Evangelical Seminary's Outreach To Mormons Does Not Bridge The Gap [Archive]

View Full Version : Evangelical Seminary's Outreach To Mormons Does Not Bridge The Gap

Trout

November 20th 2004, 11:52 AM

EVANGELICAL SEMINARY'S OUTREACH TO
MORMONS DOES NOT BRIDGE THE GAP

By Rob Sivulka

Are friendships with Mormons and criticism mutually exclusive? And should all evangelism to Mormons be in the context of friendship? The Salt Lake Theological Seminary Bridges movement1 would answer in the affirmative to both questions. The movement has become quite influential in the minds of many that conduct ministries to Mormon people. In fact, it seems that it has become quite an influential mode of doing any evangelism in our post-modern culture. This movement seems to be manifesting recently in a series of dialogues between an Evangelical and a Mormon. Certainly times and people change, but as a result of these dialogues the question is raised concerning how far our modes of evangelism should cave to the culture. There certainly are concerns that this particular Bridges mode of evangelism does in fact excessively cave to the culture.

The seminar, video, and workbook produced by Salt Lake Theological Seminary (Bridges: Helping Mormons Understand God's Grace) is an attempt by some local Utah educators and ministers to provide an alternative to traditional confrontational evangelism (evangelism that is primarily concerned about confronting with the gospel truth and not about first building friendships). In fact, traditional confrontational evangelism is not even a legitimate alternative according to this Bridges program. Rather, confrontational evangelism is generally an impediment and ineffective for Mormons coming to the real Christ. Ken Mulholland, president of Salt Lake Theological Seminary, and one of the driving forces behind the Bridges movement, argues that when an LDS individual is highly committed to her church, then apologetics is generally "counterproductive". "[T]here is a strong temptation to use logical arguments and apologetics to convince Mormons of the flaws of their religion", says Mulholland. "This approach generally backfires since the Latter-day Saint 'knows' -that is, feels emotionally - that his religion is true. The stronger the effort to persuade him, the more he will believe he is being persecuted."2 Not surprisingly, Mulholland has asked "for an end to the in-your-face style of preaching."3
Pastor Scott McKinney of Christ Evangelical Free Church in Orem, UT states in the Bridges video curriculum, "We have to be about telling people the good news about what is right with Jesus, not what is wrong with their religion." In addition, Pastor Ross Anderson of the Evangelical Free Church in Roy, UT says in the video, "In our evangelism we put the cart before the horse and we emphasize theological truth first. I think we have to start with the spiritual hunger." Shortly after this he said, "Theological discussions, while they may help them understand me better, or me understand them better, are really not that fruitful in terms of leading someone to Christ."

This "spiritual hunger" takes the form of building relational, experiential bridges of friendship. First and foremost, we ought to take them to church, share testimonies, pray with them, and in general, be nice to them. Then, and only then, does one bring in theology or apologetics, but never in a critical way. Referring to Rev. Greg Johnson (Evangelical president of Standing Together Ministries in Salt Lake City, UT), John W. Kennedy states in a recent Christianity Today article, "He believes that evangelicals have a greater potential for influence if they refrain from criticism, and that civil discourse is an essential prelude to a breakthrough."4 John Morehead of Watchman Fellowship in California led a Bridges seminar and said, "Several shared with us afterwards that while they were initially upset by the statement that 'Mormonism is a culture not a cult,' over the course of the day as Bridges unfolded they realized that this approach is indeed the proper one, and will likely be more effective than traditional apologetic ones."5

At an LDS ward in Anaheim, CA on January 10th, 2004, Greg Johnson and Robert Millet (Richard L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding and Professor of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University) conducted a two-hour dialogue. The dialogue was presented before a group of around a thousand Mormons and Evangelicals. They spent a majority of the time talking about their friendship, its intrinsic value, and how they could still be good friends and disagree with each other. They spent the remainder of their dialogue asking each other clarifying questions regarding doctrinal issues. At no point during the dialogue was the other pressed further to make sense of his position, and there was never any criticism of the views presented. This dialogue was certainly not a debate, and there was not a question-answer time.

Johnson and Millet are on a 14-city dialogue tour according to the Christianity Today article cited above. They have publicly dialogued with each other on their friendship and religious similarities and differences in such places as BYU, Christian colleges like Westmont, public universities like UCLA, Christian churches, Latter-day Saint (LDS) wards, and LDS institutes of religion such as at Harvard University. They have become good friends over the years, and have developed a desire to encourage and demonstrate to both Evangelicals and Mormons (groups that have been rather abrasive and aloof toward one another) how a respectful dialogue is to take place between the two groups.

The dialogue between Johnson and Millet had the Bridges tenor about it. This comes as no surprise since Johnson used to teach the Bridges seminar for Salt Lake Theological Seminary. (It should be noted though that the Johnson-Millet dialogue is an evolving work in progress, and the February 11th, 2004 dialogue at the University of Utah avoided many of the problems associated with this Anaheim dialogue). First and foremost, one got the impression that all evangelism needs to be bridge building. Johnson seemed to run down confrontational evangelism to build his bridges approach in several ways. 1. He explicitly distanced himself from his early model, Walter Martin. 2. He noticed how "ineffective" Martin's approach was; it was not bringing about Johnson's desired goal of extended friendships with more resulting conversations. 3. He used the Bridges illustration of Christian mission teams coming up to Utah to kick the beehive (Utah's state symbol) over only to leave the poor local Christians with such a backlash of some rather upset bees. 4. He attacked confrontational evangelism indirectly by quoting Mulholland's statement, "Mormonism is a culture not a cult". Confrontational evangelism (or even some other bridge-building approach for that matter) on the other hand is not worried about placating LDS ears with such a platitude. Confrontational evangelism will not do this for the simple fact that it is not going to compromise truth. And the truth is the LDS Church is a cult as well as a culture. (If it is not a cult, then nothing is. What well-respected Evangelical scholar who has written on the cults in general would not include the LDS Church? A "cult" is simply a term Christians use to specify a group that does not bother retaining a traditional denominational title and claims to be Christian even though it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity.) This does not mean that confrontational evangelists (or again, some other bridge-building evangelists) will lead with this particular controversial truth or even bring it up during a conversation or monologue. 5. All instances of street preachers were talked about in a negative way. Any stated positive instances would jeopardize Johnson's program.

In addition to denigrating confrontational evangelism, the dialogue also let Millet get away with too much. Johnson did not really call Millet on anything. Johnson asked all the substantial theological questions with the exception of one that Millet raised, and, as already mentioned, Johnson never pressed Millet any further. For example, Johnson asked Millet to state what LDS doctrine is since many Evangelicals find that pinning a Mormon down on what the LDS Church believes is like "trying to nail Jell-O to the wall". Millet offered his four criteria for what is LDS doctrine: 1. the scriptures (i.e., the standard works-King James Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price), 2. official LDS declarations or proclamations, 3. LDS general handbooks or approved curriculum, and 4. material offered in current LDS general conferences or other official gatherings by LDS general authorities. By sticking with this criteria, Millet can easily dodge such problems as former LDS prophet and president Brigham Young's general conference statements about Adam being "our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do."6

Now Johnson could have pressed Millet's criteria as being arbitrary since not all LDS hold to this, or as self-contradictory since Millet's own belief here is not found stated within these criteria. Johnson could have also tried bringing out the fact that Young claimed that all his sermons were in fact "Scripture".7 Of course Millet would say that Young was mistaken, but there are still problems with this.

