Anton Hein of the Relgion News Blog has pointed out this article in reference to my previous post LDS a cult? 350,000 DVDs try to shake Mormons’ faith in today’s Salt Lake Tribune.
It is no surprise (at least with those who evangelize the LDS) that there are disagreements about methodology. As a matter of fact, many threads have been created as of late on the Walter Martin Ministries blog.
John Morehead is one who takes exception with the video and the distribution of it. The reporter and John Morehead make the following comment “Instead of attacking LDS beliefs, he said, “we have to find common ground and recognize the positive in each side. We have to demonstrate compassion.”
My question to John is what common ground do we need to find with the LDS?
John W. Morehead said,
March 28, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Great question, Jeff. If one looks at the Scriptures for missional texts one finds the issue of common ground to be an important aspect of communicating the gospel. For example, Jesus finds common ground with the woman at the well in John 4 in her search for water and then moves to consideration of spiritual water. Paul does the same in finding common ground in the spiritual search of the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17. Missionaries in the history of Christian missions have recognized this and have found common ground between themselves, the gospel, and the cultures (including the religion) of others. Great examples of this include Matteo Ricci among the Confucianists, and Karl Ludvig Reichelt among the Taoists and Buddhists, just to provide two examples. See Harold Taylor’s chapter on contextualization in the history of Christian missions in our book Encountering New Religious Movements (Kregel, 2004) for further examples.
With this foundation and precedent in mind we now move to specific consideration with application to Latter-day Saints. Evangelicals in the counter-cult community ask, perhaps skeptically, what possible common ground their might be between our two communities. I don’t think it is difficult to find common ground if we consider our similar conservative ethics, our concern for the family, our pietistic expressions of faith, and our recognition of the significance of the Bible, just to name a few. These areas of common ground, even with some differences in how we view them, can serve as an important foundation for discussion of both our agreements and areas of differences. This specific application is in keeping with various biblical passages, and the history of Christian missions referenced above.
I hope you and others find this helpful.
Jeff Downs said,
March 28, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Thanks for responding John. It is helpful to get some context to your statement (or as you are so quoted) in the Tribune.
You state “I don’t think it is difficult to find common ground if we consider our similar conservative ethics, our concern for the family, our pietistic expressions of faith, and our recognition of the significance of the Bible, just to name a few.”
Can you tell us who, in the Countercult community would not recognize the common ground that you mention above? The issues mentioned are important as they could lead to fruitful discussions with the LDS.
So, what would you have rather seen from the video, the Christian explaining that the LDS and Evangelical (whatever that means today) agree on family values, etc.? From my standpoint (and I believe others) this and the other areas mentioned are a given. Mind you, there are certain things that I would press a Latter-day Saint on, but that is besides the point.
Second, while I can recognize the common ground you state above, where does this put the Christian now? or, where do we go from here?
Keith Walker said,
March 28, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Finding common ground alone isn’t going to lead anyone to Christ. There must be a preacher. Since Mormons and Christians have recognized common ground for YEARS, do we just leave it at that?
John W. Morehead said,
March 28, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Jeff and others, perhaps you can get some initial ideas as to what I think should have been in the video, or more directly, the vast majority of what should not have been done in the video, through my critique. There I note the video’s shortcomings and if you consider what positive alternatives come as a correlary this might give you some idea.
Of course, this has been written about and demonstrate, through the Salt Lake Seminary Bridges program which provides a differing philosophy for engagement, and Ken Mulholland’s chapter in our book. Beyond this I find “drive-by” DVDs on doorsteps troubling, regardless of their quality, and prefer investment in people’s lives, walking their journeys with them, the development of relationships, the development of credibility, and a contextualization of the gospel message appropriate to Mormon culture. In short, the application of the same sorts of things that have been done in the history of Christian missions for years.
If you want to know how things might have been done differently, and what I and others are articulating, once again I’d suggest you consult what we’ve written, what we’ve demonstrated through our case studies and experiments, and the vast body of literature from Christian missions and missiology.
