Are All Christians Believers?

It seems that we too often associate the term "Christian" with one who believes that Jesus was fully God and fully man, was executed on a cross, taking the punishment for our sin as our substitute, who rose again to life on the third day and ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God.  We think a Christian believes that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

But today, this definition is not necessarily the meaning of "Christian" any more than the definition of "student" is someone who willing desires to learn and grow in knowledge through study and discipline.  How many students can you think of that went (or are presently going) to school only to party all night and miss classes all day?  How many students like being in college for the social aspects.  How many Christians do you know that identify with Christianity as a social club, but either don't believe that Jesus is who he claimed he was, or  don't understand the gospel enough to make a decision either way?  And what of the groups that insist in calling themselves Christian but profess doctrine that is clearly not inline with the Bible, like the LDS?  Or how about those "Christians" that show little or no life evidence of faith?  You may know someone like this.  Or what about a "Christian" church like the Westboro Baptist Church?

When I think about this, John 6:47-66 comes to mind.  In this passage, Jesus explains that he is the bread of life.  Using graphic symbolism, Jesus teaches that those who eat his flesh and drink his blood will have eternal life.  Misunderstanding, many of the disciples question this teaching, really struggling with Jesus' instruction.  And John 6:66 says, "After this, many disciples turned back and no longer walked with him" (ESV).  Here Jesus had many followers hanging on his every word.  He had just fed thousands.  Yet an earlier passage in chapter 6 tells us that they were only in it for the miracles.  They wanted to see amazing things or be healed.  Some were just hanging around for the entertainment.   So it is with some "Christians" today.

It could be that there are some "Christians" sitting next to you in church that are not believers in Christ.  Many people on Facebook claim "Christian" as their faith but clearly don't believe the doctrines of Christ.  Many wear crosses but do not know the God-man who died on one for them.  And there are those that see Christianity as a moral code or way of life, an ethic or politic.

I remember recently reading a man calling himself a Christian who claimed that the there was no intelligent designer of the earth of life, that life and all things are just a chance happenstance, and that God has no influence over creation (because it was not his creation in the first place).  I'm not sure how that position can fit within Christian teaching because it can't.  It just can't.  I know of people that call themselves Christians but deny that Jesus is exclusively the way to heaven, something Jesus himself clearly taught. 

Therefore, we must take caution when assuming the meaning of the word, "Christian."  Christian originally was not an adjective, like Christian music or Christian books; it was a person who held a confession in Christ.  However, today, it is really a self-identified membership into a social identity.   There are some that are trying to avoid using the word all together, often substituting it with "Christ-follower," but this doesn't really change anything.  And there are some who are diligently trying to reclaim the meaning of the word, but Webster's doesn't have word police.  So what we really ought to do is keep in mind what a Christian is or is not.  We should bear in mind that a person calling him or herself a Christian may be an ambassador for  Christ's Kingdom, or not.

How Did We Get Here?

While not always the case, one of the best ways to identify the most significant events of one century is seeing the results in the following centuries.  But standing just over the threshold of the 21st Century, it is rather difficult to look back into the 20th Century and identify what events will have the longest and most significant consequences.   However, if I am required to try, I must say that failure best categorizes the events of the 20th Century. Failure to alleviate the suffering of mankind at the hands of government; failure to bring about a utopian society through egalitarian principles; and even failure to place the created above the Creator.  Mankind failed to achieve the unwritten goals of the 20th Century.  

The 20th Century witnessed the rise of individualism, a greater globalization of various people groups, modernization, an increased hope placed in the scientific method, and liberalization of thought.  Nations went to war with one another on a scale greater than any previous century.  The method of killing was honed through practice and science to the extend that a single bomb could now annihilate millions of men, women, and children.  Greater resources were needed to keep the industrialized nations advancing.  Non-industrialized nations were colonized to fuel the greed, thus infecting indigenous peoples of the non-industrialized communities with the same woes of the rest of the world.  The unsinkable ship (the Titanic) sank.  Economic markets collapsed around the world.  Walls of separation were build between the East and the West, between nations, and between cultures.  And walls of separation were torn down.  The scientific marvel, the Space Shuttle Challenger, exploded right before the eyes of millions of school children eagerly watching the first teacher jettisoned into space. Genocide. Apartheid. HIV/AIDS. Corruption. Riots. Post office and school shootings. Hope was greatly challenged.  Failure. 

In the jumble of the changing world, people looked for answers to the problems they were observing.  For some, Karl Marx offered a solution--communism. For others capitalism offered hope.  Some turned to politics.  Some sought scientific answers.  The atheist philosophers blamed religion and God.  Nazis blamed the Jews.  Political conservatives blamed the liberals and the liberals returned in-kind.  Nuclear arsenals became the answer for those who could amass them.  Many in the West sought answers in Eastern world religions and philosophies.  In the East, some turned to a greater mysticism, totalitarianism, or various other religious practices. Some simply checked out with the aid of drugs. Many found comfort in apathy.  

But not every answer had negative results.  The Civil Rights movements in the West granted greater freedoms to minorities and women.  The non-resistant protest method surfaced in India and America.  Nations formed united alliances and unions in an effort to work together. Concern for less fortunate people of other nations developed.  Conservation movements fostered a respect for nature. And through positive advancements,the quality of life for many greatly improved.

The Church also attempted to offer answers. "More than any international organization, corporation, or political movement" writes Gonzalez, "the church cut across national boundaries, class distinctions, and political allegiances" (1985, 336).  The challenge however, was that the Church was not in agreement.  Gonzalez states, "War, and racial and class strife divided the church--often along lines that had little to do with earlier theological differences" (336).  (Had the Church put more weight in Biblical teaching and theology instead of political posturing and advancing moral rules, it might not have had as much of an issue.) 

The Eastern churches, specifically the Orthodox communities attempted to unify, mostly through the World Council of Churches, but sadly many disagreements and schisms resulted.  Roman Catholics sought religious reform through the efforts of the Second Vatican Council.  The Protestants made strong attempts to offer answers in light of the advances and failures of the 20th Century.  Some sought greater unity in the Church while others made attempts to separate themselves from society, finding comfort in fundamentalism. Many Christians programs were promoted to help the poor, afflicted, and suffering.  Some were even created.  The missions movement started or continued, and stronger, bold evangelism was promoted.  Greater work was placed upon translating the Bible.  Christians advanced the message of hope in Christ Jesus through new technologies and church planting. But unfortunately, among Protestants disagreements surfaced and schisms birthed new denominations.  An effort to promote moralism over faith came at the cost of sharing the hope of grace found only in Jesus.  Christians also found themselves having to defend (and advance) the gospel through political activism, elections, and the court systems of various nations.  As Christians reacted to the difficulties of the 20th Century, societies started reacting to the Christians, which is where the 20th Century closed. 

So now, ten years into the 21st Century, the Church is facing a great opportunity to provide answers were previous generations may have fallen short. 


