First, I read the news from the Reformed Baptist Thinker.
And now Morehead’s Musings.
I felt deeply shafted by Mouw and Millet. Is Mouw honest about evangelical Calvinistic doctrine? Is Millet honest about orthodox Mormon doctrine? I am just a Southeastern Idaho homeboy. But even a homeboy can see elephants under the carpet.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Please note that among the articles and posts on my blog by or about Robert Millet and Steve Robinson, there is much information by General Authorities at recent conferences and official statements about our doctrine http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/05/approaching-church-doctrine.html and about how we accept the value of those of other religions, especially other Christians http://ldsfocuschrist.blogspot.com/2007/05/validity-of-beliefs-of-other-christians.html . I was just involved in facilitating a Millet / Johnson dialog in Irvine with an attendvance of 1800, and which was attended by Evangelical luminary Hugh Hewitt, who met Robert Millet and enjoyed it.
Love & Best Wishes,
Steve St.Clair, Latter-day Saint in Orange County, California (proud of having been born in Weiser, Idaho)
I think the concerns expressed here indicate that evangelicals are not ready for dialogue with the new religions, including Mormonism. While scholars like John Saliba have pointed out that there are certain unique challenges in Christian-NRM dialogue that are not found in dialogue with the world religions, nevertheless dialogue is not and should not be considered impossible. And such dialogue is radically different than debate. With certain modifications Leonard Swidler’s “Dialogue Decalogue” is still applicable in my view, and three of the commandments are relevant to your concerns:
THIRD COMMANDMENT: Each participant must come to the dialogue with complete honesty and sincerey.
FOURTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must assume a similar complete honesty and sincerit in the other partners.
FIFTH COMMANDMENT: Each participant must define himself. Conversely – the one interpreted must be able to recognize herself in the interpretation.
I would suggest that while caution and concern must be recognized given the negative history of interaction between the two groups, that we must move beyond it, and embracing aspects of Swidler’s commandments of dialogue such as those referenced above might be a good starting place.
Steve, I am glad you popped in – you mention Weiser . . . that place is famous for its music fest. Right? Fiddles? Harmonicas? I hope to attend one, sometime.
You moved to O.C. from Idaho? I need to take you to a medical doctor, friend. 🙂
John, I will try to attend this conference. In fact, I will try to blog it.
Question: I have not heard of Swidler. Does he rule out gospel proclamation for proper dialogue?
Todd, I have just done a post on Swidler and is Decalogue. It includes a link to his article. There is related information in the unique circumstances in the relationship between new religions and Christianity which provide for the need for modifications to the Decalogue. This is discussed in an article by John Saliba which I will comment on in a future post.
But read Swidler’s article. The way evangelicals typically think of gospel proclamation is more monological than dialogical so I think we have a way to go before we as evangelicals, and Mormons too, are ready as individuals and as religious communities for the type of dialogue Swidler proposes.
John, I read through your post and Swidler’s article. Thanks. And here is my fundamental question.
Do you think that Mormonism is being built on religious syncretism, the very thing that Swidler seems to be condemning at the bottom of his article?
Meanwhile, I have recently been reading a book, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture (Eerdmans, 2000). The author, Graeme Goldsworthy, is a lecturer in Old Testament, biblical theology, and hermeneutics at Moore Theological College, Sydney, Australia. He writes on page 17 under the subtitle “The Bible Is the Word of God about the One Way of Salvation”.
“Among those features of the biblical way of salvation that stand out as presenting an utterly unique program for the rescue of the world of sinners is the characteristic of divine grace. Religions, along with humanistic altruism, present programs of works and human effort as the means of reaching the desired destiny. Christianity presents a unique picture that is so out of step with the secular way of thinking that is has to be constantly argued and defended even within the pages of Scripture. Abraham is called to leave a world of paganism in order to be the one through whose descendants God intends blessing for all the nations of the earth (Gen. 12:1-3). Israel is called out of Egypt so that its thralldom to Egyptian powers can be set aside and so that it may become a nation free to serve the one true and living God. Whenever syncretism or, as it is sometimes called today, interfaith dialogue emerges in the life of Israel, it is in direct contravention of the divine ordinances. It inevitably leads to disaster. There is only one way the nations will find God, and that is through the salvation of Israel, which is set to be a light to the nations.”
In a footnote to interfaith dialogue, the author writes, “Modern interfaith dialogue that aims at greater understanding of other peoples of different religions is not in question. The religious relativism of some who promote it, however cannot remain unchallenged.”
I just don’t think that conservative evangelicals are ready for any dialogue that cheapens biblical truth at the expense of building human friendships or broader influence. It does no honor to Truth or for courageous, spiritual love that is desperately needed in friendships.
I feel that much of the contemporary LDS missionary strategy in the discussions is sycretistic. “Let me add to what you already believe.”
Am I wrong on this?
My short answer to the first question is “No,” I do not feel Swidler is advocating syncretism or a watering down of the religious commitments of anyone involved in dialogue. That is not articulated in his article.
And as to your second point, I do not think the type of dialogue that Swidler and I are advocating with Mormons and Mormonism involves cheapening biblical truth or syncretism, so in my view Goldsworthy’s critique of some forms of dialogue would not apply.
I would really encourage you and other evangelicals with concerns about Mormon-evangelical dialogue to take the course I will be teaching at SLTS, or at least to secure some of the materials I include in my bibliography and Student Resource Packet. It would broaden the horizons for consideration, and in my view would improve the positions of those opposed to and advocating various forms of dialogue.
John, I will read some of the resources offered in your course.
Todd, I appreciate the concerns that you raise which may reflect those held by some evangelicals, particularly those in the counter-cult community or those who have a view and approach to Mormonism that is similar. However, note that the questions you raise run counter to Swidler’s Dialogue Decalogue in terms of trust and honesty, and in the emphasis in dialogue being on self-transformation and understanding rather than persuasion of the other which is more normally found in debate formats. With this in mind, according to Swidler’s ideal principles, many evangelicals, and perhaps many Mormons, are not ready for dialogue and we have a way to go in this process.
There are some modifications that need to be made in Swidler’s decalogue, and these come by way of the unique circumstances surrounding Mormonism (and other new religoins) and its relationship with Christianity. John Saliba has discussed this in an article he wrote for Journal of Ecumenical Studies, and he touches on this in my recent interview with him on my blog. I will touch on this in my seminary course. While I appreciate the concerns, I would ask my evangelical brethren to adopt an open mind so that this process might be reassessed.