In the FARMS Review 19/1 (2007), Dan Peterson writes in response to Roger D. Launius’ criticism of Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling.
On page xxxix of the Introduction, Peterson writes,
Unsurprisingly, Launius rejects the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. To question the book’s historicity, he announces, “does not cast into doubt the legitimacy of the religion nearly so much as Bushman seems to believe. All religions–all ideologies–are predicated on myth and symbol and they are not any less useful, compelling, and true because of it.”
I strongly disagree with Launius.
Interestly, Peterson responds,
Well, yes and no. Would it really make no difference to Christianity, say, if it were somehow proven that the resurrection, and indeed the life, of Jesus Christ were mere fiction? Would the zeal of Christians around the world continue unabated in such a case? That seems highly unlikely. Are liberal Christian denominations prospering? It will not, I hope, be considered uncharitable for me to observe that the contrasting historical and demographic trajectories of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its more liberal “Reorganized” cousin, currently called the Community of Christ, strongly suggest that abandoning literal belief on core matters makes a palpable difference (xl).
Is the Community of Christ liberal? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints headed in this direction?
On the blog, By Common Consent, read what Community of Christ scholar, David H., has to say.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Just a clarification… David H is a member of the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), not Church of Christ. Community of Christ and Church of Christ are two different religions (though both, of course, are Christian flavors).
Tanya, yes, thanks for mentioning my blip. I will correct this.
The Community of Christ is certainly more “liberal” than the LDS Church, as evidenced by the willingness to see the Book of Mormon as other-than-literal-history and the theological growth that has brought the CofC closer to other progressive Christian denominations.
But I don’t think Peterson is making a value judgment here. I think he’s saying that becoming more liberal, or even eschewing the historicity of foundational texts, doesn’t necessarily result in numerical growth or institutional prosperity. Peterson’s point is that while mainstream Christianity and the CofC have grown more “liberal” (I use the term loosely and uncomfortably here), this hasn’t led to increased success, but seemingly the opposite. While the LDS church’s steadfastness in faith in the historicity of the BofM (for example) rests alongside their numerical growth and prosperity. Peterson is using attendance and financial security as a bellweather analysis to challenge Lanius’ claim that religions don’t require belief in the historicity of their foundational myths.
All that being said, however, I still agree with Lanius. 🙂
Guys, thanks for the interaction.
Christian, though I don’t know Peterson hardly at all, I interpret his statement as a “value judgment”. But perhaps, I front load this interpretation with a lot of my own heart conviction.
When people discover truth, they want to share, they want to “evangelize”. For example, God revealed himself to Isaiah with ringing, propositional declarations. In the very next act, Isaiah is crying out to those around him, “TRUST GOD!”
Mainline Protestant Christianity has years ago lost its moorings on the historical, supernatural beliefs it once held toward scripture. So, why evangelize? Magazines, like Christian Century would scoff at such fundamentalistic actions. Evangelical, missionary work to them is supremely social. If I happened to be of this persuasion, I surely wouldn’t be a pastor; and I definitely wouldn’t be in church on Sunday focusing on God and his word. I would be out in the woods every Sunday focusing on myself, my family, and fellow man. Phooey on scripture that is not grounded in authentic revelation.
Of course, I am not so sure about the alternative in America. Unfortunately, on the other side of the coin, most evangelical numerical growth and prosperity is the result of marketing, appeal to felt needs, emotionalism, and little interaction of the mind in worship to God.
Mainline, progressive protestantism in America does little to capture the will of my heart.
Contemporary evangelicalism does little to ignite my mind.
There are huge problems either way. Let’s just say I am one of those Idaho rednecks, who loves to be challenged by scholarship as far and as deep as my intelligence will allow, while at the same time one who weeps in worship as I respond to God’s historical words.
—-
Tanya, I have learned long ago that just because a group is packaged with the name of Christ, this does not mean that they love Christ’s statements as revealed in the Bible. Though I am constantly denied making any judgment on others while they critically judge scripture, I don’t consider even many Baptist groups truly Christian because of their ridicule of biblical fundamentals. They hate what I treasure.