González, Justo L. The Story of Christianity:The reformation to the present Day. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

Graduate Student Can't Keep Her Christian Beliefs?

How should a college balance the diverse but deeply held beliefs of its students?  Should students of a university be required to share the same political ideology?  How about the same worldview?  Would it be right for a college to require that a gay or lesbian student be encouraged (or required) to believe that his or her sexuality be a condition of choice?  Or what if a Muslim student was required to accept that all ethics were derived from Christianity in order to graduate?   

Before reading on, watch this video clip, the subject of which has been discussed in a number of recent news stories, both in print and video.

Now, before I continue, I'd like to remind you that the nature of news media is such that the article or clip is not likely accounting for all sides of a complete story or historical event.  It provides outsiders a glimpse, of which the perspective and details are chosen by the author or editor and presented within the limitations of time and the medium.  I'd venture to say that we don't have anything close to the entire story.

That being said, I've noticed some diverse ways in which this story is being reported.  From one perspective, the articles and clips (like this one) paint Keeton as a victim.  Other articles--often published by outlets with unmistakeably gay names--paint her as obstinate and "homophobic."  (As of yet, I've not seen any of of the Christian publishers paint the school as "Christophobic.")  I'd like to call attention not to the story itself, but the reaction to it, and the bigger aspects of it. 

How is it that a group of people can demand the opportunity to feel safe and accepted in a public community but then not afford the same opportunity to those different from themselves?  Is this a double-standard?  I say yes.  I also admit that many Christians have done this to others throughout history.  And many Christians have been on the oppressed end of this stick too, like in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China.

If a Christian were to demand that a Muslim not be allowed to express his or her views in a college setting, most would identify this demand unfair.  Can a Christian or Muslim hold to his or her belief (and I would say lifestyle) to the same extent as a homosexual man or woman holds that they cannot or will not change his or her lifestyle?  Again, I'd say yes.

Is religion a protected class in America?  Yes.

Is creed a protected class in America?  Yes again.

I'm just curious if the school would require a gay or lesbian counseling student to attend church services in order to obtain an understanding of people who hold a Christian worldview.  Should an atheist be required to change his or her view because he or she is not in agreement with a much larger majority that believes in some kind of higher power or deity?  

So why does is this student required to change a deeply held belief or conviction?  I realize that some will want to argue that this belief is a choice, that is, that she was not created with this belief.  However, millions of reformed and Calvinist Christians would disagree.  They argue, as I argue, that Keeton was born and created to be a believer of Jesus Christ.

Deseret Book Stops Printing Mormon Doctrine

First printed in 1958, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie was (and maybe still is) a staple of the LDS Church.  It is used and quoted in many of the instructional books and teaching manuals.  But now it is being taken out of print.  The publisher, Deseret Book, claims that it's not selling.  However, KUTV 2News in Utah reports that sales are not low and that something else might be behind letting the book's printing life coming to an end.

The KUTV reporter went to a number of book stores in the Salt Lake area, including Sam Weller's and Barnes & Noble, and learned that the book is still a strong seller.  They can't seem to keep it stocked and at Sam Weller's, there is a waiting list for the title.  But the sales of a few local bookstores doesn't say much for overall sales.  Maybe it is just that the book is not selling well in Deseret Book stores?  Aaron Shafovaloff, author of the blog Mormon Coffee is arguing that Amazon sales rankings show the book in a higher position than many other popular LDS books.   Sandra Tanner of Lighthouse Ministries believes removing the book from print is more likely about the various controversies behind the book.  She feels it could be about the LDS Church "trying to have a better control on how their message goes out to the world."

In the KUTV news report, Deseret Book says there is a life cycle to every book and Mormon Doctrine's life cycle is up.  Speaking to an employee in the corporate offices of Deseret Book, I was told that they take books out of print all the time, this is not an unusual practice.  But I wonder, if it is only about sales, would it be a problem for Deseret Book if another publisher started publishing the title? I'm sure there are a few publisher's that would jump at the chance. Could it be that it is not sales that are a problem but content?

Another argument is that the book is simply outdated and that many books like this one are replaced as new titles become more popular.  One could make the argument for many older Christian titles on theology and doctrine, like the Scofield Study Bible and Christian Doctrine by Berkoff--both, I might add, are still in print.  In fact, printing presses are still churning out many older, unpopular titles.  But, if ta title has so fallen out of favor that there is no longer a market to sell the title, they are often made available on-line for free to serve has a historical reference.  All thought I doubt it will happen, I hope that is the case for Mormon Doctrine, a popular (and selling) book now claimed to be not worth the effort to print.


* I have no material connection to the book mentioned in this post.

It Doesn't Matter Which God?

We hear it all the time, maybe not in the same words, but the idea presents itself in our society everyday. It sounds like this: "I don't care what god it is that you worship or what church you go to. We just need to get back in to correct principles" (Glenn Beck, 5/19/10).  The statement plays on an idea that all roads lead to the same god; but it is also saying that no matter which god one serves, there is some universal set of principles to which society should adhere.

However, there's a problem.  Talking to a Christian and a cannibal, you'll find that one holds to a principle of "love your neighbor" while the other has a principle of "eat your neighbor."  If one person props up the god/idol of money another chooses the god/idol of poverty, there will be competing principles.  Some systems of faith encourage people to worship themselves as gods. Principles will collide when selfishness is behind them.

The worshipers of Molech would sacrifice babies on a red-hot stone, picturing their idol/god eating their sacrificed babies as they screamed and died. Leviticus 18:10 clearly prohibited the Israelites, worshipers of Yahweh (the one and only true God), from worshiping Molech.  Obviously it did matter which god they worshiped.  (Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10, that behind every pagan sacrifice there is  actually a demon.)  Some people place their hope and trust in their political parties, making the party of their choice their god.  Others worship the legal courts as god.  And still others say there is no god and simply call whatever it is that they worship by a different name.  (We all worship something; it's how humanity is created.)

With so many competing gods, all of which offering some differing "principles," we must ask which principle-giver (also called a moral-law giver) should we seek in order to know which principles are correct.  This is the flaw of Glenn Beck's argument.  All gods do not offer the same principles.  All systems of faith are not the same. 

So then the person making the statement about getting back to "correct principles" must offer a source for the "correct principles" so we know which principle-giver he is suggesting is correct.  If he does not offer a source, then he is ultimately offering up himself up as the principle-giver and a god for others to worship.  (This seems as if it might be the case for Beck.)

There is indeed a correct and ultimate moral-law giver.  He is the triune God of the Christian Bible: the Father and Creator of all things, Jesus the God-man who gave himself on the cross so that those who turn to God and surrender their own ways to the way of Jesus may be redeemed, and the Holy Spirit who indwells and empowers believers.  (I realize this may be controversial or confusing but I am happy to discuss it further or answer any questions.)  There is indeed a correct principle; however, not all gods, religions, and churches agree on who the giver of the correct principle is or even the principles themselves.  It does matter in which god or gods you believe.  One is God, Creator of the universe and perfect moral-law giver, and all the others are backed by demons.   