But because we are speaking across paradigms, I really don’t think this will be persuasive until your further reflections and the (hopefully) resulting new perspectives no longer fit into the heresy-rationalist model.
John Divito said,
March 28, 2007 at 8:00 pm
John, I also appreciate your response. At the same time, I am wondering how you see Christians combining the need to find common ground with the fact that all fallen creatures “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18). What role does confronting unbelievers with their rebellion against God have in evangelism?
As missiologist Ed Stetzer has said, both contending and contextualizing our faith are the keys to reaching culture. Any further thoughts?
John W. Morehead said,
March 28, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Yes, John. I would say that I obviously accept the teaching of Romans 1, but that Paul’s point is not that human intellect or unrighteousness are so fallen as to make common ground impossible. Otherwise Paul’s approach in Acts 17 and his missionary maxim in 1 Cor. 9:20-23 make no sense and are contradictory.
I would agree with Stetzer that contending and contextualizing need to occur, that that contextualization takes the lead and contending is ancillary and both must be conducted with relevance to their specific contexts. I have never advocated mission vs. apologetics or contextualization vs. contention (properly defined), so I hope this clarification can be “heard” and recognized by those in the counter-cult community.
Jeff said,
March 28, 2007 at 8:19 pm
John M.,
Regarding Romans 1, would you agree that one way man supresses their knowledge of God, is by erecting false god/idols?
Keith Walker said,
March 28, 2007 at 8:22 pm
J.M.,
When you say things like, “You’re doing it wrong, I’m doing it right,” how are we not to interpret that as “mission vs. apologetics or contextualization vs. contention?”
John Divito said,
March 28, 2007 at 8:28 pm
John, I guess this is where I would appreciate some clarification. It seems as if you consider the “heresy-rationalist model” as contending without contextualizing, whereas some see your “missional model” as contextualizing without contending.
However, if all agree that both contending and contextualizing are needed, then where does that leave your antithetical paradigms? From your perspective, are some simply being more inconsistent in their approach (where method is not matching practice)?
John W. Morehead said,
March 28, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Gentlemen,
I appreciate the opportunity to provide clarification and explication of my views. Unfortunately, my academic deadlines loom on the near horizong, and that, coupled with my ministry workload and upcoming travel out of state next week for a funeral preclude my abilty to carry this further. Thus, this will be my last comment.
Jeff, in an exegesis of Romans 1 it is clear that Paul refers to idolatry as a way in which the knowledge of God is suppressed by human beings. However, I do not share your presuppositional framework that you use to interpret this passage, nor the conclusions you reach that common ground is impossible (or inappropriate) and contextualization irrelevant.
Keith, I didn’t summarize my views in the simplistic way in which you state. The fact that you come away with this understanding and with such defensiveness and close-mindeness, indicates that you have not read my writings or heard my public statements on this fairly or accurately. You can understand my avoidance of an unnecessary dichotomy by attempting to lay your negative attitudes and defensiveness aside and trying to look at the issues and my perspective from a different angle. Just as I am asking folks like you to consider how your message whill be understood by Mormons by thinking like Mormons, try to understand me from my perspective rather than your own. Put yourself in my shoes and see what insights might result.
John, I have not articulated an antitheical paradigm, but have consistently articulated the need for a cross-cultural missions approach that views new religions as global religous cultures and applies the insights of missions in order to communicate the gospel in deed and word into these cultures in culturally meaningful forms. This is accompanied by contextualized apologetics when needed, but apologetics is ancillary to the missional task. As to how we interpret each other, I see lots of boundary maintenance apologetics done through the contending aspects of the counter-cult approach but see no evidence of contexualization or engagement with missions and missiological thinking. This is how I arrive at my perspective on the heresy-rationalist paradigm and counter-cult approaches. And the only way one could come away with an understanding of my views as advocating contextualizing without contending is to not take into consideration my writings on this topic.