First, the Bible damns Young as a false prophet for this teaching of Adam being God (e.g., Deuteronomy 13:1-5), and Millet certainly would not claim this. Second, Young was once a living prophet who spoke on this topic of Adam in a general conference. Wasn't Young supposed to be listened to, especially when he claimed to have received this from God? In his time, who was more authoritative than Young outside of Christ? And isn't Young still more authoritative than Millet anyway? Third, why are Young and others who followed him wrong and modern prophets right? Was it just because the latter are modern? But whom does this refer to-the fundamentalists (i.e., polygamist prophets that today hold Young's teaching on Adam) or those in the Salt Lake City headquarters? Fourth, what difference do the standard works make for being the final word when the LDS Church has seriously altered them? So something is more authoritative than even the standard works. But according to Millet, we do not have to go along with this more authoritative something or other under certain conditions. Fifth and finally, what this comes down to is that the Spirit will lead His (LDS) Church, and we do not need to know everything. There is no need to determine if this really is the Spirit of the Lord once one has received the "testimony of the Spirit" (i.e., "the burning in the bosom"). The Lord would not lie and steer an individual in the wrong way. With this sort of blind loyalty, it is hard to see what would really count against the LDS Church in principle.

Now this may not bother Millet at all, and perhaps Johnson should have pressed Millet simply on how the Bible appears to at least contradict the other standard works. Instead, Johnson explicitly affirmed Millet in certain beliefs when Johnson said, "Millet is the world's greatest authority on what Millet believes." In other words, Johnson didn't want the audience to accuse Millet of not believing certain items that may in fact be generally held by the LDS Church leaders or members when he explicitly denies them. But allowing Millet to be in agreement with Christianity on certain issues that go against the typically assumed LDS beliefs (even if this really is the case8) misses the primary point that Millet may in fact have a problem being associated with a hopelessly false church. In other words, the dialogue focuses on Millet, and how he is really not that bad of a guy. It's an autobiographical venture. A good "old fashion" debate (using "criticism" to Johnson's dismay) would rather steer away from what is going on in Millet's head, and instead focus it objectively on the LDS Church and what it teaches. As a result of losing this focus, the Salt Lake Theological Seminary Bridges approach utilized by Johnson seeks to earn the trust of the LDS individual in developing a meaningful relationship at the expense, at least initially, of contending for the truth. This is the stance of typical post-modern evangelism.

In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with seeking to earn the trust of the LDS individual, and in fact, it is quite commendable. And sometimes this may require certain beliefs and criticisms foundational for conversion to be temporarily withheld for the sake of establishing a deeper friendship. However, if these beliefs and criticisms are always permanently withheld (e.g., "We have to be about telling people the good news about what is right with Jesus, not what is wrong with their religion", "refrain from criticism", etc.) or even distorted in such a way as to placate the other's ears (e.g., "Mormonism is a culture not a cult"), then just how deep and authentic is the friendship? And if in principle any confrontation is ruled out from the beginning of the friendship, then how can the Lord's occasionally surprising will rule? Perhaps the Lord desires an individual to confront and criticize a stranger whether friendship between the two will result or not. The friendship though must never be divorced from truth in the overall scheme of things. And that is why other non-Salt Lake Theological Seminary bridge-building evangelists are free to criticize their friends at any point during the friendship, for "[f]aithful are the wounds of a friend" (Proverbs 27:6) even though a "friend loves at all times" (Prov. 17:17). Friendship becomes over-rated and an idol when it is divorced from the leading of "the Truth". This is the stance of typical traditional evangelism.

The Apostle Paul, for example, was not worried about the appearance of eating with the Gentiles as the Apostle Peter was when the Jews showed up (Galatians 2:11ff.). Peter was over-valuing friendship with the Jews and over-valuing their thoughts, and Paul immediately and publicly rebuked Peter because of it. At this particular juncture, Peter had disregarded the truth when he should have stood for it.

This is why the relationship between truth and friendship is asymmetrical. There can be truth without friendship, but there should never be friendship without truth. And this is why "the Truth" and "the Prince of Peace" came not to bring "peace, but a sword" to divide.9

The Johnson-Millet dialogue seemed to confuse and bother more people than it helped in its stated desire to demonstrate how an Evangelical-LDS dialogue should take place. First, by not allowing Millet to be pressed it left the unsuspecting very confused, while it left the suspecting very bothered. For the unsuspecting, Millet appeared to be rather similar to an Evangelical. For the suspecting, they were bothered that Millet was not pressed to clarify the nuances between Evangelicals and Mormons on certain key issues. Second, neither good friends nor strangers for that matter are required to let each other get away with this much. Why should all evangelism between two different religious groups really look like this? Is this really "the most effective" method? And effective for what... the intrinsic value of friendship, for having a better chance of having more open and friendly dialogues, or for actually getting people into the kingdom? And should effectiveness be the determining factor as to how we do ministry anyway? Of course if God is not drawing an unregenerate individual to Himself by the exclusive preaching of the Word, perhaps He will do it via an extended friendship.10 But why should we automatically lead our evangelism with an extended friendship that at least initially refrains from criticism simply because some pastor-scientist-micro-managers view this as a "more effective" way? If the mind is just as fallen as the heart, there's no guarantee that either will respond to the gospel or gospel-friendship appropriately at any point in the relationship. Third and finally in this regard, it became rather tedious to hear how much the "we can disagree and still be good friends" card was played. If they really believed this, then why didn't they spend more time just showing the audience? It appeared that there was just too much cowering to LDS sensitivities.

In conclusion, an evangelist of either a more confrontational bent or of a more bridge-building bent is not going to want to be needlessly offensive. But both realize that some things are too valuable not to risk being offensive at times. No one likes to be offended by someone banging on one's door in the middle of the night, for example. But if the home is on fire, the offense is understandable. Christ Himself is "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (1 Peter 2:8, KJV), and His disciples are called to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3, NAS emphasis added) as well as to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets" (Luke 6:26, NAS). Building bridges with LDS must never be at the expense of perpetually sparing the offensive truth of the gospel, watering it down, distorting it, or not being open for the Lord to use the preaching of His word and rebuking even "out of season" (2 Timothy 4:2).11

R. M. Sivulka
Parousia Ministries
Salt Lake City, UT
www.MormonInfo.org
February 18, 2004
Updated November 1, 2004

Bio: Rob Sivulka has been ministering to Utah since 1982. He is currently a Ph.D. student in philosophy at the University of Utah, and an on-line adjunct professor of philosophy at Rio Salado Community College (Tempe, AZ). He has three degrees from Biola University (B.A. Biblical Studies, M.A. Theological Studies, and M.A. Philosophy of Religion and Ethics), and one from San Diego State University (M.A. Philosophy).

Notice - The featuring of a particular ministry does not constitute endorsement of every single item or point of view published by said ministry by each and every member of TheologyWeb leadership. We strive to have a varied cross-section of representations of differing opinions on secondary Christian issues. The only requirement for the featuring of a particular ministry is that said ministry subscribes to the essentials artictulated in the TheologyWeb statement of faith found here in our Mission Statement (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/mission/)

Richbee

November 20th 2004, 12:54 PM

We now I can see why Ravi Zacharias would have skipped over such heavy bunching bag issues with Mormons.