*Graphic is in the public domain. 

Sea of Reeds?

Sometimes it's actually harder to remove the miraculous from the Bible than to believe that God intervened in history.

I suppose there must have recently been another documentary about Moses and the exodus on TV again because a co-worker raised the swamp argument.  Because of a technical issue with the Hebrew words that are translated into English, some argue that the Red Sea in the Book of Exodus might actually be the Sea of Reeds.  The argument then suggests that the Israelites crossed a dried up portion of a swamp rather than over dry ground through the middle of the Red Sea.  Some even suggest that the mud was at just such a state that a person walking could move across it but the Egyptian chariots and horses would sink.

For the sake of the argument, let's say that Moses and some estimated 30,000 Israelites did cross a reed swamp instead of the Red Sea. 

If this reed theory is true, why did the waters have to be divided so they could walk on dry ground? Was there still a miracle of divided waters? If so does it make a difference if the miracle was in a swamp or a sea?

"Lift up your staff, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that the people of Israel may go through the sea on dry ground" (Exodus 15:16, ESV).

How big was this swamp? Big enough to warrant the imagery of a wall of water on both sides? Clearly this doesn't make sense if there was no miracle and the 30,000 people walked across that mud that could hold them but not Egyptian horses. 

"And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left" (Exodus 15:22, ESV). 

If this was a swamp with reeds growing up through it, how is it that when the waters came back not one Egyptian soldier was able to survive?  Not one was able to wade or swim out of the swamp.  If the first few soldiers of this huge and mighty army were sinking in, why did the entire rest of the army follow? Instead of sinking mud, it seems that they were out in the middle and the waters returned.  

"So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the sea returned to its normal course when the morning appeared. And as the Egyptians fled into it, the Lord threw the Egyptians into the midst of the sea. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen; of all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea, not one of them remained" (Exodus 15:27-28, ESV).

The Israelites wrote a song about the event.  One of the lines seems a little odd for a swamp because it suggest that there is some depth to this body of water.

 “Pharaoh's chariots and his host he cast into the sea,
and his chosen officers were sunk in the Red Sea.
The floods covered them;
they went down into the depths like a stone" (Exodus 16:4-5, ESV).  

 Regardless if you believe or not that God parted a body of water to protect the fleeing Israelites, and even if you feel the Exodus account is fiction, what looks like the most obvious meaning: a swamp of reeds or the Red Sea?  What is the author suggesting it was?

We can split hairs all day long, but if we try to take the miracles out of the Bible we'll have to neglect reading the larger narrative in order for it to make sense.   In reality, sometimes it is easier to believe the author (which in the case of the Bible, is man and God).  Sometimes it's actually easier to accept the miracle than to try to accept the long way around God's involvement with mankind. 

*The photo is in the public domain.

Christianity Today, Dr. Ergun Caner, and Liberty

May 4, 2010

In light of yesterday's Christianity Today article, "Bloggers Target Seminary President," I thought I would share some of my thoughts. (If you are unaware of the events, articles, YouTube videos, or blogs surrounding Dr. Ergun Caner at the moment, it may be helpful that you read the Christianity Today article prior to reading my ramblings. [Update, 5/5/10. The Associated Baptist Press has release an article titled, "Liberty U. backs seminary president amid charges of misrepresentation." It is also worth a look.])  

I am not a Southern Baptist, nor am I presently (or was I ever) a Muslim.  And although it doesn't mean much, I am a student of the Distance Learning Program at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary where Dr. Ergun Caner is President.  In addition, my apologetics course used a textbook by Dr. Caner as well as his lectures and discussions on various topics specifically recorded for the course.  But none of this makes me qualified to discuss the controversy of Dr. Caner's past with any authority.  These are just my thoughts.

It seems some accusations were brought against Caner, first by a Muslim or a Muslim group.  They claimed that Caner's background might have been puffed up, exaggerated, or even fabricated.  While I have no idea if these individuals contacted (or attempted to contact) Caner directly, it is clear that there were blogs and YouTube videos making claims against him.  Then some Christian bloggers joined the Muslims, leveling their own claims.  I am unaware if any of these Christians approached Caner before making claims publicly on the Internet.

Jesus outlined what should be done when a brother sins against us.  In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus says,

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

This passage raises some interesting questions.  First, should a seminary be treated as the church?  How about the readership and purchasing base of Caner's books?  The YouTube community and blogosphere?  Second, when an individual is a public figure, such as Ergun Caner, who has he sinned against?  Is it against the public who have read his books which may contain incorrect information about his past?  Maybe; probably.  Close friends and brothers in his local church where he worships?  If nothing else, they could at least offer him some oversight and maybe insight.  But more significantly, there very well could be a sin against the school Dr. Caner is expected to represent.  His actions could hurt the reputation of the seminary and its students.

So then it seems that an individual at the school, likely in a position of authority, holds a responsibility to address Caner on these maters.  Based on the CT article, it looks as if this task fell to Elmer Towns.  The article also indicates that this matter was brought before others.  It reads, "The Liberty board has held an inquiry and directors are satisfied that Caner has done nothing theologically inappropriate."  Towns adds, "It's not an ethical issue, it's not a moral issue," but doesn't clarify what kind of issue it is, if any. He then says in the article, "We give faculty a certain amount of theological leverage. The arguments of the bloggers would not stand up in court."  I personally find this statement concerning given that the secular standard of the court system is used rather than anything biblical.  (Using a secular system as the final authority is not what I have been taught at the seminary under Dr. Caner's direction.)

"Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."  [Titus 2:7-8, ESV]

However, being that Dr. Caner is a public figure and acts as the face of the seminary, I would find it rather valuable if the committee (or Caner) provided the information that proved that Caner was not in any kind of ethical or moral wrongdoing.  If they felt Caner had done nothing wrong, I trust that it was based on more than the poor quality of the charges against him.  I understand that the Bible dictates that charges of wrongdoing be brought by two or more witnesses, but I am not sure how that measures up regarding a public figure in the world of mass book publication and the Internet.  Whatever the case, this information would certainly put my mind at ease.  It would also help demonstrate Dr. Caner's credibility as an apologists, educator, and representative of the Christian community. 

On the other hand, if the Liberty board is not adhering to high biblical standards, instead condoning a fellow believer and colleague, they are hurting a brother in Christ, the reputation of the school, and themselves.  I would find it rather problematic if my fellow students were expected to maintain a high standard of honesty and credibility as we write papers and engage in study while the President was not an example of this same standard of moral fortitude.

I'd like to conclude with one final thought.  In January, I was sitting in a coffee shop with a pastor when the apologetic work of Dr. Caner came up in conversation.  It might have been something from one of his books or maybe from a recorded discussion.  At that moment, it seemed as if a rolling cloud of thunderous anger moved over the pastor sitting across from me in the booth.  "That man is a liar!" he shouted.  I asked him how in the world he could know, and this pastor friend said he had seen a YouTube video.  I would like to caution against this type of behavior.  I don't believe my pastor friend had ever spoken with Ergun Caner, nor had he done any further research on the matter (as far as I could tell).

