christians; they are real, and they are substantial. But we also share a love for Jesus Christ and a gratitude for the Heavenly Father sending his Son to Earth to set an example for us and to die for us. We have much we can learn from each other, but we can do that only if we make efforts to understand each other and to see each other not as people to demonize but as children of our Heavenly Father and who are sincerely, even though possibly mistaken, trying to heed the teachings of Jesus Christ..

Mormons and the Cross

I listened to an interesting discussion on the history of the crucifix symbol within Mormonism.  You can listen to it here: http://mormonexpression.com/?p=274 . Check it out.

Helping Mormon Missionaries Call Home

In my previous post, I suggested that Evangelicals should offer the use of their phones and their internet access to Mormon missionaries that visit their homes.  I suggested this not as a means of offering temptation to break the rules.  Instead, I suggested it as a means of showing kindness to someone who may desperately need the offer.

I recognize that Mormons are generally happy with their missionary program and see the rules and regulations associated with it to be appropriate and instituted with the best of intentions.  I’m not denying or questioning the sincere motivations that the LDS church may be operating under.  But I want to point out from an outsiders point of view what is happening in the daily life of a Mormon missionary.

Missionaries are:

1. told that they must wear a standard uniform at all times that includes what type of underwear they must wear
2. stripped of their first names
3. told who they must live with
4. responsible to observe and report any infractions they witness their companions commit
5. required to be with their companions at all times
6. limited to a small set of reading materials which only include religious text
7. prohibited from television, newspapers and movies
8. offered limited contact with family and friends and are told exactly when they can call their families
9. typically eating a diet based mostly on cheap carbohydrates
10. experiencing various levels of culture shock and may be almost completely removed from their native tongue
11. in an enviornment where blessings and successes are often taught to be in direct proportion to personal worthiness
12. not given control over their own passports
13. committed to Church related activities nearly every waking hour of the day

I know that many feel there are perfectly good reasons for each of these items.  I’m not arguing the specifics, I am looking at the entire picture. I want to be clear;  I am NOT saying that the LDS church is a cult.   But in any other religious context, the sum of this checklist starts raising some flags of concern for me.   When you study real life cultic groups, this is the exact set of circumstances manipulative religious leaders put their followers into. It’s a breeding ground for emotional and spiritual abuse.

I am NOT saying that LDS Mission Presidents are committing emotional or spiritual abuse.  Nor do I think the LDS church is knowingly and willing setting up this situation so that spiritual and emotional abuse can happen.  But if just one Mission President is inclined to be abusive, the playing field has already been set perfectly for him to have a heyday on the hearts and minds of young men and women.

I heard Steve Hassan say that if you encounter people that you know are in a mind-controlling environment, such as Moonies or Hare Krishnas, you should offer your cell phone to them in case they’d like to call their families.  Their ability to use a phone may be severely limited and you may be giving them a lifeline out of an abusive situation.

I have no idea how the Mission President may be behaving in my area.  He’s most likely a kind and decent man who has no desire to harm the missionaries in his care.  But on the off-chance that he’s not kind and decent, I think it’s appropriate to offer LDS missionaries the knowledge that they have somewhere safe to come if they need to contact family or friends for any reason.

I am well aware that most Mormons enjoyed their missions quite a bit.  I am well aware that many feel nothing abusive ever happened in their experience.  I am not at all suggesting that Mormon missions are even frequently abusive.  I expect the vast majority of missionaries to turn down my offer.  I have no plans to push it on them or encourage them to call their families as a subtle way to undermine the LDS church.  But given the context the missionaries are living in, I think it’s appropriate for a non-Mormon to offer sanctuary to someone who may need it even if that chance is remote.

Witnessing to Mormon Missionaries

Someone recently asked me to tell him everything he needs to know about Mormonism.  The catch was that I only had 5 to 10 minutes to do it.  I decided then and there that the most important thing I can teach other Evangelicals about Mormonism is what to do when missionaries show up at their door.

I think there is a lot that Evangelicals can do to change Mormonism, and since the place Mormons and Evangelicals are most likely to meet is the door step, I think it would be helpful for Evangelicals to have a preset strategy.  Those missionaries are sent out with a specific set of instructions and teachings to prioritize.  It’s only right that we welcome them to our homes with the same level of organization.  The problem for me is that Mormon missionaries spend about 3 months studying and getting ready. I’ve got 5 minutes to tell an Evangelical everything they need to know.