I like the Ravi approach first, and insulting Brig' Yound and Jo' Smith first would no doubt creat the reverse miracle of deaf ears and closed minds, as the Mormons hear this all the time right?

BTW, funny trivia in my life, I grew up near to the long ago home of one of these heretics, and in Southern Vermont, maybe Young? Who's family then moved to New York.

Also, when Ravi preached Jesus, do the Mormons ever invite Jesus into their hearts?

I don't believe that Ravi invited conversion, or Baptism.

Is this a rub with Baptists? Go figure that!?

Trout

November 20th 2004, 01:05 PM

We now I can see why Ravi Zacharias would have skipped over such heavy bunching bag issues with Mormons.

He wouldn't have had to address those hot button issues, he could have contrasted Lds doctrine with Biblical doctrine in a way that would have challenged his target audience.

richbee:
I like the Ravi approach first, and insulting Brig' Yound and Jo' Smith first would no doubt creat the reverse miracle of deaf ears and closed minds, as the Mormons hear this all the time right?

Why would he have had to insult Joseph and Brigham?

richbee:
Also, when Ravi preached Jesus, do the Mormons ever invite Jesus into their hearts?

I don't believe that Ravi invited conversion, or Baptism.

Is this a rub with Baptists? Go figure that!?

I don't think Ravi made an invitation.

t-rex

November 20th 2004, 05:58 PM

Hi troutk13,

I just got done reading this article. And I do have a few thoughts about it. After a few Saturday chores I'll get to it.

t.rex

t-rex

November 21st 2004, 01:54 AM

Hi troutk13, just got done looking over Silvauk's article. I posted my initial response to it. If you get through it tell me what you think.

_______________________________________________-

At the beginning of this article Silvuak asks two questions. One, “should all evangelism to Mormons be in the context of friendship?”; and two, “how far should our modes of evangelism cave to the culture?” His (overly long) answer is: (1) no, and (2) none.

The middle of Silvuak’s article is a critique of the Bridges model of evangelism. This model focuses on relationships and highlighting Christian beliefs rather than denigrating mormon beliefs. I agree with Silvuak’s that this approach is long on friendship and short on evangelism. It’s friendship evangelism…without all that evangelism stuff!

I also agree that the Johnson-Millet dialogue is a pointless exercise as well. But only because it is pseudo-dialogue; if you always talk around the important issues, you haven’t said anything. And, in all actuality, you’ve reinforced the greatest mormon defense tactic of not having to examine or honestly articulate their belief system. (At the same time, Christians don’t have to examine or articulate theirs either.)

Silvuak’s solution is to return to what he calls “traditional confrontational evangelism.” He describes this as “evangelism that is primarily concerned about confronting with the gospel truth and not about first building friendships”. Unfortunately Silvuak doesn’t explain much more of his approach and seems to assume that we know the details.

For example, he assumes that “traditional confrontational evangelism” is simply that: traditional. But traditional to whom? It certainly isn’t traditional to me, nor the family I grew up in, nor many of the people I grew up with (all in Utah). I guess it’s traditional to Silvuak, but that hardly makes it the default witnessing position.

Taken as a whole, Silvuak’s default assumption about evangelism is that we must either chose truth or friendship. His syllogism states: Evangelism is truth, truth is confrontational, ergo, evangelism is confrontational. He further reasons that friendships are not confrontational; therefore, friendships are an evasion of truth. Thus he dismisses the “Bridges approach [that] seeks to earn the trust of the LDS individual in developing a meaningful relationship at the expense, at least initially, of contending for the truth. This is the stance of typical post-modern evangelism.”

It should be noted that Silvuak will allow for some friendships- as long as they’re confrontational. Real Christians are “free to criticize their friends at any point during the friendship, for "faithful are the wounds of a friend" (Proverbs 27:6) even though a "friend loves at all times" (Prov. 17:17).” He concludes, “friendship becomes over-rated and an idol when it is divorced from the leading of "the Truth". This is the stance of typical traditional evangelism.”

The only truth here is that Silvuak’s apologetic is a throw back to the us vs. them evangelism. This isn’t an article as much as it is a lament; a pious ode to the good ole days of hand-to-hand debate. In Silvuak’s world there are two choices he calls the typical post-modern evangelism or the typical traditional evangelism.

It can only strike one as odd that Silvuak can so easily discern the speck in the post-modern eye, while missing the log in eye of the modern. He seems unwilling to examine his own presuppositions. Such as: his argument is right because it is the one he grew up with, ie, older is better. For all his jabbering about confrontational truth, he seems blissfully unaware of the fact that his Weltanschauung is simply an enculturated snapshot of the American evangelical in the mid-twentieth century. An evangelicalism grounded in the Kantian rationalism of the Enlightenment: he who dies with the best argument wins.

This is most evident when Silvuak reluctantly admits that even though his evangelistic approach has not been productive, by God, at least it’s right. He states:

And [1] should effectiveness be the determining factor as to how we do ministry anyway? Of course, [2] if God is not drawing an unregenerate individual to Himself by the exclusive preaching of the Word, perhaps He will do it via an extended friendship. But why should we automatically lead our evangelism with an extended friendship that at least initially refrains from criticism simply because some pastor-scientist-micro-managers view this as a "more effective" way? [3] If the mind is just as fallen as the heart, there's no guarantee that either will respond to the gospel or gospel-friendship appropriately at any point in the relationship. (numbering emphasis added)

What a series of absolute contradictions! He maintains his approach is best even though (1) it is unproductive, (2) God compels people to respond regardless of the type of evangelism, and (3) the fallen mind can’t adequately respond to the confrontational message of truth anyways. Besides his jumble of Calvinism and Arminianism, he can’t seem to decide on what to predicate his Truth. Is Truth true because it is effective or because it is, well, truth. His dilemma is results or a tautology?

But Silvuak’s “traditional, confrontational evangelism” suffers from bigger problems than simply being a mish-mash of contradicting theologies, American evangelicalism, and rationalism. I find a Silvuak a confusion about how the gospel is to be an offense or offensive. And, more to the point, a confusion about whom and what exactly is suppose to be the offense.

In Silvuak’s theology sinners are confronted/criticized with a message of their wrong doing. The confrontation, and the definition of wrong-doing, is determined by Silvuak. If this is offensive, too bad; the gospel’s offensive. He reiterates, “Confrontational evangelism will not…compromise truth”. And further buttresses with a string of proof-texts:

Christ Himself is "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (1 Peter 2:8, KJV), and His disciples are called to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3, NAS emphasis added) as well as to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God" (2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). "Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers used to treat the false prophets" (Luke 6:26, NAS). Building bridges with LDS must never be at the expense of perpetually sparing the offensive truth of the gospel, watering it down, distorting it, or not being open for the Lord to use the preaching of His word and rebuking even "out of season" (2 Timothy 4:2).11

Silvuak’s theology stipulates that Silvuak be offensive, not Christ. The delivery of the gospel is offensive, not the gospel itself. I find it odd, and disturbing, that the main hallmark of a Silvuakian Christian is confrontation, yet we might say the biblical hallmarks are: loving, joyful, peaceful, longsuffering, gentle, good, faithful, meek, temperate. It is unfathomable to him that the messenger could be winsome, but the message difficult.