The best thing here is to evaluate the evidence provided by those making accusations (and I'll admit it is compelling), and we must also evaluate the evidence (or statements) provided by (or in support of) Dr. Caner.  But first we need to see the evidence of all sides.  We should also remember that the inability to provide evidence serves as evidence as well.  Only then should we make statements with such certainty.  If it turns out that these other Christians have incorrectly slandered Ergun Caner, than they should be rebuked and restored in love.  However, if they are right and Dr. Caner has lied to the extent that they claim, it is my hope that Caner takes up a repentant heart and those around him support him back to restoration.

Dr. Caner and the leadership of Liberty remain in my prayers.  I also pray that this article acts as a reminder in my own life.  If there is anything that I might have exaggerated or misrepresented in areas of my life, I pray it is made know so that I may repent and faithfully represent Christ's gospel as honestly as I am able.  If given the opportunity I would appreciate any additional conversation on this, especially with Dr. Caner.

[UPDATE, 5/10/2010: Liberty University has formed a committee to investigate Dr. Caner's statements.  Dr. Caner has stated that he welcomes this process.]

*The above photo is taken from http://www.erguncaner.com/media/ and uses by implied permission.

Brothers Hitchens

Among the vocal, atheist-evangelists of the present day is a man named Christopher Hitchens.  Hitchens feels that the woes of society are caused by religion, and Christianity is potentially the worst proponent of all evil in the world.  He authored a book, among many books, titled God is Not Great.  He travels and speaks publicly but he spends most of his time authoring articles.  He is something of a hero among atheists, likely due to his level-headed debate and reasoning skills. 

A number of Christians have debated Christopher Hitchens publicly--Douglas Wilson even went to far as to jointly publish a point-counterpoint book with him called Is Christianity GOOD for the World? Then the two men went on to film a series of debates that appear in the film, "Collision."  An informal running debate between Hitchens and Ravi Zacharias is slowly playing out in print and interviews and maybe these two will eventually square off face to face.   

What's most interesting however, is that his brother, Peter Hitchens, has written a book in reaction to Christopher's work.  It's titled The Rage Against God.  Peter grew up in the same environment as his brother, Christopher.  And Peter too was an outspoken atheist.  However, at some point Peter reversed his position and now professes a faith in Christ.

I can't help but wonder what it might be like when these two brothers get together for a cup of tea.  Might it be time for a film simply called "Hitchens"?  Let them both speak, argue, and debate from the same background, the same blood.  They probably know each other like most brothers do, which may tear down some walls that otherwise are indestructible, or not.  They probably have sibling history.  Sibling rivalry.  An unspeakable connection.  And more than anything, these two brothers have a vested interest, maybe, in a longer term relationship than any other debating opponents.  Or not; it's difficult to tell.  Either way, this is a face off that has me interested.

Here's a clip from Peter Hitchens about his story and his new book:

Peter Hitchens Author Interview--The Rage Against God from Gorilla Poet Productions on Vimeo.
 Peter Hitchens, author of The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith

*I have no financial connection to any of the books or film mentioned in this blog. 

An Analysis of the Evidential Apologetic of Natural Theology

Introduction. Natural Theology, according to Walter Elwell, is the idea that “Truths about God [can] be learned from created things (nature, man, world) by reason alone.”[1] Thomas Aquinas championed this approach to recognize the existence of God as the Church encountered Jews, Muslims, and pagans that rejected the authority of Christian scripture.[2] John Calvin and other reformers, however, rejected Natural Theology in favor of initial enlightenment from the Holy Spirit.[3] In analyzing Natural Theology, this post will argue that a hybrid is necessary. While an evidential apologetic of Natural Theology creates a bridge from believers to unbelievers, it cannot be an effective method of apologetics or evangelism without a dependence upon both the Holy Spirit and Scripture.

Strength of Natural Theology: Its Necessity. Aquinas—potentially the father of Natural Theology—developed a process to argue in favor of the existence of God with the same scientific tools as Greek philosophy and logic; thereby, insisting that the Truths of God could be demonstrated by evidence found outside of Scripture.[4] Aquinas drew his support from Romans 1:20-21.[5] Of Natural Theology, Erickson writes, “It maintains not only that there is a valid revelation of God in such spheres as nature, history, and human personality, but that it is actually possible to gain some true knowledge of God from these spheres—in other words, to construct a natural theology apart from the Bible.”[6] The thrust, Erickson goes on to argue, is that it is possible to come to a knowledge of God without any authoritative writing or church body.[7]

Weakness of Natural Theology: No Dependence on the Holy Spirit and Scripture. While Aquinas used Romans 1:20-21 for support, many Protestant Reformers argue that the passage must be read in context, showing that “the pagan’s natural knowledge of God is distorted and turned only to his judgment.”[8] They find support in First Corinthians 2:14-16. Additionally, Erickson holds that Calvinists and Augustinians reject the assumption that, “Neither humanity’s natural limitations nor the effects of sin and the fall prevent humans from recognizing and correctly interpreting the Creator’s handiwork.”[9] Timothy Paul Jones, in summarizing John Calvin seems to agree with Erickson, arguing, “For Calvin, no one can, furthermore, begin to understand the Scriptures until the Holy Spirit enlightens him or her.”[10] Calvin, while not specifically arguing that the Scripture is a necessity for apologetics, demands that the Holy Spirit’s initial granting of faith most certainty is an essential requirement.[11]

Conclusion. No doubt, modern Natural Apologists like Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, and Gary Habermas place their trust in the work of the Holy Spirit and in the authority of Scripture. Listening to and reading their work, one finds that Natural Theology is only the bridge to bring the unbeliever to hear the Word of God. Therefore, at the risk of oversimplification, a hybrid combination of both positions is reasonable when one accepts that Natural Theology is the tool used by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe than anyone can come to faith in Christ Jesus without the work of the Spirit and Scripture; however, any evidence suggesting otherwise is at least worth evaluating.

Bibliography

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008.
Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids,
     Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.
Jones, Timothy Paul.  “John Calvin and the Problem of Philosophical Apologetics.”  
     Perspectives in Religious Studies, 23 no 4 Wint 1996, p 387-403.


[1] Walter A. Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library, Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 815.
[2] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998), 182.
[3] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 12-14, 26-29.
[4] Elwell, 816.
[5] Elwell, 816.
[6] Erickson, 181.
[7] Erickson, 181.
[8] Ewell, 816.
[9] Erickson, 181.
[10] Paul Timothy Jones, “John Calvin and the Problem of Philosophical Apologetics” Perspectives in Religious Studies, 23 no 4 Wint 1996, p 387-403, 398. (Jones’ use of the word “Scripture” is in relation to understanding anything about God.)
[11] Calvin, 26-29. 
 
