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.

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).

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.

• 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].

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.

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”.

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/

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..

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.

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.