It is also odd that he takes upon himself the responsibility of convicting others, when this is the express role of the Holy Spirit (Jn 16.8). Silvuak also defends his confrontational evangelism by stating, “Perhaps the Lord desires an individual to confront and criticize a stranger”. First, I’d be more than surprised to hear of a Spirit-led evangelism from Silvuak. Second, if it is Spirit-led directive, the biblical precedent is that it be exhortation, edification, or comfort (1 Cor 14.3). And then it is to fellow believers; I’m not sure of the biblical precedent of criticizing strangers.

For Silvuak, the gospel is a message; not a power to change lives (Rom 1.16). Truth is an exegesis; not a demonstration of the Spirit and power (1 Cor 2.4). Silvuak is an offense; not Christ. Silvuak convicts; not the Holy Spirit.

I realize that Silvuak comes from a large tradition of people who feel as he does. I am not trying to single him out nor castigate his genuine faith and zeal. I also suggest there are better ways of witnessing and gentler ways of evangelism.

Trout

November 22nd 2004, 11:54 PM

This response came via email:

Some people need their cage rattled and to be forced to confront the
truth; others respond better in different contexts. That would seem to favor
allowing both approaches to co-exist, and the burden would be on Ken
Mulholland, Ross Anderson, Greg Johnson & co. to show the
inappropriateness of confrontational evangelism (CE). It seems to me one could argue for that in three ways.

1. CE is religiously and/or morally inappropriate.

2. While both CE and friendship evangelism (FE) are prima facie
legitimate, the presence of CE renders FE less efficacious, such that the number of net conversions (Mormon converts to Christianity - Christian converts to Mormonism) with FE & CE together (or CE alone, for that matter) are fewer than the number of net conversions one could expect given FE alone.

3. Christianity is the minority view in a given area, so by first
engaging solely in FE, Christianity is given sufficient cultural
capital to respectably proceed with more overt forms of evangelism.

In response:

Ad 1: There can be no in-principle bar to CE, as Jesus, the apostles, the
early church, and even the OT prophets engaged their listeners in just
such a way. That may not mean that everyone should do so, but it does mean that there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with such a style.

Ad 2: Mulholland et al would need some sort of evidence for this, and I
doubt this evidence is forthcoming. In fact, the evidence seems to be
to the contrary: more overtly evangelical denominations that simply present
and stand up for their message have flourished; denominations taking a more
exclusively ecumenical, relational and invitational approach have not;
indeed, they have shrunk. (I grant that matters may not be quite so
simple, but I think there is a case to be made there.)

Ad 3: Going for the soft sell when one is in the minority runs a bigger
danger: absorption. Further, again, it's not the biblical model: the early
church was absolutely outnumbered; first by those opposed to Jesus'
messiahship within Jerusalem and the Jewish community in general, and
then within the larger confines of the Roman empire. Again, presumably not
everyone was confrontational, but plenty were - and the Church grew and
grew.

NestorianWillie

November 23rd 2004, 05:57 PM

One simple thing needs to be held in mind so that this discussion doesn't become blurred, and that is that while the general debate between Christians as to how we best evangelize Mormons may (and certainly will) continue, the Ravi Zacharias issue (specifically his speaking in the Mormon tabernacle) is really about the few comments of a couple of guests from California (specifically, Fuller & Talbot Seminaries).

There is almost universal agreement from what I can tell on the following:
(1) Bringing Ravi to SLC and getting the tabernacle hook-up was a great idea with a lot of potential to bring Mormons into an physical arena with which they are familiar while bringing them into a spiritual arena with which they are unfamiliar & thereby expose them to a dynamic hearing biblical truth.
(2) Ravi did a fine job in a circumstance fraught with possible stickiness (and ickiness).

The errors were on the part of the California boys (Mouw & Hazen), whose extra-curricular (and unnecessary) remarks took the 'friendship' to a level of a virtual make-out session, asking forgiveness for all evangelicals (implying we've all misrepresented and ill-treated Mormons), quoting Joseph Smith in favorable (even noble-sounding) tones, etc.

Suffice it to say that whether you form tight friendships with Mormons in order to reach them or forego such intimacy & simply keep them engaged and challenged on their beliefs - either way, there is never a need for the ichthus to 'get it on' with the seagull, if I may speak symbolically. That doesn't do anybody any good; it's likely to confuse or mislead Mormons, to make Christians seem disingenuous, and make me feel like I need a shower afterwards.

Trout

November 23rd 2004, 06:27 PM

Good observations Nestorian!

I certainly believe that both FE (Friendship Evangelism) and CE (Confrontational Evangelism) are very effective ways of reaching just about any group of lost individuals. I think the problem arises when one group feels the need to marginalize the other. Both groups serve a need in evangelism. Truth be known, both groups can enhance their effectiveness by demonstrating a certain degree of Christian unity.

I come from the CE school, but I also engage in FE when possible. I wouldn't dream of telling my FE brothers and sisters to cease and desist, however, I've been confronted by well meaning Christians who would like to put a stop to my CE. Therein lies the problem, CE has proven itself to be a very effective way of reaching Mormons, there are countless testimonies revealing just how CE has been the tool God has used to change lives. Why would someone who chooses to exclusively engage in FE want the same from everyone?

A friend of mine spoke with Ed Decker recently, who was CE if there ever was one. Ed said that he still receives on average 1000 emails a year telling of how his books and videos helped them escape the grasp of Mormonism. That's quite a figure, I don't think there is any way possible for one person using FE to touch that many lives. I can only wonder just how many lives the Tanners have touched.

NestorianWillie

November 24th 2004, 11:03 AM

That's a great observation, my Nephite bro., and one that is probably lost in the whole discussion. Christians have a nasty (and errant) tendancy to seek 'the program' by which all the work is going to be done. And in that search for the One True Strategy (which I "know" to be true, I bear you my witness), we have to assume that the whole lot of the Mormons are a monolith.

But as someone who lives in the heart of it, you are aware of the multiple levels on which they exist - ranging from the totally clueless (who could benefit from a Tanners bookstore visit) to the utterly brainwashed & convinced (who may need some exposure to shocking information combined with a few genuine Christian friendships) to the rare apologist who reads FAIR's diet of bullcrap (needs a Christian friend to slap sense into him), to the 'jack' who knows about the "anti" literature (and secretly realizes the ugly truth) but figures that all churches are false at heart anyway - THAT guy needs a jolt of the reality of the Bible's reliable truthfulness & the overall coherence of real Christianity.

To add a point to what you said about Decker & Tanners, probably the most encouraging newsletter I read is from Dennis/Rauni Higley, who have constant ongoing discussions with people around the globe, & their approach (kindness & friendship that delivers no-nonsense answers no matter how painful) sees amazing effects.

As they say in Colorado City, Word to your mothers.

t-rex

November 24th 2004, 06:55 PM

Hi everybody…

Two things I’d like gently and humbly to add. :wink: The first is that there seems to be a false dilemma being posited that we have to choose either CE or FE. Frankly neither of them has been that effective, esp. here in Utah. If one of these methods was sweeping people into the church there would be no point of discussion. But the fact is, over the last several decades, CE hasn’t made much of a dent. In the past decade, FE hasn’t made much of a dent. And it’s not just that huge revivals haven’t been taking place, it’s that Christian “witnessing” has effected only a fraction of a fraction of the people with whom we work, live, eat, and barbeque with.

Most mormons are leave the mormon church because they simply have some kind of emptiness not being addressed, they have a dream where Jesus talks to them, they start praying to Jesus and their lives start to change, they were only marginal mormons anyway, etc. I've never heard a mormon say they changed because somebody came up them and said,"You worship a false Jesus" or some such.