*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.
** The painting depicting  Thomas Aquinas was painted by Carlo Crivelli and is in the public domain.

One Christian on Capital Punishment and Abortion (Part II)

In an earlier post, I introduced a  question:  How can a Christian be against abortion but in favor of capital punishment?  In Part I, I explained that I am against both, and I discussed what the Bible has to say about the issue of capital punishment.  In this post, I am shifting to the topic of abortion.  I admit that neither Part I or Part II are exhaustive discussions on the matter, but hopefully they contribute to the conversation and offer some food for thought and encouragement toward further study.

Before I get started, I should offer my bias and position right up front.  I am against abortion.  I'm against the practice and I do not approve of the US government supporting or funding the practice.  In addition, my wife and I tried to conceive a child for many years.  The one time we did conceive resulted in a miscarriage, which greatly shaped the way I think about life and children prior to birth.  We have since adopted two boys who I love very much.  Although I do not have biological children and really can't know for sure, there is no way I could love children who share my DNA any differently then I do these two boys. 

My wife's miscarriage was extremely hard on she and I, but the reality is that miscarriages have been around almost as long as pregnancies.  Sadly, miscarriages were not a foreign concept in the Old Testament (see Job 3:10-11 or Exodus 22:26 for examples). I believe the miscarriage might be a part of the curse of sin that came with the fall of man in Genesis 3.  In verse 16, God said to Eve, the woman, "I will surely multiply your  pain in childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children" (ESV).  It is often thought that this in reference to the birth process itself, which it probably is, but it can also be all the other pain women feel for children, born or unborn.  But what about the intentional termination of a viable pregnancy?  (For the purposes of this post, I will use this as the definition of 'abortion.')  It seems that this idea--although not appearing as a medical service preformed by people in scrubs and white lab coats--was not foreign either.  In the book of Jeremiah, the author's lament seems to suggest that his life could have been intentionally ended in the womb.  Jeremiah 20:14-18 reads,

[14] Cursed be the day on which I was born! The day when my mother bore me, let it not be blessed!   [15] Cursed by the man who brought the news to my father, 'A son is born to you,'  making him very glad. [16] Let that man be like the cities that the LORD overthrew without pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, [17] because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have been my grave, and her womb forever great. [18] Why did I come out from the womb to see toil and sorrow, and spend my days in shame?

In Exodus 20:22-25, the legal code made provision for the event of a pregnant woman getting hit in such a way that labor is induced or the baby is lost.  The punishment for the loss of the unborn child's life would result in a penalty of death for the person who struck the woman.   (It's interesting to note that verse 23 reads, "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life," indicating that the unborn child was a life.)  Now, in fairness, it could be argued that this passage assumes that the mother and father want the baby opposed to the idea that the mother desiring to terminate the pregnancy.  In response, we should start not with the desires of the mother and father to have a child, but instead ask what is life and when does it begin? 

What is life? This is a fairly large discussion, but I'll boil it down to some simple points.  First, God  is the source and creator of life.  We can see this in the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2; but another example is found in 1 Samuel 2:6 that says, "The LORD kills and brings to life" (ESV), and Deuteronomy 32:39 in part says "I kill and make alive" (ESV).  Job 1:21 quotes Job saying, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I shall return.  The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD" (ESV).  Job, in 10:8 says to God, "Your hands fashioned me." Isaiah 68:8 says, "But now O Lord, you are our Father; we are the clay, and you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand" (ESV).

Second, we have a general understanding of what is alive and what is not.  Plants--alive.  Rocks--not alive.  Dinosaur  bones--once living tissue, but now, not alive. Of course we can draw a distinction between living tissue and 'life.'  Skin is made of living tissue but we are more likely to see it as part of a system that requires other tissues.  We can look at skin cells under a microscope and see that there's some kind of life activity there, but we don't tend to think of skin as a stand-alone life. However, there is a difference between a single skin cell and a single-cell organism.  That single-cell organism is life.  If we find it on Mars, we will declare that there is life on Mars; but if we find a skin cell we will say we've found evidence of life (and then declare there is life on Mars anyway).  So life, it seems, is a living system, be it one cell, a plant, an animal, a human. Where this gets really interesting is when we think of a seed.  It might be dry and appear dead, but in the right conditions it shifts from that dead-looking thing to life.  If I crushed a seed nobody would say I killed it, but if it had a little white or green shoot growing from it and I failed to give it water or if I put it out in too much sun and it dried up and withered, you would say I killed it. To kill it, it must have had life.

In the debate on the legality of abortion, one issue of contention is the parents' right (specifically the woman's right) to terminate life, if indeed there is any agreement that an unborn child is life, that is, a thing in the womb that can be killed.  I will deal with this more in a moment.  

When does life begin? This is the other issue where a difficulty of the abortion debate resides. This, like the right to terminate life, is the other big question item where differences are found.

Luke, a first-century doctor and writer of one of the four gospel accounts, made a detailed investigation in order to write his Gospel.  In the opening of the book, he records a fascinating event. When Elizabeth greeted Mary (both of whom were pregnant), the baby in Elizabeth's womb leaped.  Elizabeth, being filled with the Spirit, understood this to be caused by the presence of the baby in Mary's womb and proclaimed,

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!  And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy." Luke 1:42-43, ESV.

While we don't know exactly how far along either of these women were in their pregnancies, this passage suggests that it was more than just developing cells void of life in their wombs.  The Greek word used for these babies in utereo is berphos, which we is translated 'child.' Twice Luke uses the same word for the baby Jesus (post birth) in chapter 2.  I think in today's society, we would be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue that life starts at the point of the doctor's spanking that gets the baby to cry.  I can think of nobody that would say a baby that has been in the womb for 9 months and is making his or her way down the birth canal is not life. Anyone, myself included, that's seen and heard the heartbeat on the monitor is overwhelmed by the awe of life there in the womb.  Where the challenge comes is in answering the question, when (maybe even before the heartbeat) does life begin? 

If we back up to the point of a sperm cell and an egg, we see that we have cells that seem to be more a part of a system than a single-celled, stand-alone organism.  After these to come together, an interesting thing starts to happen.  The little glob of sperm and egg create a cell that can divide and multiply.  Soon, there's an 8 celled organism, then 16, then 32, and so-on.  Is this life?  Maybe.  Is this like the little plant shoot that I killed earlier in this discussion?

God had us in mind before the creation of the world (but do not confuse this with the idea that we were all created and stored in some "pre-existence" before the creation of the universe), but this doctrine does not give us a practical answer as to the moment life begins in the womb.  Some argue at conception, some at the first heartbeat, and some even at viability outside the womb.  The first two arguments bear weight, but the viability argument is greatly flawed.  Here's why:  What is viability?  A full-term baby cannot survive, free of help and care, outside the womb for long on his or her birthday.  If we start looking at 'viability' being earlier and earlier in the pregnancy we have to start looking at the technology that aids in keeping the baby alive.  Therefore, our definition of the beginning of life under the viability definition seems dependent upon outside technology.  This would mean that we define the start of life by our advancements in medicine.

