Nitsav over at Faith Promoting Rumor introduces Heiser in his discussion with LDS on the divine council of gods. Sometime in the future, I would like to interact with the material within the latest FARMS volume.
In another sphere, evidently, Bill and Eric over at Mormon Research Ministries are breaking rules again over what is proper dialogue in the intermountain West, and John Morehead is defending the philosophy of Standing Together Ministries with LDS friends. Obviously, there is a whole new evangelical coalition out there who thinks MRM is archaic and unproductive.
But yesterday, I empathized with Eric’s provocative post on the Trinity. And Aaron S.’s article recently downright blessed my heart.
Here is my question to John Morehead and others. Is the evangelistic philosophy of MRM and their associations disconnected from the inspired directives for ministry outreach in John 4?
As I head to the Standing Together Conference this fall to blog what I observe, I will admit now that I have strong convictions about what constitutes historical, uncompromising, evangelical interaction with others.
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Thank you for referencing and linking to my post on the McKeever and Johnson article. As to your question, in my view, as I tried to articulate in my post, the ministry philosophy and specific evangelism philosophy and theology of the counter-cult movement, including MRM, reflects a heresy refutation paradigm that does not reflect a holistic engagement with other relevant biblical or theological considerations, nor does it consider other relevant disciplines such as sociology of religion, religious studies, or intercultural studies. Thus, it fails to provide a holistic or broad theology of religious engagement.
To more specifically answer your question, as I noted in my post, a reference to John 4 and Jesus’s dialogue with the Samaritan woman is absent in the McKeever and Johnson article, which would seem to be a better text to cite as an example of interreligious and cross-cultural engagement than the heresy refutation texts often cited by evangelicals in engagement with Mormons.
My two cents.
I’m glad that people are looking into John 4 in relation to Mormonism. I’ve had this in the back of my head for quite some time. We need to recognize that Samaritanism was a cult of Judaism as Mormonism is a cult of Christianity.
Jesus didn’t focus on her heresies. He didn’t even take the bait when she tried to get him to. He went past her false doctrine right at her heart and showed her that she was in need of living water. That didn’t mean that her heresy was unimportant, it just wasn’t of ultimate importance.
I think there definitely is a place for MRM and Utah Lighthouse. I have no doubt that they both lead people out of Mormonism and into authentic Christianity. But just looking at the numbers, the vast majority of people who we convince to leave Mormonism leave Christ as well (something like 80%). Similar to Lewis’ description of those that followed the false-Aslan in “The Last Battle”.
I think Standing Together is in a unique position to possibly convert Mormonism rather than just Mormons. I’m rooting for them. It would be a huge success for the Kingdom. That being said, I think that Standing Together needs the pressure traditional counter-cult ministries provide on a different front. It’s not likely Greg will get very far with his “Hey I’d like to help” if someone isn’t on the other side making the LDS church say “uh oh, we may need some help.”
This latest post points out the need for a broader hermeneutic of Scripture beyond the counter-cult’s heresy refutation interpretive lens.
A fresh reading of John 4 and the dialogue with the Samaritan woman reveals that Jesus was concerned about interacting with the woman’s beliefs, and about providing a corrective to her mistaken views, but the text hardly provides a “proof” that it was primarily about refuting error.
The text is a wonderful example of Jesus entering into cross-cultural dialogue and in so doing drawing upon the use of contextualizing language and concepts from Samaritan wisdom literature that spoke of “living water” and their expectations of a religious Teacher to come who would restore true worship. Jesus draws upon these elements to point the woman toward himself and relationship with him, and secondarily provides a careful corrective to her mistaken notions that impede this understanding. Thus, when considered holistically, the Bible includes a concern for correct doctrine and praxis as well as an emphasis on relationships. However, the relational aspect is primary. As George Hunter has written in his book on reaching secular people:
“the Bible deals primarily with relationships and only indirectly with doctrine…. Reading the Bible convinces me that the real test of ‘orthodoxy’ has to do with the quality of relationships far more than with doctrinal stands. Life’s real problems are obviously relational; they are only indirectly doctrinal….Certainly [doctrine] may explain to a degree what sin is, and what grace is, but doctrine per se is not the very stuff of life. It merely describes life without enabling it….We are not trying to make people believe ‘the right things’ so much as enabling them to experience a relationship with God and with one another.” (Hunter, 140)
As to the issue of the context of sharing the faith, whether one of relationship or with strangers, of course this woman was a stranger to Jesus, and I did not argue that this provided an example of evangelism in relationship, but rather an appropriate contextualized form of cross-cultural communication. This is strengthened when it is done in the context of relationships, but this does not have to be so. In any case, John 4 provides a good example of cross-cultural contextualization of the gospel message, which is lacking in counter-cult approaches where Christian orthodoxy is the overriding concern, and the relational issues are often always lacking as well.
Those advocating a cross-cultural missional approach that includes interreligious dialogue are being holistic. It is those associated with the counter-cult that are not, as I noted in my critique of the McKeever and Johnson article.
Hi guys, John, Aaron, and Tim, nice of you all to join me on this discussion.
Since my initial post, I have been beyond internet access, enjoying the ocean waves of the Oregon coast.
We had a nice service this morning at a beach house on the Tillamook Bay. Spent some time in John’s Gospel. So btw, love all this talk on John 4.
From a motel tonight, I am quickly popping in and clearing up some of the clutter.
John, I will look at your links.
Though I might be a different personality than Aaron, I can easily sink my teeth into some of the things he is saying.
Need to hit the sack. And will do some swimming with my kids tomorrow.
More later.
Someday, we should all get together at Wendy’s. Just had dinner there tonight. 🙂
I was told today by a friend that an article that I wrote 15 years ago was mentioned in a blog by John Morehead. I am flattered that someone actually read what I had to say. The article was based on the interaction between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4. We have used this passage to train our people for personal evangelism with Mormons since I arrived at Christ Evangelical Church over 18 years ago. I have no intention of getting drawn into the blogosphere but I do want to make my position clear as to the kind of dialogue that John 4 supports and what it does not support. This was a private conversation that happened in the most natural of settings. The Samaritan woman was not an official representative of her faith but was from the fringes of society. In this conversation Jesus touched all sorts of issues including the hard theological issues that divided Samaritans and Jews. I do not believe that John 4 supports is the kinds of public dialogue that is the subject of this discussion.
Scott McKinney, Pastor Christ Evangelical Church
Scott, I am glad to hear you say this. Thanks for popping in.
I read over this post again and I wish I had more calmly engaged John to begin with instead of coming out with guns blazing. I apologize for that. I think Morehead needed to be soundly taken to task for his liberal missiology, but I probably wasn’t the right guy to do it. I’ve still got a lot of growing up to do.
Aaron: try not to figure out who’s “right” and who’s “wrong” in this back and forth…examining everything and holding fast to that which is good will likely mean part of your approach, part of Mr. Morehead’s, part of Tims’…… By gifting, you will always lean toward straightening someone out, tha’s not a bad thing, but is your audience listening to you, do they WANT to listen to you, and how can you improve that.
random pre-coffee thots from GERMIT
pS: I find it liberating to know that my approach in everything does NOT have to look like Moe, larry, or Curly, in order to be effective.