I find it hard to believe that there isn’t at least a cursory examination of the notion that we are simply using enculturated methods of evangelism that are simply reflective of our culture. Sometimes that works, most of the time we need something that transcends our culture. CE is old-school culture that relies on argument and “reason”. FE is new-school culture that relies on political correctness and spirituality. Our faith needs to have coherent, intellectual structure and it needs to have respect and sensitivity. But that is what gives shape to our faith, it is not the faith itself. Wasn’t it the evangelical saint, CS Lewis, whose most addressed point was the warning about the intellectualization of faith? It is the practice of faith, not the pronouncement of faith, which attracts peoples’ attention.

In response:

Ad 1: There can be no in-principle bar to CE, as Jesus, the apostles, the
early church, and even the OT prophets engaged their listeners in just
such a way. That may not mean that everyone should do so, but it does mean that there isn't anything intrinsically wrong with such a style.

I’m not sure that such broad generalizations can be gathered as supportive evidence. Jesus, the apostles, and the OT prophets all engaged in CE?

Which apostles were confrontational exactly?

Paul’s evangelism centered around reconciliation. In Christ, we take part in God’s plan of reconciliation. We are then made a new creation and ambassadors; given the ministry of furthering that reconciliation.

Paul states: “We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed.” They (the apostles) are characterized as ministers by:

patience, tribulations, need and distress;
stripes and imprisonments; tumults, labors, sleeplessness, and fasting;
purity, knowledge, longsuffering, kindness,
the Holy Spirit, sincere love, the word of truth, power of God, armor of righteousness,
honor & dishonor; evil report and good; deceivers yet true; unknown yet known; chastened but not killed;
sorrowful yet rejoicing; poor yet rich; having nothing but possessing all things. (2Cor. 6 & 7)
None of these sound very confrontational.

Which OT prophets were confrontational?

Most of them. But:

[1] they were ineffective. Jeremiah complained bitterly that no one listened to him. Isaiah’s message was not public in nature. The minor prophets were unheeded. In fact, this is one of Jesus’ main charges against the Jewish people: that they did not listen to the prophets!
[2] The prophets were given to Israel, not the other nations.
[3] The ministry of the OT prophets was replaced by the Holy Spirit! We no longer have to have someone else carry God’s message to us- God the Holy Spirit speaks directly to us. It is the Holy Spirit’s place to confront, convict, or condemn. (Jn 16)
Jesus was confrontational? To whom?

Did he confront the drunkards and prostitutes…or was he noted for being their friend? Did he confront the religious leaders, yes. The religious leaders of Judaism, not paganism. So to the non-Christian types, Jesus is gentle and friendly. To the religious leaders, he is corrective; yes, even confrontational.

So? Bring the peace and acceptance of God to the confused, outcast, the desperate. Let Christ confront the leaders of His church. As He does in Revelation. It is not our job.

Yes, I think there is something intrinsically wrong with self-proclaiming ourselves as confrontational evangelists. We are ministers of God’s reconciliation.

Ad 2: Mulholland et al would need some sort of evidence for this, and I
doubt this evidence is forthcoming. In fact, the evidence seems to be
to the contrary: more overtly evangelical denominations that simply present
and stand up for their message have flourished; denominations taking a more
exclusively ecumenical, relational and invitational approach have not;
indeed, they have shrunk. (I grant that matters may not be quite so
simple, but I think there is a case to be made there.)
I’d like to see the case be made. How about Morganthaler’s Worship Evangelism. She has hard data to back up her thesis. (Which is: all these Purpose Driven churches really aren’t any more effective comparatively; and neither are apologetic ministries. The churches that perform that best are those that worship the most consistently, spontaneously, and genuinely.)

How about Wimber’s Power Evangelism. He puts in a lot of information and stats about what works on the mission field, (hint: it’s not argumentation).

There is no community of people that are flourishing anywhere with just a “message”, regardless of how staunch they are about it.

Ad 3: Going for the soft sell when one is in the minority runs a bigger
danger: absorption. Further, again, it's not the biblical model: the early
church was absolutely outnumbered; first by those opposed to Jesus'
messiahship within Jerusalem and the Jewish community in general, and
then within the larger confines of the Roman empire. Again, presumably not
everyone was confrontational, but plenty were - and the Church grew and
grew.

Wow, the biblical model of evangelism is confrontation? I'd like to see that outlined.

Let’s take a model and call it Transformation Evangelism.

Let’s assume that God has grabbed hold of our lives, showed us the wretches that we were, and we turned to Christ.

In Christ, we are made new creation, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, we are made part of the body of Christ; we are made children of the day and the blindness of our culture has been removed. None of these are figurative statements; they are literal.

We are the fragrance of God to those around us; not more white noise. (2C 2)

We are living epistles written by the work of the Spirit. We are not paper arguments, listing what we consider to be the error of others. People are constantly reading us; they are not waiting to be lectured. (2C 3)

Are not the people around us blinded by the god of this age? To what effect do we berate the blind for being so? Blinded eyes are opened by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit…no argument, confrontational or otherwise, opens blind eyes!

Looking through the book of Acts, it’s hard to claim that the church grew from the confrontational demeanor of the apostles. Acts starts with the promise of the Holy Spirit coming to empower the Church. This empowerment is not better argumentation skills.

When the Holy Spirit descends and in-fills the disciples, those standing around them see a dramatic difference in their behaviors and personalities. People witness the transformation in Christians. (Christians don’t witness to people?). People ask for an explanation of this transformation. Peter, Spirit-led, preaches to them, they respond. The preaching is secondary, maybe tertiary, at best.

A Spirit-formed community follows.

Some initial thoughts,
got to run for a minute and get a turkey...

t.rex

SlaveofChrist

November 25th 2004, 04:44 PM

T-Rex- That was a well written and respectful analysis. I'm no regular on here (as of late) but I feel inclinded to defend my friend. I have spent weeks at a time staying with Rob Sivulka, as for Rob Silvuak, I am not sure who that guy is. I have spent hours upon hours with him, side by side, in evangelism to Mormons. From this I have observed:

That his method has been very productive, contrary to...
[CITE="This is most evident when Silvuak reluctantly admits that even though his evangelistic approach has not been productive, by God, at least it’s right."]

I'm not sure that I caught any explicit admission of his lack of success. I have analyzed his returns compared to my own and the returns of hundreds of others. From what I have noticed he is doing rather well compared to everyone else- whether FE or CE.

[CITE="Silvuak’s theology stipulates that Silvuak be offensive, not Christ. The delivery of the gospel is offensive, not the gospel itself. I find it odd, and disturbing, that the main hallmark of a Silvuakian Christian is confrontation, yet we might say the biblical hallmarks are: loving, joyful, peaceful, longsuffering, gentle, good, faithful, meek, temperate. It is unfathomable to him that the messenger could be winsome, but the message difficult. "]

I disagree that his theology stipulates that, and even if it does this is one point at which he is inconsistent with his theology. Amidst my many hours of evangelism with him I have noticed that he has been loving to the Mormon with whom he speaks. He is joyful over conversions, peaceful in demeanor when appropriate, quite patient, gentle in attitude, good in conduct, faithful in his work and to his word, meek in his knowledge concerning all 3 MA's and PhD work, and very temperate. It is very fathomable that the messenger could be winsome and the message difficult, because he is quite winsome.