I know that many in the counter-cult don’t like it when I say this, but there is a maxim that one must be able to say “I understand” before you can say “I disagree.” The questions and comments in this exchange, and that I hear in general from others in the counter-cult, indicate that there is insufficient interaction with the writings of those utilizing a missional paradigm to new religions and a lack of adequate understanding of the history of Christian missions, missiology, and fresh theological reflection in dialogue with these areas. So before the dialogue can ever go forward I’ll have to ask you to do your homework and engage in more reading and deeper reflection. Take care.
Jennifer said,
March 28, 2007 at 9:51 pm
John, I appreciate your clarifications and am continually learning more from missiology. I can only speak for myself here, but I do see the need to integrate missional insights into our evangelistic task.
At the same time, I submit all methodologies, writings, and thoughts to Scripture. With the Bible as our foundation, believers can develop a robust missiology that glorifies God as we carry out His commission for His glory.
Again, thank you for our brief time of interaction.
John Divito said,
March 28, 2007 at 9:54 pm
John, sorry for the blunder above. I guess I should check the authorial fields before I submit a comment! Needless to say, the previous comment post was mine, not Jennifer’s.
Jeff Downs said,
March 28, 2007 at 10:03 pm
…in an exegesis of Romans 1 it is clear that Paul refers to idolatry as a way in which the knowledge of God is suppressed by human beings. However, I do not share your presuppositional framework that you use to interpret this passage.
I’m sorry that you can not stick around to explain how my “presuppositional framework” differs from yours, especially if you agree that Paul refers to idolatry as a way that man suppresses the knowledge of God. You would have to agree that any other god then Paul’s God, is no god at all and in fact a false god, an idol, something man creates to hide from God.
nor the conclusions you reach that common ground is impossible (or inappropriate) and contextualization irrelevant.
This is a false accusation John, and I’m surprised that you would say such a thing after the many times we’ve wrote on this. So, there is no need to respond to a straw man. I’m sorry you are leaving on such a note.
I will say that there is a difference between common ground and neutral ground. No ground is neutral, since this is God’s world.
Hopefully, one day I’ll finally put in article form (and finish it) my thoughts on a biblical approach to Christian counterfeits. Until then, I would refer you to my outlines I’m using for my class on Christian Counterfeits.
Aaron Shafovaloff said,
March 29, 2007 at 9:34 am
It’s worth nothing that Jesus didn’t wait for a “relationship of trust” before speaking eternal truths with the woman at the well.
The kind of common ground in John 4 paved the way for what seems like a 5-minute evangelistic conversation. He stayed with them a couple of days, but certainly not as a prerequisite for sharing the kind of eternal truths he shared with the woman.
If I follow the example of Jesus, I have the freedom to be guided by the Spirit into planned and unplanned evangelistic encounters with strangers with whom I have no future certain contact.
If I follow the wisdom of the world, then I am restricted and enslaved to a paradigm that strictly demands prerequisite relationships of trust.
I’d rather be free to work within a wider range of evangelistic methods available. And I’d rather keep the essential special revelation of God’s word as the primary instrument of evangelism over general revelation.
A fellow Bible-thumping crusty-countercultist who loves people,
Aaron
john umland said,
March 29, 2007 at 1:42 pm
boundary maintenance occurs because LDS elders come door to door offering an “improved” christianity, AKA another gospel, and lead people astray. Paul noted borders too. boundary maintenance is a Biblical practice. boundaries are essential to note because an LDS converts to Christianity under the threat of hell. in LDS theology, hell is only for apostates and really really bad people. to assist in making the leap, we need to show the house of cards that LDS thrology is built on. as each card is pulled, the fear can diminish, by the Holy Spirit’s aid. but the lies need to be exposed while the love is extended.