The other two arguments, that is, at conception or at the first heartbeat seem compelling.  No matter how much I think about it, I struggle with the idea of life beginning at the moment of conception.  It seems a little like the seed. There's  something there, but it doesn't seem like life. . . but I am willing to be wrong.  And I'll admit, it is spectacular that something (or more rightly, someone) gets the heart pumping.  That first beat seems like a magic moment for an organism that requires a heartbeat as a sign of life.  The reality however, is that it could be at either of these moments or at some point in between.  The Bible does not clearly identify at what moment  life begins, so I argue it is probably better to lean on the side of caution, closer, much closer to conception.

So, what about the practice of abortion?

We have two issues in tension when it comes to abortion: when life begins and the right, as an individual, to terminate life.  I would like to argue that in practice, the point when life begins is almost irrelevant with the exception of specific types of birth control such as the morning after pill.  To the best of our ability, we should err on the side of caution.  The real issue at hand is the attitude the leads one to have an abortion.

If we can agree that at some point, either at conception or at the heartbeat, life has begun, it seems that terminating that life is killing the life; it's murdering another human being.  "But wait, what about capital punishment?" you might ask.  There are two differences.  The first is that capital punishment is administered by the state, not an individual.  The second is that the life in the womb has not violated a law of the state.  (If for some reason being conceived was against the law, this law would be unjust in that the violator, in his or her very creation, would have absolutely no ability to not violate the law.  The violation and punishment should really fall upon the man and woman who conceive the child.)       

When a woman learns that she is pregnant, time has already passed.  We are now flirting with the very real reality that was is growing in the womb is life, more specifically, a human being.  So to think that one has the ability and right to terminate this life, especially out of mere convenience, is a serious act of self-worship, placing oneself in the position of God.  It says "my rights are more important that the rights and sanctity of the life I'm carrying."  1 Corinthians 6:19-20 reminds us (especially those who are in Christ) that we are not our own; our bodies are not ours because we were bought with a price.  We, to include our bodies, belong to Christ.  This runs into direct conflict with the argument that a pregnant woman has the right to terminate a life simply because she is not ready to care for an image barer of God.  

The truth is we do not clearly know the exact moment life begins, so there is the very real potential that an abortion at any point after conception is killing a life.  Abortion is wrong.  The attitude that typically drives abortion is wrong.  And to celebrate abortion as some kind of family planning tool is akin to spitting on the very face of God's creation.

If you would like to leave a public comment, you may do so here.  If you would like to contact me privately, click here.

* Photo/drawing by Leonardo da Vinci is in the public domain.

One Christian on Capital Punishment and Abortion (Part I)

I was recently asked how Christians can take a position against abortion and stand in favor of capital punishment.  I found this question rather interesting considering that I’m a Christian and I’m against both abortion and capital punishment.  However, I thought this would be a good opportunity to look at these issues in light of what the Bible has to say. 

This is a large subject so I’ll be dealing with it in two parts.   Let’s start with capital punishment.

There are three key issues that I’d like to address.  The first issue is the government’s right to administer capital punishment—and I do believe governments have the authority to administer a death penalty.  The next issue is how this right fits within the 6^th commandment found in Exodus 20:13, “thou shall not kill” (KJV). And the final issue is the citizen’s responsibility within his or her government, specifically in the United States.

Paul, writing during a time of Roman oppression (and possibly great persecution) tells the Christians in Rome that they are to submit to the civil authorities because God installed those authorities to this position.  In Romans 13:1-7, he writes,

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.  Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority?  Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for his is God’s servant for your good.  But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain.  For he is the servant of God, and avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.  [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.  [6] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.  [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to who revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Romans 13:1-7, ESV).

His readers probably didn’t like taxes or oppression or the political opinions of the dictator in charge, and they lived under harsh and corrupt circumstances the like we Americans have never known.  Much can be said here, but my point is that God installs the civil governments of the world and expects that we will submit to them.  (Now, there are exceptions.  For more on the exceptions read the book of Daniel.)

Civil governments, it seems, are given the ability to create laws and keep order.  Even Jesus was subject to these laws when he was tried under Pilot, the Roman official who ordered his crucifixion.  We never see Jesus argue that the law that sentenced him and the two criminals next to him to death was unjust.  Jesus was innocent of the charges but the authority of Pilot to order his execution is never challenged.  In addition, we find many instances where God’s law for the Hebrews includes a physical death penalty.  It is part of the covenant with Noah in Genesis 9:6.  In Exodus 21 (the chapter after God gives the 10 Commandments), God lays out some laws for the Hebrew people, giving a number of crimes that will result in a penalty of death (see Exodus 21:12-28).  This is seen throughout the Books of the Law (that is, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, also known as the Pentateuch).  Therefore, given that God installs governments and gives them the right to administer laws, and even that in the laws God gave to the Hebrews capital punishment existed, and considering that the New Testament doesn’t challenge the existing civil laws of the day, I believe that governments today have the right to administer capital punishment.  Now, you might be asking why I’m opposed to capital punishment considering what I’ve just presented.  I’ll get to that in a moment. 

But first let’s deal with Exodus 20:13, the 6^th Commandment. 

The translation of the Bible called the King James Version, translates Exodus 20:13 like this: “Thou shall not kill.”  This translation has filled our vernacular to the point that some people take this to mean not to kill in battle, and still others understand it as not to kill even animals for food.  But the problem is the word “kill.”  Our English meaning of this word is something to the effect of, ‘to cause the death of’ or, ‘to terminate the life function of.’  But that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word that the KJV translated.  In the Hebrew—the original language of the Old Testament—the word is ratsach, which is to murder.  In other uses of this word, including non-biblical uses found in ancient literature, this word is most used for intentional or negligent murder much like we would use the words murder or manslaughter today.  The Septuagint (LXX), which was the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek a couple hundred years before the incarnation of Christ, translated this word as phoneuo, which in the Greek also means murder or more specifically ‘to murder.’  This is the word used by Jesus when quoting the Old Testament when he gave is famous Sermon on the Mount.  Looking through many other translations, I’ve found Exodus 20:13 is almost always translated, “You shall not murder,” some simply say, “Do not murder.”

