Many of the posts in this blog, and even more so the discussions that usually follow, have highlighted the differences between Mormonism and traditional or evangelical Christianity. However, there is at least one area where evangelicals may differ more among themselves and Mormons may differ more among themselves than the two religious traditions differ from each other. And that has to do with how to understand the first three chapters of Genesis: Should the accounts of the Creation and of the Fall be viewed as real events that happened in history, or should they be viewed primarily as allegory?

How believers in the Bible answer that question could have significant implications. For evangelicals, those implications were detailed in an excellent cover story, “The Search for the Historical Adam,” published last year in Christianity Today magazine. The article pointed out that while the traditional Christian view, included in some denominations’ statements of faith, is that Adam and Eve were the historical parents of the human race, that belief is about to collide (if it hasn’t already) with research into genetic diversity that shows that the existing human race could not have descended from two individuals a few thousand years ago. Just as in the past century or two science has forced most educated Christians to abandon a belief that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, the article suggested, it is becoming just as clear that defending any idea of two common human ancestors is scientifically untenable.

Part of what is at stake for many adherents of evangelicalism (Catholicism too) is the understanding of original sin being traceable to Adam (and Eve too, although she’s mentioned less often). Also, the writings of Paul develop complex arguments seemingly based on the historicity of Adam, and the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke traces Jesus’ earthly lineage to Adam.

Even though we Mormons don’t believe in the doctrine of original sin, the problem of Adam and Eve is no less acute for us, since we also accept the New Testament as scripture. Additionally, many church leaders, including Joseph Smith, have clearly assumed the historicity of Adam and Eve. Smith even said the Garden of Eden had been located in what is now Missouri.

For many evangelicals, and probably an even higher percentage of Mormons, to question the historicity of the Creation and Fall accounts strikes at a foundation of the Christian faith. Such a view is behind the attempt of many evangelicals to promote intelligent design, which claims that there is scientific evidence of a Creator; smaller numbers, usually from the fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism, have fought against any teaching in public schools that advanced forms of life developed over millions of years. And while the LDS church has no doctrine denying evolution, it isn’t difficult to find Mormons who interpret verses such as Moses 6:48 to support a belief that no death existed before the Fall, which if true would seem to preclude evolution.

But there are evangelicals and Mormons who disagree with the prevailing views. Most prominent among such evangelicals is DNA scientist extraordinaire Francis Collins, who believes that humankind came about through the randomness of natural selection, that while God set life in motion, how we turned out was a matter of chance. Brigham Young University biologist Steven Peck seemingly has adopted a similar view, and has written that he is proud to have descended from apes. Yet both men have reconciled their faiths with what they see science clearly telling them.

Is there a necessary conflict between science and believing that the first three chapters of Genesis are part of the inspired word of God? I am writing to suggest that the answer is no.

In my view, science becomes a problem for the believer in the Bible only when we try to understand the Bible as telling us something the authors never intended to teach us. The Bible (and for us Mormons, other scripture) isn’t intended to be a scientific textbook. And the text of Genesis 1-3 gives us clues that neither is it intended to be seen as history, but rather as a way of conveying divinely inspired truth about the relationship between God and humankind.

In other words, Genesis 1-3 teaches truth even if it isn’t history.

In a comment earlier in this blog, blog host Tim said:

I don’t deny that inerrancists generally reject theistic evolution. What I’m saying is that if the internal textual evidence were clearer (similar to the parables), it wouldn’t be a rejection of inerrancy to say that Genesis 1-3 are an allegory. There is a difference between literalism and inerrancy.

I would argue that such textual evidence does exist, opening the way for us to take Genesis 1-3 seriously without taking it literally. My interest in doing so isn’t intend to weaken anyone’s faith in Genesis; on the contrary, I’m concerned that by trying to make Genesis say more than God intended it to, we set up an unnecessary barrier to faith.

Here, briefly, are what I see as some of the signs that Genesis 1-3 shouldn’t be viewed literally:

• The account is full of blatant symbols that suggest a truth that goes beyond history, among them the tree of life, the tree of knowledge and a villain in the form of a despised animal. Even the name Adam is simply a Hebrew word for “man” (or “human”), and Eve’s name comes from a word meaning “living.” In this way, the story is written to apply to every man and every woman rather than to two specific individuals.
• The structure of the creation account in Genesis 1 seems to be written in an order designed for literary purposes. For example, the first day parallels the fourth, the second day parallels the fifth, and the third day parallels the sixth. It would make no sense as history to make plants before the sun, but it does make sense if the writer is trying to evoke a sense of order and awe.
• A creation account starting in Genesis 2:4 directly contradicts the order of events in the account beginning in 1:1. It makes more sense to see the accounts as having two different purposes than it does to reconcile the factual details.
• There’s a huge disconnect between Genesis 3 (which ends with the ejection from Eden) and Genesis 4 (which tells of Cain and Abel). The latter presupposes the existence of an agrarian society as well as of other human populations, which makes no sense with a literal reading of what comes before.