God is good
jpu
Francis Beckwith said,
March 29, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Here’s an example of common ground: the ante-Nicene church fathers. According to the LDS, these guys got the gospel right before it was “corrupted.” If, however, ante-Nicene and post-Nicene fathers are virtually indistinguishable from each other theologically, the LDS corruption argument collapses. But, unfortunately, the fathers don’t help Reformed folks very much, since one does not find in them anything like the Reformation’s understandings of sola scriptura, sola fide, or sola gracia. But that’s another debate for another blog.
Jeff said,
March 30, 2007 at 12:05 am
Hi Frank, thanks for stopping by. Perhaps some fresh air over here?
I agree that the LDS argument collases (BTW: I think we need to do some apologetic work in this area, for the simple reason JWs, LDS and other NRMs use these same arguments), but I’m not sure I follow your comment.
You seemed to say that the ante-Nicene fathers do not agree with LDS theology, even though the LDS say they would. I guess I’m not seeing where the common ground is located.
Have you read any of these volumes? (especially the 3rd):
Holy Scripture: The Ground and Piller of Our Faith (Vo. 1): A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. David King (Christian Resources, 2001; ISBN#: 1-8935-3102-3).
Holy Scripture: The Ground and Piller of Our Faith (Vo. 2): A Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. William Webster (Christian Resources, 2001; ISBN#: 1-8935-3103-1).
Holy Scripture: The Ground and Piller of Our Faith (Vo. 3): The Writing of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura. Eds. David T. King & William Webster (Christian Resources, 2001; ISBN#: 1-8935-3105-8).
john umland said,
March 30, 2007 at 1:02 am
I’m glad Frank dropped by. One of his co-editors on “The New Mormon Challenge” is Carl Mosser who told me a couple years ago that he had done and was doing more patristic research to address things like this as well as the understanding of deification by the Eastern Fathers. But due to the low sales of TNMC he didn’t know if a book would be made soon. it looks like he teaches now at Eastern. I’ll email him and see how or if things are progressing.
God is good
jpu
Keith Walker said,
March 31, 2007 at 2:36 am
Frank,
I’m glad you stopped in. John Morehead mentioned you in an e-mail exchange we are having. According to him, you told him that a Christian would not violate any ethical principles if he warned non-Christians about the unjust evangelistic efforts of another group of Christians. I would agree with you on this point, but what about if Morehead admitted that the “other group of Christians” were not sinning in their efforts?
To sum up, Morehead has told me that he does not think the DVD outreach was a sin. I questioned why he tried to undermine it if the disagreement was not over a moral issue, but just over philosophy of ministry. He then gave me the above illustration and said that he had a responsibility to warn the non-Christians about our “unjust efforts.”
Here is what I don’t understand. If it isn’t a sin, how can it be unjust? I’m still waiting for John to answer that question.
Ed Rogers said,
April 1, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Keith,
It may be arguable as to whether there is sin involved. If any portion of the DVD in question has characterizations of Mormonism that are not true, then the whole of it runs afoul of Ex. 20:16.
One simply cannot achieve a holy goal via unholy means.
Ed
Jeff said,
April 2, 2007 at 12:32 am
Mr. Rogers,
Your comment seems strange in light of your “If” statement. The DVD can be viewed online here. Perhaps you should view it and then come back and comment.
BTW: It certainly doesn’t follow that if one portion of a book, video, etc. mischaracterizes something, that the whole foul. But, I’m not even sure why you are presuming this in the first place.
Ed Rogers said,
April 2, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Umm, Jeff?
I finally got to a copy that would play on my machine (Evo laptop with 1284×1068 screen; running WinXP SP2; with Windows Media Player 9; and the latest Adobe Flash player) on YouTube. It didn’t take long to find the first falsehood. Speaking of J.S.’s claims of revelations, they mentioned the records containing what became know as “The Book of Mormon”. The narrators state that J.S. claimed to have received “golden tablets”. Presumably, the chose those words to create a comparison in the viewers mind with the two tablets that Moses brought back from Sinai inscribed with the ten commandments. A subtle form of deprecation, indeed – but totally inaccurate. So far as I have ever seen, neither J.S., nor the various witnesses who had seen them, ever described the records he had translated as being on “tablets”.