But just for a moment, let’s say all we have is the King James Version.  How can we understand what God is meaning by his command not to kill?  If we continue reading the conversation between God and Moses, we find that in just a few hundred words later, God gets into some specifics about this killing stuff.  In Exodus 21:12-28 (which I also mentioned above), God outlines when a person should be put to death for killing another and when that is not okay.  For example, if a man does not lie in wait, that is, he plans to kill another, but instead it is something of a fight gone bad, the killer should be allowed to live.  “But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning” says Exodus 21:14, “you shall take him from my alter, that he may die” (ESV).  Simply striking your parents was enough of a reason to face the death penalty, as was being in possession of an illegally gained (or kidnapped) slave.  And surely killing in battle must not be the same because thought out the Old Testament God orders his people to attack other nations.  He gives the faithful boy, David, the ability to kill the warrior, Goliath (1 Samuel 17), and David is highly honored and loved by God.  And if you were thinking about becoming a vegan based on the 6^th Commandment, you should probably read the book of Leviticus first.  Leviticus outlines just how animals were to be slaughtered for sacrifices and feasts.  Obviously, even if we have a bad translation of the word ratsach (thank you KJV), we can see that this does not mean every form of the word ‘kill.’  Therefore, we must ask ourselves if capital punishment falls inside or outside the idea of the biblical discussion of murder.  It seems to me, that capital punishment, that is, execution administered by the state and regulated by the law, is not the same as murder.  The Bible is not against capital punishment. 

Yet, I am against capital punishment.  Why?

After working in the American legal system, I am concerned that we could get it wrong. Our society is such that we would rather let a guilty person go free than punish an innocent person.  This  idea echoes Exodus 23:7, which reads, "Be sure never to charge anyone falsely with evil.  Never sentence an innocent or blameless person to death, for I never declare a guilty person to be innocent" (ESV).  At times, I feel capital punishment does not reside in the spirit of this attitude, especially considering that we have seen new evidence overturn incorrect rulings.  Death is final.  There is no overturning capital punishment. 

But if the Bible is not against capital punishment and I feel God gives governments the right to administer the death penalty, how can I be against it? 

As Americans, we are a part of our government.  Actually, we are the government.  Our collective voice is intended to be what grants our various local, state, and federal governments the ability to make laws (This right is ultimately granted to us and other nations by God, as discussed above, and we should be thankful).  As citizens of the USA, our opinions matter and we vote to make our opinions known.  We can be opposed to, or in support of laws because our government system allows us to take part.  The Bible doesn’t say governments must to have capital punishment.  The governments of the Bible did, but while this punishment is allowable, it is not required. This is how I can say the Bible allows governments to engage in capital punishment but I don't want our government to do so.

In Part II, I will address the topic of abortion. Continue to Part II.

If you would like to leave a public comment, you may do so here.  If you would like to contact me privately, click here.

* Photo of "Old Sparky" is in the public domain. Photo of protesters is registered under a creative commons license: http://www.flickr.com/photos/28544227@N08/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer

Critical Book Review

Of

The Unexpected Journey by Thom S. Rainer

Bibliographical Entry

Rainer, Thom S. The Unexpected Journey: Conversations with People Who Turned from Other Beliefs to Jesus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2005.

Author Information

            Thom S. Rainer is a busy author, writing titles including Simple Church: Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples, Breakout Churches: Discover How to Make the Leap, The Unchurched Next Door: Understanding Faith Stages and Keys to Sharing Your Faith, and Giant Awakenings: Making the Most of 9 Surprising Trends That Can Benefit Your Church.  The bulk of Rainer’s work is centered on two intertwined areas: the Church and evangelism.  His most recent work serving as a tool in church tool shed is Essential Church?: Reclaiming a Generation of Dropouts. 

             A PhD from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Rainer has served in a pastoral capacity for nearly a dozen churches.  He founded, and became Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism, and Church Growth at his alma matter.  In addition, he serves as the president of Church Central and is the CEO of LifeWay Christian Resources in Nashville, Tennessee.  For years, Rainer Group Church Consulting occupied much of Rainer’s time—and provided much of the experiences that appear in his many books— although recently he as reduced his responsibilities in this area, referring most of his business to The Lawless Group.  Rainer continues to travel around the world to speak and teach at conferences and seminars.  As evident in The Unexpected Journey, he is married with three grown children.

Content Summary

            The Unexpected Journey is Rainer’s attempt to capture the stories, or more correctly, the testimonies of thirteen people who previously were in other systems of faith (or none at all) and have since found and accepted Christ Jesus.  Rainer and his wife, Nellie Jo traveled across the country over the period of nearly a year, recording equipment in tow, to question and meet with their interviewees.  Occasionally, others tagged along and one interviewee flew to meet the Rainers.  Each interview lasted less than a full day and was often conduced in the interviewee’s home, a church, an office building, or in a restaurant.  If in a restaurant, Rainer includes an appearance of the server, and often the beverage selections.  

            Opening in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City, Rainer meets with two former Mormons.  The married couple were “high-level” Mormons, meaning that he was a sixth-generation leader over a large geographic area and she was a translator working in the LDS church headquarters. Through looking into documents of their own system of faith, Rauni began to have doubts (pp19-20).  Eventually, she shared these documents and her concerns with her husband and together they left the Mormon church.  As their story continues, they explain how they connected with a local Christian community and found salvation in Jesus.  In what becomes a reoccurring question with a reoccurring answer, Rainer asks the couple how Christians can better evangelize to Mormons.  He concludes each chapter with his interviewee’s answers.

           For the next interview, and subsequently, the next chapter Rainer and his wife travel to Chicago to meet with a former Orthodox Jew.  The format of the story is similar to the one in the previous chapter—Steve Barack shares his history in another system of faith and then how it was that he came to Christianity.  Each story is given its own chapter and each story has the same format.  And they all end with the same variation of the basic question, “I asked Steve how he would counsel a Christian who desired to witness to a Jew today” (p 42).  The next chapter delves into the life of a Hindu who suffered polio at the age of three (p 48) and was ostracized by his father for having bad Karma in a former life (p 50).  Today Dr. Ravi is a professor and serves as the vice president of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (pp 47-48).

            As the familiar stories continue, Rainer chats with a Ms. Jones, a woman who went from the absence of a faith in a higher power of any kind—she was an atheist—to accepting Jesus as her Lord.  Similar to the interview with an agnostic, this chapter tells a story not unlike the rest and Rainer seizes upon this in way he presents Ms. Jones’ story.  Next comes a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses who were expected to allow their child to die in adherents to their faith.  Than comes the story of an agnostic with a difficult and wild life.  Chapter Seven tells the story of a Wicca witch who gave up her form of paganism for Christianity.  Following the story of the witch is a narrative of a high-energy former Buddhist.  In chapter Nine, Dr. Karan Townsend shares her experience of searching through Unitarianism until she found Christ. In another restaurant, a world-traveler shares her experience as a New Ager who eventually found Jesus.  Mumin Muhammad shares his journey as a Black Muslim, not to be confused with traditional Islam, although he transitioned into traditional Islam before becoming a Christian.  The final story is that of Jeff, a Satanist whose dabbing in the occult nearly led him to suicide before he gave his life over to Jesus.

