Book #2 just came in the mail, today.
Bridging The Divide: The Continual Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical (Monkfish, 2007)
I will try to keep “Dialogue” with book #1, Claiming Christ, and “Conversation” with book #2, Bridging the Divide.
How does that sound?
And I will continue to work on these two threads my thoughts on these two books. But then I will probably add more new thoughts and questions in additional posts. What do you think?
I just read this in the introduction of Bridging The Divide:
They want to avoid sidestepping the hard questions that still keep each community from believing that the other has the fullness of Gospel (xiii).
We shall see in this book.
Sometimes true, tender love does confront. Doesn’t it?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Just some thoughts on Part 1 (Not too much so far)
1. Greg Johnson and Bob Millet are probably two of the friendliest, personable, and socially adjusted men in religious conversation in the I-15 corridor. While saying that, I disagree with both of them the majority of the time in what they are doing.
2. A Missional Model that keeps confrontation to a bare minimum? My personality likes this kind of model. For I think that loving confrontation is ten times more difficult than loving conversation. And I assume that I am not the only one who has a difficult time confronting others with truth.
3. “a shelf of MacArthur’s books” (8) . . . Has Millet ever put in public print what John MacArthur thinks of the doctrines of Mormonism?
4. Greg shares on page 36, “I remember that there were about 250 Latter-day Saints in attendance, and I listened as Bob gave three messages that evening, one about the Fall, one about New Birth, and the final one about Being Saved by Grace. Several times that night, I remember thinking that Bob could easily teach these messages in a Christian church minus the Book of Mormon references.” How can I listen to these messages?
5. Bob writes this about young LDS missionaries, “They are humble servants called to bear testimony of certain fundamental propositions” (19). He is right. They are the more naïve, simple fundamentalists of the Church. Just wait till they grow up and become engulfed in the complexity that blurs all fundamentals.
Todd, I think that personality does play a large role in what form of communication one takes. Some people apparently thrive on confrontation or feel that somehow unless there is some kind of confrontational component in their communication with others that they are not doing their job. And perhaps we are misunderstanding the way we are using the term ‘confrontational.’ If your definition is that in order to ‘confront someone with the truth’ that you must be ‘confrontational’ then you will never see confrontational approaches in a negative light. I appreciate Craig Hazen’s response to Frank Pastore on his August 2007 broadcast.
It is clear that many people feel that in order for their message to ‘get through’ that they must be confrontational. But in my experience this is the least effective way of communicating. People shut down and end discussions, they stop listening and stop hearing. Nevertheless, people continue to use ineffective methods in their communication. If being confrontational makes you feel better then go ahead and continue to use it. But all too often I think that is all it does, a person who is ‘brash and bold’ feels as if they got the truth off their chest, or that they discharged their duty to preach truth, but in actuality all they have done is cut the lines of communication, and the Gospel wasn’t served at all in the process. It is important to evaluate the effectiveness of communication.
Aquinas, I hear you loud and clear on your excellent comment.
But Jesus had the kindest personality that any man could ever have, and yet look at the storm he created in John’s Gospel with his words.
I don’t want the one in conversation to be afraid to confront his friend with truth, where it could possibly offend that other person so much . . . he doesn’t want to talk anymore.
And yet sometimes, I am afraid, Aquinas. To be honest with you. Very fearful.
Because I dread any storms.
And chiefly, I don’t want to lose any friends of other faiths that I care about deeply.
Todd, thanks for your response. It is natural to try to emulate the kinds of conversations in the scriptures. But I implore you to examine them with great care. For the majority of time Jesus is speaking to those of his own religion. When Jesus is addressing the Pharisees he is addressing the leaders of his own faith. It is simply not analogous to imagine that you are Jesus and Mormons are Pharisees. It isn’t enough to simply find some conversation in the scriptures and think that you should imitate it. I would be much more persuaded if you could point to episodes in the scriptures where ‘stormy’ language from one individual speaking to those not of his faith demonstrably leads those people into the fold of God.
The Pharisees were of the same “faith” as Jesus? Saul of Tarsus once was in the same league as the Pharisees, but then the object of his faith changed, radically. He confronted both Jews and heathen leaders.
Aquinas, Jesus lovingly “confronted” the Samaritan woman. It pierced. She was converted.
Look at John the Baptist’s stormy words to those outside the Jewish faith. Gentiles listened.
Move to the O.T.
The stormy words of Jonah. Incredible. Look what happened among the wicked in Nineveh.
Aquinas, I think there are snapshots in the Bible that alarm those who see interfaith dialogue as the role model.
It is just a quick comment. Let me chew on this.
Todd, Jesus was Jewish and the Pharisees were Jewish. They are part of the same faith community. Who was Jesus talking to when he read the Jewish Isaiah scroll in the Jewish synagogue and said “This day is this [Jewish] scripture fulfilled in your ears”? Were they Hindu or Buddhist, or Jewish? You are probably thinking in your mind, “How can Jesus have the same faith as the Pharisees?” But do you really think I am trying to argue that Jesus and the Pharisees have the same “faith in God?” I am using “faith” in the sense of the Jewish faith tradition.
My point is that Jesus and the Pharisees were Jewish and not Pagan. Thus, I am hoping to see episodes in the scriptures where Jesus is speaking to a non-Jewish audience and that non-Jewish audience decides to follow Jesus. That can’t include Jesus addressing the Pharisees.
If we are considering Paul or the other apostles, then I would like to see Paul or the other apostles speaking to a non-Christian, Roman or Pagan audience using combative confrontational ‘stormy’ language where the scriptures note that these people join the fold of God after being spoken to in such a manner. If that happens then go ahead and use that language as your model. But if confrontational language does not lead to conversion, then I don’t see why you want to imitate such language if your goal is conversion, and if it doesn’t lead someone to Christ.
Aquinas, do you remember that statement Jesus made to the non-Jewish woman begging? Again, piercing in the conversation.
And there are all kinds of N.T. discussion about false teachers. Can those engaged in public dialogue point out false teachers?
I am not talking about combative language where some desire to see a boxing match or fist fight or a screaming match (Fox news).
I am talking about loving, bold statements that point out the lies that come from religious leaders’ mouths.
Is this possible within the interfaith dialogue paradigm?
Aquinas, there should be even a higher motive that sparks our conversations . . . even beyond the wondrous events of people’s new birth conversions. It is that our words exalt the glory of God.
Now here is a question. Can an angry declaration of challenge from a person’s lips to someone outside their faith bring glory to God?
Our approach is very simple- we detail the mandate Joseph was given from the Bible, then look at how well he did to fulfill that. We discuss Twelve Doctrines that his followers are known to believe in and compare those with the purpose of his mandate- The Book of Mormon.