I waded through four segments before giving up. The false dichotomies, the deliberate “cafeteriazation” of the Holy Writ, and the deliberate truncation of LDS teachings became too much to continue.
In one spot, the presenters criticized LDS “Doctrine and Covenants” teaching on the three levels of heaven, without any acknowledgment that in the Bible itself – in the New Testament, no less – Paul makes reference to the same concept in 1Cor. 15:40-42.
There are apologists and then there are “apologists”. These people should _apologize_, to the people who invested their valuable time to watch this “drive by” hit piece, for their sloppy – if not deliberately deceptive – scholarship.
Ed
Jeff said,
April 2, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Ed, you are really straining my friend. You said:
“If any portion of the DVD in question has characterizations of Mormonism that are not true, then the whole of it runs afoul”
And the prime example you give is their use of tablets instead of plates. I’d have to watch it again to see if they are consistant with the terminology, but I certainly don’t have a problem with it.
Regarding your statement above “…the whole of it runs afoul” would you say the same thing about the Enclopedia Britannica which states:
“The prophet Mormon recorded their history on gold tablets…”
Also, if you do a search on Google, you’ll find LDS, those in Countercult ministries and others such as the Religious Tolerance org. use the term tablets. I guess they are all in it together to deceive the people, making it so the readers have in mind “two tablets that Moses brought back from Sinai.”
Thanks for stopping by Ed.
Andy Bird said,
April 3, 2007 at 3:24 am
I have a question for John Morehead. I understand your relational viewpoint when it comes to Mormons. Why then do you not apply that relational viewpoint to other Christians who do not share your post-modern culturally driven evangelical discussions. I find it concerning that you released the information early in an effort to sabotage the DVD with proclaimed “Justice” Yet you would never treat a Mormon this way. I would love your comments on this. Thank you for your time.
Keith Walker said,
April 4, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Ed said:
“If any portion of the DVD in question has characterizations of Mormonism that are not true, then the whole of it runs afoul of Ex. 20:16.
One simply cannot achieve a holy goal via unholy means.”
Are you sure that you want to stick with this standard? If so, will you also apply it to LDS Missionaries who constantly mischaracterize Mormonism to unsuspecting investigators?
Phil Martin said,
May 18, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I have lived in the heart of Southern Baptist country for over two decades now. Although I consider myself open to any good discussion about religion, I have never had one with a Southern Baptist where he attempted to teach me what he believed. It was always couched in terms of “this is what you believe and this is why it is wrong.” As a result, after 15 years in the South I came to realize that I really knew nothing at all about Baptists. So I went to my local library. There I could find a whole shelf full of books about the Mormons. One was a copy of the Book of Mormon, and all the rest I recognized as anti-Mormon screeds. On the other hand, there were only three books about the Baptists. Not knowing which represented the Baptist faith well and which did not, I decided not to check one out. Instead I asked a co-worker, who was also a Baptist minister, if there was a book he would recommend, after explaining my dilemma at the library.
He gave me his own personal copy of MacLeod’s “400 Years of Christian Witness” (I may not have the title right – that was many years ago). I only got through half of it before he needed it back, but what I read astounded me. It was very light on doctrine, but heavy on history and personalities. So I still don’t know much about what they believe (I’ve always assumed they were evangelicals, but I don’t know that), but I do know that if any of them want to talk to me about what a disreputable character Joseph Smith was, I know they have just stepped into quicksand, albeit ignorantly.
In sum, if evangelicals wish to have any sway at all among Mormons, all they need in the way of common ground is to teach what they know about themselves, and to drop the arrogance of thinking they know more about mormonism than Mormons do.