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

[Trout]

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

[Richbee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hi everybody…


Two things I’d like gently and humbly to add. 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]

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

God Bless!

[t-rex]

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

God Bless!

Hi SlaveforChrist,

Thanks for the response. I didn't mean to write an article against Sivulka (I thought I spelled his name right, but obviously I missed!). I was just writing against a type of evangelism that I feel is overly emphatic on the argumentation side of things. The only reason Sivulka's name is even there is because he wrote the first article, and it would have taken me too long to write a response w/o sounding like I was responding to his article.

I have no doubt that Sivulka is a great and generous Christian. However, on paper I am willing to address the view that he put forth. And, you are correct, all I had was the article to go from, so some assumptions were made. I didn't mean to make any about Sivulka, just what was written.

Thanks for your graciousness in your response,

t.rex

[Bob Betts]

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

[t-rex]

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]

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