[CITE="For Silvuak, the gospel is a message; not a power to change lives (Rom 1.16). Truth is an exegesis; not a demonstration of the Spirit and power (1 Cor 2.4). Silvuak is an offense; not Christ. Silvuak convicts; not the Holy Spirit. "]

I wonder why we spend so much time in prayer before evangelizing? I think these are all assumptions made from his brief article that are simply not reality.

I write this with all respect as I am not on the level of scholarship that you appear to be. But when it comes to experience of evangelism with Rob Sivulka- well, I got you there :lol:

God Bless!

t-rex

November 27th 2004, 01:43 AM

Bob Betts

November 30th 2004, 02:33 PM

t-rex

December 1st 2004, 01:53 PM

Though I have never been a big fan of "the litany of (in my opinion) sharper-than-necessary sound bites over a bullhorn" approach to street preaching, nor do I completely agree with Greg Johnson's ilk and approach to bridge-building if Greg's relationship with Bob Millet and their "debates" are the quintessential examples of it.

That being said, I welcomed and agreed with Rob's article.

In His Service,
Bob Betts
Concerned Christians of Mesa, AZ
Hi Bob,

Just curious, what parts of Rob's article did you agree with? Or is it only preferable to the Johnson/Millet traveling sideshow?

Maybe more specifically, do you take the Confrontational Evangelism approach to the Hispanic, Catholic population in your area?

In Him,
t.rex

greyphilosophy

December 3rd 2004, 09:00 PM

Hey Rob, long time no see.

I think the bridges program is worth a little more credit than you gave it. I think everyone in the bridges course I was in was there because they had an ernest desire to share the gospel, and I don't see the course dissuading that desire. Instead I see it as a process of building rapport, so that when the gospel message is delivered it will be understood to be truth. Even after "conversion" many former LDS struggle because they were indoctrinated with certain ways of thinking. Following the bridges program the evangelist would try to make this transition as smooth as possible by providing love and support. The program itself also helped a number of former LDS to be able to forgive the LDS church for having deceived them. Perhaps bridges will result in fewer people leaving the LDS church than traditional evangelism, but I would bet those that do leave because of the bridges program will be way more likely to stay in the Christian church.

~Alfred

Ross Anderson

March 14th 2005, 04:23 PM

Hey, I just stumbled on to Rob Sivulka's article and this thread. It appears that the thread is dead, but as one who is quoted in the article, let me respond to a couple of things anyway.

First and most importantly, it somewhat misses the point to simply think of the Bridges approach in terms of the category of "friendship evangelism." The point is, rather, that those who minister in Utah or among Mormons should recognize that Mormonism constitutes a distinct culture. That's the point Ken Mulholland is making. Not that it isn't a cult in the traditional use of the word. But it is much more than that: it is an entire way of life, an identity. Thus we feel that ministry to Mormons should be approached with missiological insight. We should to about our ministry here in the same way a missionary would prepare for and engage in ministry in Thailand or Romania or anywhere. Bridges is far less about relational evangelism and far more about culturally sensitive, culturally informed evangelism. The fact is that one aspect of Mormon culture is sensitivity about persecution. That should be taken into account if our evangelism is to be wise. Another fact is that Mormons employ a different epistemology than Christians. While we don't give up our epistemology, we have to understand how the people we're addressing make decisions about truth, and factor that in to our evangelism. The whole point is simply this: what forms of evangelism are most fitting given the culture that is being addressed? I think anyone with common sense would recognize that, while the message is transcultural and unchanging, you would use different methods and approaches in different cultures.

Second, someone mentioned the relative effectiveness of confrontational versus Bridges approach - Ed Decker gets a hundred letters a year, etc. It might be interesting to note that churches using a Bridges approach are seeing significant evangelistic fruit. Scott McKinney's church (he was quoted in Bridges) has an attendance of over 500, with over 60% being ex-LDS. I can give a number of illustrations of Utah churches with many, many conversions of ex-Mormons using the Bridges approach.

Third, there is a place for an apologetics type ministry. It is absolutely necessary, and I don't know anybody who says otherwise. I honor and respect the foundational work done by the Tanners, Watchman Fellowship, MRM and others. I don't have a beef with Rob S. and his ministry at all. It has its place. But if you think about the reasons why most Mormons are Mormon, it has very little to do with beliefs or doctrine. People who are born into Mormonism don't stay Mormons because of Mormon doctrine. They stay loyal because this is their identity. People who convert to Mormonism rarely do so because of the doctrine. They do so because of relationships, because it answers a particular question in their life at the time, because they want to be part of a community, etc. That's one reason why I think the rational-apologetics method falls short. It treats people as if their cognitive function could be separated from their whole identity, as if a person is merely a disembodied head who makes all decisions based on a purely rational or informational basis.

Fourth, the Bridges material is not devoid of evangelistic content. It would be a mistake to think that Bridges is only about making friends. The point is about speaking the truth in the context of trust, and with understanding of Mormons' cultural identity and not just their theology. When I teach Bridges, I always couple it with material from the Tanners and other sources. Bridges doesn't emphasize the content stuff because a lot of people have already done that really well.

Fifth, I don't think there is a necessary connection between the Bridges approach and Greg Johnson's activities. Many of us who are quoted on Bridges are uncomfortable with the direction Greg has taken. Let me give an illustration. You have some pretty offensive, obnoxious street preachers around Temple Square. But that doesn't mean that what Rob Sivulka does is wrong or unsound. I would never judge him by the worst street preachers. Likewise I prefer not to be judged by Greg Johnson's approach. I count Greg as a friend, but I don't agree with and will not participate in several of the things he does. For example, I chose not to sit on the platform during the Ravi Zacharias meeting at the Tabernacle, when invited to join other pastors there. My biggest beef with Greg is his confusion of categories. A relational approach only works in private, where if I am misunderstood by my friend, I can correct that by further conversation. In a private dialog the flow of thought and information is manageable. Greg's mistake is to confuse the dynamics of private versus public discourse. If I take the dialog and make it public, anything said becomes subject to public misunderstanding. And of course, the relationship can then be publicily manipulated.

This is a great conversation about strategic issues. I wish I had found this thread when it was live!

Ross Anderson
Wasatch Church
Roy, UT

Trout

March 14th 2005, 07:15 PM

Hey, I just stumbled on to Rob Sivulka's article and this thread. It appears that the thread is dead, but as one who is quoted in the article, let me respond to a couple of things anyway.

Greetings Ross, and welcome to Tweb.

Ross Anderson:
First and most importantly, it somewhat misses the point to simply think of the Bridges approach in terms of the category of "friendship evangelism." The point is, rather, that those who minister in Utah or among Mormons should recognize that Mormonism constitutes a distinct culture. That's the point Ken Mulholland is making. Not that it isn't a cult in the traditional use of the word. But it is much more than that: it is an entire way of life, an identity. Thus we feel that ministry to Mormons should be approached with missiological insight. We should to about our ministry here in the same way a missionary would prepare for and engage in ministry in Thailand or Romania or anywhere. Bridges is far less about relational evangelism and far more about culturally sensitive, culturally informed evangelism. The fact is that one aspect of Mormon culture is sensitivity about persecution. That should be taken into account if our evangelism is to be wise. Another fact is that Mormons employ a different epistemology than Christians. While we don't give up our epistemology, we have to understand how the people we're addressing make decisions about truth, and factor that in to our evangelism. The whole point is simply this: what forms of evangelism are most fitting given the culture that is being addressed? I think anyone with common sense would recognize that, while the message is transcultural and unchanging, you would use different methods and approaches in different cultures.