So if Genesis 1-3 doesn’t teach science or history, what does it teach? For starters, that God had a purpose in creating us. That God gave us free will, and that our decisions have consequences, including the misery that sin brings. That what God created is good. That the making of humankind is the pinnacle, even the ultimate purpose, of God’s creation. That we were created in God’s image.

I’m not suggesting that there are no problems with taking an allegorical approach to understanding Genesis 1-3. But in our quest to know what “really happened,” it becomes easy to lose perspective on the broader truths of what God is using this ancient, inspired writing to teach us.

In conjunction with the video Crossways has released this short documentary in which Piper revisits his home in South Carolina and discusses his history with race and racism.

I’m proud to see Piper name racism for what it is and to make such a public confession.

There’s a certain philosophy within Evangelicalism that the way to promote church growth is to have a laser beam focus on attracting men.  The frame of mind says men want to be manly and too much of the church has become feminized.  Too much worship promotes Jesus as some sort of cosmic boyfriend and what men want is not the be loved and encouraged but instead they want to lead and be challenged.

To capitalize on this some churches focus heavily on men in programs, sermons and worship selection.  It’s believed that by attracting men, women will be happy to be in a church where their husbands are involved and won’t complain that resources and attention aren’t devoted to them. It’s also believed that churches and women within churches have no problem starting up programs that meet the needs of women, so it’s not something that needs to be emphasized.  Some of these churches are patriarchal in nature but not necessarily so (as opposed to complementarian).

It’s my personal opinion that this philosophy is unBiblical. While I can understand the appeal and can even see how it may be working in some sectors I think it violates Paul’s mandate that we see neither male nor female when it concerns the gospel.  I don’t think church’s should be feminized but I don’t think they should be masculinized either. I certainly see goodness in calling men to lead and to do all of the things mentioned in the video and photo. But there is no need to marginalize women in order to do so.

Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church might be a poster boy for this philosophy if there ever were one. Driscoll brings a lot of bravado and confidence to his preaching. Unfortunately for Driscoll his posture brings controversy.

A recent interview in England concerning women in leadership is bring a lot of criticism towards Driscoll. You can read about it hear. If you’d like to hear the interview itself it can be found here. Since the controversy centers around this interview I highly recommend that you listen to the full interview.

Yesterday Obery Hendricks posted an article on the Huffington Post challenging Mitt Romney on racist sentiments found in the Book of Mormon.  As has been pointed out, Hendricks is guilty of cherry-picking some of those statements.  He also doesn’t have a good enough handle on Mormonism to understand that the Book of Mormon is not making reference to people of African descent, rather it’s speaking of dark-skinned people of Jewish descent living in a yet-to-be-determined location (some might say they are dark-skinned Native Americans, others might say these passages have nothing to do with skin color at all).

Last night Hendricks appeared as a guest of Ed Schultz on MSNBC.  As I predicted, I believe this is just the start of these attacks on Mitt Romney and Mormonism.  The challenge Romney faces is answering these charges in the length of a sound-bite.  I don’t think the nuance that Mormons engage the priesthood bad with is going to communicate.  I also don’t think he has the opportunity to engage in exegis of the Book of Mormon. Hendricks does not offer an attack that effectively sways Mormons, but he does offer an attack that sways non-Mormons.

I don’t believe this is going to go away and I’ll be interested to see how Romney resolves it.  I believe he’ll eventually be forced to say, as John Huntsman has stated, that the priesthood ban was wrong.

This video is quickly filling up my Facebook newsfeed from other Evangelicals.  I can’t decide if I like it or hate it.  It’s definitely one or the other, but nothing in between.

About 15 years ago it became clever for Evangelicals to say “I’m not in a religion, I’m in a relationship”.  I agree with the sentiment but the cute factor has worn off. In response to the video, one fellow Evangelical stated “I hate religion, but I love how righteously awesome I am! To all you haters out there who are about to tell me that I am arrogant, you’d be smart to remove the log in your eye before you start practicing your “religion” in my general direction.”

Regardless, I think the video is worth watching and I think there are valuable things to take away from it.

1. “By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion.” Bill Maher, October 15, 2011, George Washington University, as reported by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times, October 18, 2011.

2. “[Mormonism is] one of the most egregious groups operating on American soil.” Christopher Hitchens, Slate, October 17, 2011.

3. “The theology comes across as totally barmy. We can become gods with our own planets! And the practices strike me as creepy. No coffee and tea is bad enough. But the underwear!” Michael Ruse, Chronicle of Higher Education, November 30, 2011.

4. “The current head of the Mormon Church, Thomas S. Monson, known to his followers as ‘prophet, seer and revelator,’ is indistinguishable from the secular plutocratic oligarchs who exercise power in our supposed democracy…” Harold Bloom, The New York Times, November 12, 2011.

5. “That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult…Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.” Robert Jeffress, Values Voter Summit, October 7, 2011.

6. “I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve. Mitt Romney has said it is not his intent to promote Mormonism. Yet there can be little doubt that the effect of his candidacy—whether or not this is his intent—will be to promote Mormonism.” Warren Cole Smith, Patheos.com, May 24, 2011.