One thing I’ve learned is that Mormons generally walk away from their missions with a really bad taste in their mouth from Evangelicals.  Any hope we might have of bringing them into one of our churches after their mission is pretty slim, particularly if they were sent to the Bible Belt.  They’ve just spent 2 years having doors slammed in their face, being yelled at, having rocks thrown at them, and being told their on their way to hell as a means of introduction, all in the name of Jesus.  For many good reasons, they view Evangelicals as “the enemy” (among the reasons the fact that we view them as “the enemy” as well).

Many people suggest a number of theological talking points to emphasize when speaking to Mormons.  Some suggest you educate them on all the things they don’t know about Mormonism. Others suggest making life a miserable as possible for them so as to discourage them from further service.  Still others hope for missionaries willing enough to sit through an hour long video about the lack of credibility found in “The Book of Abraham”.

I’ve got a different idea than all of those and I think you’re more likely to successfully finish my plan more than any other; plus I can teach you everything you need to know in just 5 minutes.

Step 1 – The Introduction

Answer the door, smile politely and say “I would LOVE to talk with you more about faith, but I’ve found that it’s really difficult to find meaningful conversation with strangers.  Would you like to come back on a different night and have dinner?  We could just get to know each other a little bit first and then on another night we could meet up again to talk about each other’s faith.”

I’d be VERY surprised if Mormon missionaries didn’t take you up on this.  You’re offering a home cooked meal and two separate appointments. They have nothing more important to do than meet with non-Mormons in their own homes.

Step 2 – The Dinner

Have dinner with them. Remember they don’t consume caffeine or alcohol.  Pass on it yourself for the evening out of respect. Do NOT talk about theology.  Share all about your life.  Include where you’re originally from, where you went to school, your hobbies, what sports teams you root for, etc.  Make sure to ask them for all of the same info.  You’re likely to find you have a lot in common.  That’s good.   If possible, pry their first names out of them. Don’t be too pushy, they’re “technically” not supposed to use them.  But gently chide them about both of them not really being born with the first name “Elder”.  It’s unimportant to learn their first names, but it’s a nice bonus.  See if they want to play a board game (If they take you up on video games they’re breaking the rules. They’ll have fun, but feel guilty later).

Let them know at some point in the evening that your phone and internet access are available to them if they’d like to contact somebody back home. They will decline, but make sure they know that they can return any time in the future to use either one.

Make sure to set up a time for your next meeting and assure them you’ll let them talk all about the Mormon faith.

Step 3 – The Testimony Meeting

In preparation for the missionaries coming over, set out some extra toiletries for them to take home. They’re living off of something like $1.25 a day (at their own expense).  They would love extra shampoo and toothpaste and it’s likely you’ve got some extra stored up in your pantry already.

Feel free to pray with them if you or they want to open in prayer.  Doctrinally speaking, you are safe to pray with anyone and everyone who wants to pray with you.  Jesus is never angry that people are praying to him, no matter who they are.  If you’re uncomfortable with it, respectfully pass.

Ask the missionaries to share with you their testimonies.  In Mormon ears this is something akin to someone asking you “Could you tell me about the four spiritual laws?”  They will LOVE this opportunity to tell you about how they became Mormons and what it means to their lives.

Listen respectfully.  Don’t interrupt; you’ll get your chance to talk soon.

When they’re finished, ask if you could share your own testimony.  This is your own story of what Jesus has done for you, so I’m not going to tell you how to script it.  Your story is more powerful than anything I could tell you to say.  One caveat, if you’ve experienced miracles, talk about those miracles (and I don’t mean “I-found-my-keys” kind of miracles, I mean genuine healings and things ONLY explained by the Holy Spirit).

Close in prayer and thank them for coming over.  Again, let them know your phone and internet access are available if they need to contact someone back home (don’t be pushy or creepy about it).  If you’re really interested in studying up on Mormonism and talking more with them that’s totally up to you.

If this is all you do, you’ve just given those young men (or women) an oasis experience amidst a very difficult two years.  They WILL remember your kindness and hospitality and they will remember that it was someone desperately in love with Jesus who gave it to them.  I guarantee this approach will open doors that have previously been sealed shut for other Evangelicals who do know a lot about Mormonism.