While I understand the sentiment of your explanation, I must add that there surely isn't one way, and one way alone, in which all of Christianity should approach those of the LDS faith.

Ross Anderson:
Second, someone mentioned the relative effectiveness of confrontational versus Bridges approach - Ed Decker gets a hundred letters a year, etc. It might be interesting to note that churches using a Bridges approach are seeing significant evangelistic fruit. Scott McKinney's church (he was quoted in Bridges) has an attendance of over 500, with over 60% being ex-LDS. I can give a number of illustrations of Utah churches with many, many conversions of ex-Mormons using the Bridges approach.

And from that, I gather that both approaches are an effective means of delivering the Gospel to our LDS neighbors. One need not abandon confrontational evangelism, simply because it makes some feel squeamish. But rather we should encourage those from all the differing shcools of thought in regard to LDS evangelism.

One beef that I have with the Friendship Evangelism crowd is the condemnation that they have issued toward those who have chosen to evangelize differently than they have. And I am also quite dissapointed with some of the statements issued by Mullholland and his contemporaries.

Ross Anderson:
Third, there is a place for an apologetics type ministry. It is absolutely necessary, and I don't know anybody who says otherwise. I honor and respect the foundational work done by the Tanners, Watchman Fellowship, MRM and others. I don't have a beef with Rob S. and his ministry at all. It has its place.

And I think a debt of gratitude is owed to those who have blazed the trail into Mormondom. Not veiled criticism of their long-standing, very successful ministries.

Ross Anderson:
But if you think about the reasons why most Mormons are Mormon, it has very little to do with beliefs or doctrine. People who are born into Mormonism don't stay Mormons because of Mormon doctrine.

But many times they will abandon Mormonism because of doctrine.

Ross Anderson:
They stay loyal because this is their identity. People who convert to Mormonism rarely do so because of the doctrine. They do so because of relationships, because it answers a particular question in their life at the time, because they want to be part of a community, etc. That's one reason why I think the rational-apologetics method falls short. It treats people as if their cognitive function could be separated from their whole identity, as if a person is merely a disembodied head who makes all decisions based on a purely rational or informational basis.

What if both systems could work in harmony? Why do many of the Bridges people seem to want to put a stop to CE?

Ross Anderson:
Fourth, the Bridges material is not devoid of evangelistic content. It would be a mistake to think that Bridges is only about making friends. The point is about speaking the truth in the context of trust, and with understanding of Mormons' cultural identity and not just their theology. When I teach Bridges, I always couple it with material from the Tanners and other sources. Bridges doesn't emphasize the content stuff because a lot of people have already done that really well.

It sounds like you are using both systems to our advantage.

Ross Anderson:
Fifth, I don't think there is a necessary connection between the Bridges approach and Greg Johnson's activities. Many of us who are quoted on Bridges are uncomfortable with the direction Greg has taken. Let me give an illustration. You have some pretty offensive, obnoxious street preachers around Temple Square. But that doesn't mean that what Rob Sivulka does is wrong or unsound. I would never judge him by the worst street preachers. Likewise I prefer not to be judged by Greg Johnson's approach. I count Greg as a friend, but I don't agree with and will not participate in several of the things he does. For example, I chose not to sit on the platform during the Ravi Zacharias meeting at the Tabernacle, when invited to join other pastors there. My biggest beef with Greg is his confusion of categories. A relational approach only works in private, where if I am misunderstood by my friend, I can correct that by further conversation. In a private dialog the flow of thought and information is manageable. Greg's mistake is to confuse the dynamics of private versus public discourse. If I take the dialog and make it public, anything said becomes subject to public misunderstanding. And of course, the relationship can then be publicily manipulated.

I couldn't agree more!

Ross Anderson:
This is a great conversation about strategic issues. I wish I had found this thread when it was live!

Ross Anderson
Wasatch Church
Roy, UT

There might be a few here who would still like to engage this subject.

And thanks again, very good first post. I'm looking forward to many more.

Trout

Vorkosigan

April 19th 2005, 08:30 AM

I think this article and thread are important. Evangelical Christianity's unwillingness to live with other beliefs and belief stances is on display crystal clear here, and its ultimate goals, to stamp out everything else, is made plain. Also on display are its unscrupulousness -- how can we debase friendship by leveraging friendships to bring more people into our own cult and out of other cults? -- and self-righteousness. Yet another nice thing about it was the way it accused the Mormons of being bad for doing exactly what the evangelicals are doing: building a culture and a cult. All in all, a wonderful piece of writing from Mr. Sivulka. Very useful in debates with my fellow atheists over how evangelical Christianity should be regarded. I shall certainly retain a copy.

Vorkosigan

Jaltus

April 19th 2005, 10:33 AM

Vork would rather turn everyone into an atheist, and thinks everyone should be an atheist and have his morals.

Thus, it is only wrong to not be whatever Vork is.

Vorkosigan

April 19th 2005, 10:55 AM

You're wrong there, Jaltus, for my wife is a Buddhist and my son a Christian (goes to Christian school). The world I envision is one where everyone can progress in the direction they want to, and no belief stance is out attempting to eliminate all others. Unfortunately, those of us who practice live and let live inhabit a planet filled with people like the Mormons and evangelicals, constantly working to snuff out every other idea on the earth, and erecting vast structures of power and control that contain, as Mr. Sivulka's letter shows, neither respect for others, nor friendship, but simply Authority. Mr. Sivulka's vision of God is that of a boot stamping on the human face, forever....

Lachoneus

May 31st 2005, 09:10 AM

As a Mormon, first let me clear up a few things. One of my favorite books is "Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up" by Dr. Bercot (an Evangelical Christian scholar). He has delved into the ancient texts written by Christians prior to the Romanization of Christianity and has discovered that some (not all, of course) long-held assumptions about what the early Christians believed are in error. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints find much in Bercot's book to praise - since many of the things he points out are in line with what we believe had to be restored to the earth, having been lost in what we call the Great Apostacy.

Among other things, Dr. Bercot explains how the early Christians perceived the doctrine of Grace. The examples he uses in his discussion could come right out of a Mormon Church manual - for we believe the same!

The Mormons believe that we demonstrate our faith by obedience to God, and that we cannot "earn" our way into heaven, but it is by Grace we are saved - after all we can do (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:23).

Do demonstrate the necessity (not to be confused with the superiority) of works, we look at the Savior's words in Matthew 25 (the parable of the sheep and the goats). Notice that the sheep are saved because they reached out, obeyed the commandments and actually loved their fellow man, whereas the goats departed to hell (essentially) for not doing the works of Christianity - feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. This teaching, coupled with the Savior's teaching at the Last Supper (by THIS shall men know ye are my disciples - if ye have love one for another) is the essense of what we Mormons believe is the essence of Christianity - actually following Christ.

However, in other Mormon scripture, we are expressly told that the spirit of contention (arguing) is of the devil, not of God. Hence, the "debate" you seem to desire is, by command from God, not appropriate in an LDS context. Hence, if you really want some kind of confrontational debate of doctrine between Evangelicals (for example) and Mormons, good Mormons must, at the point of contention (i.e., the opposite of love) decline, in the sacred name of Christ, whose name we take upon ourselves at baptism in a covenant to thereafter ever be His witnesses.