7. “Yes, it is my opinion that an indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President of the United States of America.” Tricia Erickson, CNN.com, July 7, 2011.

8. “Mormonism is not an orthodox Christian faith. It just is not…it’s very clear that the founding fathers did not intend to preserve automatically religious liberty for non-Christian faiths.” Bryan Fischer, Focal Point radio show, September 2011.

9. “Can you name the candidate that’s running for president that believes that if he’s a good person in his religion he will receive his own planet?…Would you vote for someone for president who believes in their religion, if he’s a good person, he’ll get his own planet?…Do you want to get your own planet?” Ben Ferguson, Fox 13 News, Memphis TN, July 6, 2011.

10. “The Christian coalition, I think [another candidate] could get a lot of money from that, because Romney, obviously, not being a Christian…” Ainsley Earhart, Fox and Friends, July 17, 2011.

Mormonvoices explains:

Explanation and references for the items above:

1. 332 scholars disagree.

2. This obvious hyperbole slanders 6 million American and 14 million worldwide Mormons.

3. Mormons believe in theosis, not in becoming “gods of their own planets.” Mormons who have been through the temple do wear sacred garments as a reminder of the covenants that they make with God.

4. Only a few Mormon leaders who serve full-time receive modest stipends; all other Mormon clergy are unpaid.

5. Mormonism is not a cult.

6. Calling Mormonism “dangerous” and Mormons “unfit to serve” is plainly false and bigoted. Responsible journalists have recognized that Mormons are thoroughly mainstream in their modes of living and ideas.

7. Mormons are no more “indoctrinated” than any adherent of any other mainstream system of belief.

8. Again, Mormons are Christian. The dangerous fallacy of Mr. Fischer’s legal argument speaks for itself.

9. Mormons believe in theosis, not the gods-of-planets fiction as discussed by Mr. Ferguson.

10. Again, Mormons are Christian.

Does anyone take issue with this list?

As far as Anti-Mormon statements go- I am not too worried about the statements by 1. Maher (bad comedy, not threatening) , 3. Michael Ruse (See Maher), 4. Bloom (an insightful academic view) , 7.Trickson’s, 8. Fischer’s (His legal argument is preposterous but his reasoning on Mormons is fine) or 10. Earhart’s.   They don’t seem to really misrepresent the Church or spread unfounded fear or prejudice.

Overall, if these are the top 10 I think Mormons are doing pretty well in the PR battle.

Jana was a convert to Mormonism from Evangelicalism.  I think she has many things to say that will make both Evangelicals and Mormons uncomfortable.  But at its core, her message is that we should be living out our faith with grace and patience for ourselves and each other.  I sincerely hope that’s a message we can all get behind.

http://mormonstories.org/?p=2284

The head pastor always posed something of a trick question to those he faced; “If Jesus was sinless, why did he submit himself to a baptism of repentance at the hands of John the Baptist?”

Matthew 3:11-15 (ESV) says:

I baptize you with water for repentance but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.

I’ve kept this question with me since hearing the story.  In conversations with Mormons it’s often suggested that Jesus was baptized to set an example for what we must do.  I don’t disagree with this.  I think followers of Jesus should follow Jesus’ example and be baptized.  But I think I’d like to put a caveat on that.

John was baptizing Jesus with a baptism of repentance.  Repentance is clearly an important and fundamental step in trusting Jesus. To be saved by Jesus a person has to be saved from something.  Recognizing one’s sin and turning away from it (and toward Jesus) must happen.

But I don’t believe Jesus, as a sinless person, needed to repent.  Jesus was indeed baptized by John but not for repentance.

Matthew 3 continues:

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him,and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;  and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

I think John was absolutely correct in objecting that he wasn’t qualified to baptize Jesus.  Jesus had him proceed because it didn’t matter who baptized him.  Jesus’ baptism was a confession of his devotion to God, and God’s confession of his devotion to Jesus. The only two participants of concern were Jesus and God. The righteousness that was fulfilled was not the absolution of sin in Jesus’ life but rather the confessions of Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

As Christians, we follow Jesus’ example in baptism.  But we do not follow Jesus in a baptism of repentance.  We do not carry on the baptism of John the Baptist.  We carry on the baptism of Jesus, a baptism of identification and commitment. Just as John was an insignificant and unqualified baptizer, it doesn’t matter by whose authority we are baptized.  What matters is how and why we stand before God in our baptism.

HUNTSMAN: I think it was wrong, plain and simple. I think it was wrong. I think it was something that divided people, divided friends and maybe even divided families. I believe they — they saw the errors of their way and they made a policy change. And I think they’re much better because of it.

It’s interesting to see that Huntsman wasn’t disciplined for saying it was wrong and the LDS church in no way has suffered because he chose to clarify the issue like this.  In what way would Mitt Romney harm the church by saying the same thing? Huntsman still describes himself as a Mormon and has family ties that run deep within the Mormon leadership.  In some ways, as the former governor of Utah his personal ties to Mormon culture are deeper than Romney’s.