Comments on: ETS 5- James Beverley on Ravi Zacharias, Robert Millet, and the New Dialogue

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 17:05:52 +0000

Readers may be interested in a less skeptical position on Mormon-evangelical dialogue. I recommend a fall 2007 course at Salt Lake Theological Seminary that I will be teaching in connection with the National Student Dialogue Conference. I will be drawing upon the experiences and scholarship of interreligious and ecumenical dialogue and will apply this to dialogue with the new religions. On my blog are posts that discuss Leonard Swidler's “Dialogue Decalogue” as ideal principles for discussion, and an interview with John Saliba who discusses how these principles might need modification in light of dialogue with the new religions. These materials indicate that many evangelicals, and perhaps Mormons, have a long way to go before they are really ready for such dialogue, and unfortunately, such simplistic analysis and skepticism as reflected in some of the posts here by others reflect this reality.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:58:09 +0000

For those interested in a review by Global Missiology that provides a glimpse into how the missiological community views a cross-cultural missions paradigm for new religions as articulated in our book by Kregel Academic, see http://www.globalmissiology.org/english/docs_html/reviews/hexam_encountering_new_religious_movements.html.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:01:53 +0000

My December 2004 newsletter on Ravi coming to UT: http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=134 Much discussion on Ravi coming, Standing Together, etc.: http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=130 Discussion and blogs on Millet and Mouw having the same Jesus: http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=192 Discussion on the Millet/Johnson dialogues: http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=165 Discussion on is Johnson really compromising Scripture?: http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=153 Some writings I did on ministry: http://www.mormoninfo.org/index.php?id=6

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:23:45 +0000

A couple of comments:
3) Standing Together (along with Salt Lake Theological Seminary) more or less issued a condemnation of confrontational ministry as a whole while criticizing the antics of the KJV-only General Conference preachers. The friendship/relational/irenic dialogue models (or whatever fancy extravagant names you want to call them) were hailed as gospel and anything else was criticized as unloving. I hope that in the future ST and SLTS will publicly grant legitimacy and honor to traditional counter-cult efforts of brothers in Christ.
8) To borrow a quote: “That, sir, is not an apology. It is at best an explanation.” Mouw hardly offered a substantial apology, and stuck by his guns. He merely expressed regret for causing discord.
9) It should be noted that Mouw in this book expressed that he believes Millet is a brother in Christ, a Christian who worships the same God we do.
—
1 and 7) Consider that they are interacting with an slick academic contingent of Mormon neo-orthodoxy as though it represented Mormonism. That doesn't say much for interacting with the part and parcel of common Mormonism, nor for confronting Mormonism's historic claims, nor for confronting its own ambivalence over historic teachings, nor for slandering traditional counter-cult ministries of good brothers in Christ.
10) This guy is paid to be the Mormon PR guy/salesman to evangelicals. Shouldn't that contribute to our discernment?
– To quote Ronald Huggins:

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 07:52:41 +0000

I am convinced that the Christian and Mormon dialogue is misguided and naive. It merely allows Mormons to gain legitimacy by exploiting relations with Christians. It pains me to say it, but men like Richard Mouw are demonstrably ill-equipped to minister to Mormons.
Here is the evidence.
On November 14, 2004, Mouw gave a speech in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle wherein he apologized to Mormons for evangelicals who he thinks have sinned against the Latter-day-saints. He claimed that when evangelicals point out that Mormonism teaches God was once a man and that men can become gods, we bear false witness against Mormons. In other words, Mouw claims evangelicals who make this claim are liars.
After the apology, several people wrote Mouw, understandably offended. Responding to them, Mouw underscored his belief, saying:

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:46:22 +0000

For those interested, I would recommend my short review of John's article in the book he edited, mentioned above. Perhaps more to talk about in the future. Jeff Downs

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:08:38 +0000

Mr. Murdock,
Thank you for your further comments and questions. In response to your questions: First, I see a qualitate difference between much popular apologetics in response to Mormonism as contrasted with scholarly apologetics as we see in The New Mormon Challenge. While apologetics needs to be done at both scholarly and popular levels, we surely need to raise the bar in our apologetic efforts, one of the points raised by Mosser, Owen, and others.
Second, I don't believe I am making too great a distinction between the heresy-rationalist apologetic and cross-cultural missions models. (I prefer to move away from the relational vs. confrontational nomenclature since these labels do not accurately describe the vast differences in approach.) While one may perceive one's efforts as missions, as I have argued on a recent post on my blog, and in my article on the divide in LDS evangelism in Utah, what makes an approach missional is the recognition of and application of a cross-cultural missions methodology (which can and does incorporate apologetics when appropriate). For further description of my views on this distinction please see the sources mentioned above, as well as our book Encountering New Religious Movements (Kregel, 2005).
Finally, as to relevant apologetics I allude to Harold Netland's fine article some years ago where he spoke of the need for our apologetics to be culturally relevant, and to fit within the framework of the culture as part of an overall missions approach, rather than apologetics for apologetics sake. I believe that much evangelical apologetic misses the mark in LDS culture, for a variety of reasons, and while I do not believe apologetics are not needed, they do need to be appropriate to the culture, and subservient to a broader missional approach.
I hope these comments help. Further familiarity with the writings of those involved in a new, missional paradigm to new religions can help shed light on these ideas far better than brief exchanges on a blog, so I hope further research can keep the conversation going more profitably in other venues.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:03:30 +0000

Murdock,
Thanks for your clarification of your earlier analysis. Briefly, I do wish I had more time to go a bit deeper on topics. Let me mention a couple of things by way of further clarification.
I appreciate your reminder about what I said about LDS civility. In my remarks I mentioned LDS civility at the close in order to fortify a larger point.
Yes, LDS can be mean-spirited, divisive, etc. But, speaking generally, there is a classiness to the LDS world that is lacking in the evangelical world. We are far too grumpy, far too undiplomatic. I think part of the Mormon success has to do with the LDS world being run by business people who know the importance of image, and I do not mean that in a negative sense.
On another matter, I mentioned the Hazen prayer later in my chronology simply because I thought it only got on the radar screen in the last few months. I may have missed earlier controversy about it.
Murdock, I don't often blog but it is nice to have a chance to react to your analysis. By the way, regardless of any of the above, I was basically impressed with your summary of my views. Thank you.
I am doing a formal analysis of Bushman's new book. I welcome insights…write
jamesbeverley@sympatico.ca
Jim

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 01:16:48 +0000

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Morehead. I'm curious about the trichotomy you made noting a difference between traditional and scholarly apologetic approaches. What do you see as the essential difference between the two? I agree with you that no matter what our approach is, we need to co-exist and dialogue effectively. I wonder, though, if you

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:46:24 +0000

Thank you for posting your summary perspective on Dr. Beverley's paper, and for Dr. Beverly providing his response. I was unable to attend ETS and would have liked to have heard this presentation. This exchange gives me a feel for what was presented.
I agree that traditional apologetic approaches and the emerging missional and scholarly apologetic paradigm need to co-exist and dialogue effectively somehow. For my part, I have argued that apologetics needs to continue with the LDS, but it must be done with greater scholarly precision (as has been argued by the contributors to The New Mormon Challenge), and with cultural relevancy to the LDS. In addition, apologetics should serve as the handmaiden of missions. My greatest emphasis has been to argue that we need balance in our approach to Mormonism and other new religions, with the pendulum having swung too far in the direction of confrontational apologetics, and the time has come to incorporate the principles of cross-cultural missions in order to construct a missions paradigm that also incorporates relevant apologetics. Perhaps ongoing dialogue and fair critique to both efforts can take place in the near future.