Since we believe that God is the same yesterday, today and forever (attested in all four sacred books Mormons call "the Standard Works" - the scriptures of Mormonism), we simply cannot accept that the Heavens are now silent, that God no longer speaks to His children through His prophets, as He has done in ALL ages of the past, and that He has authored the confusion that World religion texts call "Christianity" - of which Evangelicalism is a part. Rather, we believe that God has revealed His truth unto ALL his children, and that the Light of Christ is given to all men, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, etc. alike, so that when the true doctrine of Christ is presented to them, all people will better be pre-disposed to respond favorably.

Note that while Mormons would claim to be Christian - among those striving to follow the teachings of Christ as set forth in the New Testament - we do not consider ourselves part of "Chistianity" in the sense of having come from that mess of conflict and confusion. Rather, Father and Son have appeared to our prophet, Joseph Smith, and through Joseph God has restored His holy Priesthood authority and His holy Church, according to the pattern set forth in ancient times, with apostles and prophets, bishops, evangelists and so forth.

As promised in Isaiah 29 God has caused to be revealed the testimony of a branch of the House of Israel that was seperated from the rest of that sacred House, even the Book of Mormon, which does not contradict the true doctrines of the Bible, but adds to the testimony of the Bible that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and that there is no other name given under Heaven whereby man kind can be saved.

As prophesied in Isaiah 2 the Lord has caused to be built His Holy House - the temple/mountain of the Lord's House - in the tops of the mountains, in Salt Lake City, Utah. Celebrated Christian (Methodist) scholar Margaret Barker, who has studied the First and Second temples of the Old Testament, has recognized that, through Joseph (and Brigham), the Mormon temple rites reflect those rites known in the First Temple period of ancient Israel, which is quite astonishing considering that such rites were not known anywhere on earth during the life - or several decades after - the life of the prophet, Joseph.

Mormons are a covenant people. Our scriptures admonish us to seek out the good and beauty of all God's children everywhere, for ALL truth and beauty are part of God's kingdom on earth.

So, rather than tear down others, we seek to encourage those things we all hold dear and sacred. Rather than do as satan desires and argue and contend heatedly - even in rage (as I have unfortunately witnessed), we seek to build bridges. In the end, I think the Lord will be far more pleased if His children can join together and (for example) build together houses for Habitat for Humanity - arm in arm as Christians, Mormons, Hindus, etc. - than He would be observing His children heatedly arguing over which translation of the Bible is the most correct, and whether the Son of God sufferred more on the cross or in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Therefore I would ask of all good people: seek not to contentiously convince me of your interpretation of doctrine. Rather, seek to reflect the Light of Christ in your life, so that I can see your good works and praise God.

Vookman

June 28th 2005, 08:45 PM

I am the Mormon side of Confrontational Evangelism: I confront the confronters. I have known Rob Sivulka since around 1996. I can tell you first hand that while CE may be seen as an option, it drives hundreds of converts into the LDS community for every non-practicing LDS convert they win away. For this reason, I am a huge proponent of CE evangelism to the Mormons. Keep it up, it is working well for us.

The sour grapes sniping that Mormons are active because of relationships and not spirituality has been thoroughly debunked, most recently by the University of North Carolina's study (April 2005) on the spirituality and religious observances of American teenagers. In that study, LDS teens are more devoted, converted and excited about their faith, and better equipped to deal with the challenges of modern life, than any other group, by a substantial margin.

T-rex's analysis of CE preaching's Biblical roots is dead on. We have very vocal, mean spirited street preachers routinely picketing our religious events, and they say things like "your women are celestial whores", and then mock the sacred emblems of our faith. It was because a group of CE street preachers were caught live on TV ruining a wedding at Temple Square that the former head of the Utah ACLU, a non-believing Mormon and now Mayor of Salt Lake City, arranged the sale of the Main Street Plaza's easement right's adjacent to Temple Square.

When CE types are confronted by individuals who are versed on the issues, without exception they walk away and look for people who are less knowledgeable. Rob Sivulka resorted to name calling when confronted outside the LDS Temple last April with statements from his web site which are documentably false. He actually relies on relationships and not theology to convert people to his point of view. He stops screaming when he thinks someone is interested, essentially proving his method really doesn’t work or he would continue firing his howitzer at close range. When asked recently by a pastor in a very LDS area of Utah to be less confrontational because it was harming the local churches after he leaves, Rob was vitriolic in proclaiming that his are the only pure motives, and essentially the others lack courage. He showed up with signs and shouting as always, leaving the local non-LDS churches to explain to their neighbors how insults should not be taken as offensive.

The benefits of CE ministry should rightfully be discussed by people who are successful, and not just self-righteous. Paul was surely able to defend the theology of the Church and do great missionary work, yet we do not find even a single incident of him attacking non-believers outside of the Hebrew faith. Even on Mars Hill he spoke by way of invitation. That is not completely true: Paul did practice CE for awhile. Then he saw the vision on the road to Damascus. His old buddies kept it up though. Who won that round, do you think?

The LDS Church baptizes nearly 10,000 converts in Utah each year who are not 8 year old children of LDS families. Losing even 200 a year to the non-LDS churches is seen as an unfortunate loss, but those individuals are nearly 100% from among non-practicing LDS.

By contrast, a very significant portion of the LDS converts come from practicing Protestants and Catholics. Sure there is a significant element which is relationship based, but "by their fruits, ye shall know them". Converts leaving family and friends to join the LDS Church need more than just church basketball. It takes a theological understanding and a spiritual conversion. While few people of any faith could readily describe, let alone defend, the basis of their denominations historical beginnings or religious distinctives. Those entering the LDS Church do so usually under assault from friends or family, and therefore must be comfortable they are on the right track. If that is FE, than so be it. LDS conversion is not something tallied at the end of a 40-minute sermon with an altar call. There are a minimum of six hours of teaching of the LDS beliefs, followed by at least one interview by a missionary leader not involved with their teaching to ascertain their level of understanding and commitment. Those not ready are not baptized. There is no value in having someone join just to leave. Then there is a series of 47 follow-up lessons, opportunities to serve, and assignment of priesthood holders to visit and minister to their spiritual needs in their home at least monthly. Babes in the Gospel need milk before meat, and that is how the LDS Church ministers to them.

If the model of CE worked as explained by Rob Sivulka, then the thousands of hits to his web page would be resulting in thousands of conversions. It is because people can only know Christ through the Spirit that the spirit of Contention will never be effective. The LDS membership is taught to develop and rely upon the guidance of the Spirit of God. They are not deceived, much less converted, by the spirit of satan which is the source of prideful confrontation. The only people who are really deceived are those CE ministers who think they are doing anything worthwhile.

It boils down to the caricature made of the LDS faith by CE ministers. Active Mormons know their local priesthood leaders, the General Authorities visit regularly, and no one is getting paid. They hear them speak twice yearly for two days on the issues of the day. They get monthly messages, and they get two hours per week of theological and practical living education. They are encouraged to study the scriptures daily individually and as a family. They are asked to pray vocally alone, as couples and families several times per day. Then the CE ministers tell them they are deceived and ignorant of what their Church teaches. And they chuckle to themselves and wonder what kind of church, marriage, relationships or parents these people had to focus them on tearing another church down rather than building up what they think is true. Which is why virtually no believing Mormon is influenced by such efforts. It's about commitment born of study and spiritual experiences, and the confrontation reinforces it.

So keep it up. The more CE, the merrier.
Peace