That’s it! You’ve now learned everything you need to know about handling Mormons at your door and it didn’t take me three month to teach it to you. I hope you get the chance to try it out.

The post is a part of a collection of posts by other Evangelicals who have different ideas for what you should do.  I recommend you read what Jack at Clobber Blog and Aaron at Mormon Coffee have to say.  Gloria also wrote a similar post.

A Reluctant Lover

In my personal devotions I read this quote adapted from Erwin McManus’ book “Soul Cravings“

“Religion exists not because God loves too little but because we need love so much.  We’ve been told that God is a reluctant lover and that his standards must be met before there can be any talk of love.  This is lunacy. Love exists because God is love.  Our souls will never find satisfaction until our hearts have found this love that we so desperately yearn for.”

In dealing with adherents of the Prosperity Gospel or those that believe that God’s blessings are contingent, it’s often pointed out how much suffering has been endured by those who were indeed walking a straight path with God.  Paul is perhaps our greatest example of an obedient servant who suffered greatly because he obeyed all that God had for him.

But this passage helped me reflect on how often God’s blessings are also available to those who don’t deserve them.  Starting with the gift of grace and passed on down through innumerable experiences, people are being given gifts by God simply because he loves them.  Love after all, keeps no record of right and wrong.

God’s blessings are not available to us because of what we’ve done.  They are there because of who we are, people loved by God.

Letter to a Christian Pastor

A little over a month ago, while I was still living in Washington state, I began searching for a church home in the Chicago area in anticipation of my upcoming move. If you’ve been following my blog, you’ll know that I’m kind of hoping to find a church with a female pastor on staff.¹ I found one such church and after learning some details about the congregation in e-mail, I asked to speak with a pastor on the phone.

She called me a few days later, and at first the conversation went great. Her congregation sounded nice and we shared a lot of common beliefs. Then I brought up the issue of my husband being LDS and my need for a church that can be understanding of that situation. Things did not go so well from there.

I decided to write to her and respectfully challenge her attitude toward Mormons—and more specifically, her attitude toward what most Christians would regard as a part-believer family that was interested in coming to her church. The letter describes the specifics of how the phone conversation played out.

The Proper Role of Christian Profanity

I recently wrote a blog post about Derek Webb (an Evangelical musician) and his decision to use profanity in one of his songs.  You can read that post  and hear the song here:

http://www.graphicdesignhero.com/blog/2009/09/02/derek-webb-proper-christian-profanity/

A New Law

Sometimes it’s easier to just tell people what to do.  Is it best?  This song encapsulates a great deal of my own spiritual journey.

Is it necessary?

So we’ve been in the Chicago area for a little over a week now. I’ve had one day of classes in addition to all of the new student orientation activities, some of which I dragged my husband along for.

Earlier this year, after I got accepted to TEDS, I e-mailed my admissions counselor and asked him what the dress code was. I doubted that I had much in my wardrobe that wouldn’t work for the seminary—I’m really nowhere near as lascivious in person as I make it sound on the Internet—but I wanted to make sure I did not spend any money on new clothes only to find out they’d be prohibited at my new school. Much to my surprise, the admissions counselor simply replied, “There is none. In the beginning I wore a t-shirt and shorts and skateboarded to class each day.  Now I wear a suit and tie, but only because I work in an office.  You can wear anything in between those extremes.”

As my husband and I walked around the TEDS campus, we were surprised to find that the student body at Trinity looks and dresses almost exactly like… the student body at BYU.

Of First Importance

There is so much about this sermon that resonates with me.  If I had only one sermon that I could direct you to, this would be the one.  There are so many things packed in here.  What’s the most important thing to Christians?  What is the nature of faith and belief?  Why should we have confidence as Christians?

Direct download here.

It Has Finally Been Resolved — Sort of

“Are Mormons Christian?”

A question that has plagued this inter-faith dialogue for as long as Mormonism has existed.  As Kullervo points out in his most excellent guest post it is difficult to reach agreement on the issue because Mormons and Evangelicals are talking about different things.

Kullervo’s excellent post prompted an equally excellent response from Eric.  Instead of debating this ad naseum and talking past each other, we both should strive to reframe the questions as:

“Does the LDS church teach a saving faith?”

I’m confident that Evangelicals and Mormons will still not agree on the answer, but they will at least be talking about the same thing.  Spread the word and let’s finally get everyone to sling mud and hurl insults at one another on the same page!

Doubts, Frustrations, God & the Church

JP and Mike on Doubts, Frustrations, God, & The Church from ConversantLife on Vimeo.

This was an interview with my pastor, Mike Erre, and one of my former professors, JP Moreland. Both are (or are becoming) nationally recognized voices in the Evangelical community.

They talk about so many different things here. As they fielded questions from an online audience, it’s like they discussed their takes on many of the biggest issues facing Evangelicals today. Doubt, public perception, the Emerging church, homosexuality, politics; it’s all here.

I in particular like Moreland’s analogy of an inability to pay off a $5000 debt and indignantly insisting that our $35 should be enough.

Why It Matters Whether Mormons Are Christian

Kullervo offered this gem as a guest post.  You can see where he originally posted it here.

——————————————————————————————————–

The question of whether Mormons can be considered Christian is fairly central to interfaith dialogue, and is significant enough to have garnered national attention during the 2008 presidential campaign. It comes up every now and then on Tim’s most excellent blog, and as an ex-Mormon non-Christian who is nevertheless widely read and confident in his basic grasp of the world of religion and religious belief, I thought I would take a stab at untangling some of the mess. Fundamentally, the question and ensuing argument is an issue of semantics/framing: both sides are talking about something different when they talk about whether Mormons are Christians, and both sides feel like they have something extremely important–but again, totally different–at stake with regards to the answer. the resolution to the dispute is probably not as simple as forcing one or both sides to re-frame their dialogue, since the way it is framed is not arbitrary. But an awareness of the semantic mismatch and an understanding of why it matters to both sides would go a long way into at least setting the issue aside and reducing its potential for causing a ruckus.

From the individual Mormon’s perspective, I think there is a pathological fear of being misunderstood. I believe that a large number of Mormons, fed on Mormon historical accounts of mistreatment in the early days of the church and anecdotal hostility since then, fear that they will be discriminated against or that they will encounter hostility because of misinformation about Mormonism that has been perpetuated. In other words, a significant number of Mormons believe that 1) they face potential or present persecution, because of 2) lies, misinformation, and twisted truth about their religion. Thus, if they could get people to accurately understand who they are and what they were about, they would not be in danger. I think there’s also a belief that a large number of potential converts to the Church refuse to consider Mormonism as an option because of misinformation about it: indeed that the single biggest obstacle to the missionary effort is misunderstandings about the Church.

So, for the Mormon, it is important to promote accurate, descriptive picture of their religion for their safety and for the success of their missionary program. This is underscored and reinforced in the individual Mormon’s mind by the Church’s intensive and explicit public relations efforts over the last three or so decades. If the Church itself has been engaged so desperately in promoting a positive image, then it must be not only important and beneficial, but God’s intention for His Church.

So when the Mormon encounters a conservative Christian that says “Mormons are not Christians,” alarm bells go off. The Mormon, in this encounter, wants first and foremost to be descriptively understood: he wants to correct misunderstandings because he believes misunderstandings lead to persecution and prevent the missionaries from touching the hearts of the people they contact and teach. The Mormon believes, descriptively, that he is a Christian: in fact, he believes that his Church is actually the Church established by Jesus Christ, and from a dictionary/encyclopedia-standpoint, that makes Mormons Christians. To say otherwise is to spread damaging lies such as that Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ, share Christian values, or believe in the Bible. And if those lies get (further) spread, individual Mormons will be persecuted because they are misunderstood and the missionaries will not be able to reach the people who are looking for the Truth.

(Lurking here is the presumption that if Mormons were correctly understood that they would not be persecuted except at the hands of the truly evil, and that the missionaries would be able to teach and baptize exponentially more people).

This also means–and this is crucial–that when the Mormon confronts someone who still insists that Mormons are not Christians despite being exposed to an accurate description, the Mormon is likely to conclude that the person is being aggressively dishonest, and intentionally slandering the Church.

Now, there may be some people out there like that, but most of them are well-known heads of countercult ministries, or pissed-off ex-Mormons who (whether they are justified or not), are angry enough to lash out by saying anything bad about the Church that they can. whether or not it is true (though they are usually not also conservative Evangelicals, so they are not really relevant to the topic). But most theologically conservative Christians who insist on the non-Christianity of Mormonism despite an accurate picture of what the Church believes and teaches do not do so because of an evil motive. There is a misunderstanding here, because when the Mormon and the Evangelical talk about the question of whether or not Mormons are Christians, they are not really talking about the same thing. The Mormons are talking about “Christianity” from a descriptive, historical, and sociological point of view, whereas the Evangelical is talking about “Christianity” from a theological point of view. I shall attempt to explain.

Conservative Protestants, as a general rule, do not believe that denomination matters. They do not believe that salvation is found in the Lutheran Church, or the Southern Baptist Convention, or in their Evangelical Free Congregation. Conservative Protestants believe salvation is found only in the person of Jesus Christ. Mormons believe that salvation is only available through Jesus Christ too, but they believe that the road to that salvation (or exaltation, whatever, semantics) is only available through the Church’s teachings and sacraments. To a conservative Protestant, a denomination has other meanings, but very few if any would try to claim that any one denomination is the “one true church,” because the one true church is Christianity, in other words, those followers of Jesus who have embraced his gospel and have found salvation through faith on his name. Mormons (and other exclusive denominations like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and, more often than not, the Roman Catholic Church) do not fit into this category because their understanding about the nature of Jesus Christ and the means of salvation are radically different: just the claim that it can only be found in fullness in one organization is enough to completely disqualify Mormonism.

In other words, Mormons don’t understand why Evangelicals won’t acknowledge Mormonism’s Christianity because Mormons do not realize what is at stake. Evangelicals do not think of themselves as Lutherans or Presbyterians or Nondenominationals, at least not in terms of their primary spiritual identity. They may recognize that as a matter of history they are members of a specific denomination (if they are) and that they have been designated “Protestant,” but their primary way of thinking about themselves religiously is as a Christian. Again, to a conservative Protestant, specific denomination does not matter. What matters is whether you are a Christian. This means a Protestant is free to move between denominations as much as he wants without worrying about it, as long as the denominations are teaching Christianity. Not Christianity in the sense of “a religion about Jesus,” but in the theologically significant sense of “the way to Jesus.” Mormons may talk about and believe important things about Jesus, enough for sociologists and librarians to categorize them as Christians, but what they teach and believe about Jesus is significantly different enough to make it a different religion than the one that conservative Protestants are practicing. I know of no Mormon that would dispute this. What the Mormon thus fails to understand is that the conservative Protestant calls his religion “Christianity.”

So when the Evangelical meets a Mormon who claims that Mormonism is Christian, the Evangelical hears the Mormon claiming that they have the same religion. That is flat-out not true, and it’s obvious by even a fairly cursory examination. So the Evangelical concludes that the Mormon is trying to be deceptive: trying to claim to be theologically compatible so as to lure converts into a religious organization that is actually an entirely different animal. It looks like a bait-and-switch, using the Evangelical’s faith as the bait. Understandably, this irks the Evangelical. Furthermore, the Evangelical is justifiably concerned about his friends and family and assorted loved ones: as conservative Protestants they operate in a religious environment where, provided the denomination is Christian (in the Protestant theological sense), one is free to switch from denomination to denomination without necessarily jeopardizing one’s salvation. When the Mormon Church claims to be Christian and insists that Evangelicals agree that it is, the Mormon Church creates a situation wherein Evangelicals may be lured into something they never meant to get involved in. And with Mormonism’s “milk-before-meat” missionary policy, it is not an unreasonable fear. And eternal salvation is at stake.

The Mormon may ask, “why do the Evangelicals get to decide what Christian means? Why can’t they just call their religion something else? Then there wouldn’t be a problem.” But that’s a particularly disingenous claim from a Church that sets a great store by the name of their religion. Like Mormons, conservative Protestants believe their religion is the one true religion. However, unlike Mormons, Protestants do not set theological significance by the organizational boundaries of a denomination. So the conservative Protestant’s religion is not the same thing as his denomination. He may be categorized historically as a Protestant, but he, like the Mormon, believes that he is in fact a true follower of Jesus Christ, a designation which he shares with people who have a common understanding of doctrine and practice, and since they believe they are the only true followers of Jesus Christ, they call their religion “Christianity.”