            At the conclusion of the book, Rainer identifies some things he learned from each interview that generally could be learned from all of the interviews collectively.  Lesson 1 is that Christians need to know the Bible.  Rainer writers, “Most of the interviewees told us that they were amazed at the biblical ignorance they witnessed when they were not Christians.  Several times we heard them say that they knew more about the Bible than Christians did” (p 199).  The second lesson is that witnessing Christians need to know what the other person believes.  Lesson 3 is to listen and Lesson 4 is to pray.  “Invite them to church” is lesson five.  “I have done research in the past,” says Rainer, “that shows that the vast majority of non-Christians will come to church if we invite them” (p 201).  Lesson 6 is about understanding their home lives. Getting them to look closely at their own documents (if their system of faith has documents) is Lesson 7.  This is especially true of the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.  Lesson 8 is to get the non-believer to look at the Bible objectively and Lesson 9 tells us that churches must be ready for a pluralistic world.  “The church also must be ready to disciple persons who have become Christians out of other belief systems,” writes Rainer (p 202).  Lesson 10 says that Christians cannot be intimidated by other belief systems.  “Share Your Faith Regularly” is Lesson 11 (p 202).  “Live like a Christian” and “Be Willing to Invest Time with Non-Christians” are Lessons 12 and 13, respectively.  And the final lesson is that Christians must love people with the unconditional love of Christ.

Evaluation

            Thom S. Rainer set out to encourage Christians to share their faith with those of other belief systems as well as those with no belief system at all; which means, he wants Christians to share their faith with all non-Christians.  From simply reading The Unexpected Journey, it is difficult to determine if he has succeeded in his purpose; however, one can see how hearing the same themes repeatedly may have a convincing effect upon the reader. Most of the book’s main premise and points are found in the concluding chapter.  Each simple lesson is what Rainer wants the reader to see in the preceding chapters, but for the most part, these brief lessons are somewhat obvious and can be found in nearly every other recent book on the topic of evangelism.  At first glance, Rainer’s approach seems unique, but after seeing the depth the stories do not go into, one gets the idea that these stories should have been part of a larger “how to” book on evangelical methods.          

The conversational tone of the book and the unnecessary details about how Thom and Nellie Jo Rainer got to each interview, where they ate, and how often the server brought them tea or coffee, serve to help the reader “tag along” in the interview; but at the same time, these additions are something of a distraction from the main point, that is, sharing the stories of the interviewees.  Rainer injects too much of himself into the book.  The most egregious examples are found in the opening of each chapter.  Rainer starts with how he and his wife get to the city where the interview will take place. For example, the first page of Chapter One lets the reader know that Rainer had just returned from Uganda, “three days earlier,” they had no problems making their connecting flight in Atlanta, their hotel was in downtown Salt Lake, the sky was blue and the sun was out when they drove the 15 minutes to the suburb of Sandy, and each time the navigation system interrupted the conversation Rainer wondered why they always have female voices (pp 15-16).  In the next chapter, the reader learns that Rainer lost his driver’s license and cannot fly, so he and his wife drive to their next destination (p 33).  Chapter Four opens with Rainer getting lost, but he eventually he finds his way (p 63).  Another unnecessary distraction is all the description Rainer provides regarding the service they received in the restaurants where they interviewed.  To avoid these distractions, Rainer might have used a slightly different format that would not have required him to include all of these transitions and unnecessary details; that is if he were not including them intentionally to help the reader feel present.

Factoids of the various religions the interviewees left are sprinkled throughout the book.  Often these factoids break up the narrative.  They are however, brief and informative.  While Rainer clearly states that, “this book is not an exhaustive treatment of other belief systems” (p 12), the book could have handled more of factoids, potentially at the end of each chapter rather than throughout the narratives.  Additional information might have increased the reader’s understanding of the former religious of the interviewees.  Instead, the only understanding comes from one who was unhappy with that faith structure and found Christianity.  The door is wide open for critics to suggest that none of these testimonies show an accurate portrait of the religious they are talking about because they left those faith systems disgruntled.  Additional factually written information and statistics might have closed this door a little.

             I found this book slightly entertaining but only slightly informative.  The teaching is nothing unique to evangelism and the encouragement The Unexpected Journey is seeking to provide readers is not unlike the stories found in nearly every other book on topic of sharing your faith.  This book would be valuable to those who have had little to no experience with the cultures and religion of non-believers and have not read any other books on evangelism.  

*I have no material connection to this book.  This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  

An Analysis of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormonism)

Introduction

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—whose members are commonly called Mormons—is one of, if not the fastest growing religion in the world.[1]  In 2007, the LDS church claimed nearly 13 million members.[2]  Mormons are gaining a mainstream foothold in common culture, having active members in all levels of politics, entertainment, authorship, and academia.  Therefore, this post will attempt to examine the LDS religion; first offering a brief overview of the religion and its early history, then an analysis, followed by one approach for Christians to share their beliefs with Mormons.  This author resides in Salt Lake City, Utah—the headquarters of the LDS church—so in addition to the sources provided here, some insight will come from personal observation.

A Brief Overview of the Mormon Religion

A Religion is Born: Its Early History.  Generally, the accounts of the early beginnings of the Mormon church start in 1820 with a fourteen-year-old boy struggling to decide which Christian denomination to join, mainly of the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists.[3]  After reading James 1:5, Smith heads into a grove of trees and prays about these religions.[4]  Both God the Father and Jesus both appear together and in bodily form.  As James Walker explains,

Smith later reported that Christ warned him to join none of the churches because they were all wrong, their creeds were an abomination in God’s sight, and those who profess these religions are all corrupt. Smith said that he later discovered that there had been a “total apostasy” shortly after the death of the original apostles in the first century. Thus, there had been no true Christianity on the earth for 1,700 years. No church had the true authority to act for God or perform essential, sacred ordinances. Rather than joining any of these apostate churches, Joseph Smith believed that he must restore true Christianity to the earth.[5]

However, Fawn Brodie argues that court records and newspaper accounts suggest that Smith was already gravitating to the “revival hysteria and channeled into a life of mysticism and exhortation.”[6]  She further reminds her readers of the vast amounts of biographical data on Smith and the early birth of the LDS Church, “for Joseph Smith dared to found a new religion in the age of printing.”[7]

 

            On September 21, 1823, after years of “suffering severe persecution” for his vision, Smith received another vision from an angel named Moroni.  Moroni showed Smith where to dig up the golden plates that contained the stories of two nations of people in the Americas and Jesus’ appearing to them.[8]  Smith translated these plates into what is known as The Book of Mormon.  Smith’s revelations as the Prophet for the church were written down, as were the revelations of subsequent Prophet-heads of the church, into a document called the Doctrine and Covenants, with the most recent addition on September 30, 1978.[9]  The Pearl of Great Price and the King James Version of the Bible make up their cannon.  (Concerning the Bible, the eighth Article of faith states that the Bible is acceptable “as far as it is translated correctly.”[10])  The cannon remains open for the addition of further revelation.  The LDS Church is headed by a Prophet, a council of apostles (two advisers and the Prophet make up the “First Presidency,” and 12 elder men for the “Quorum of the Twelve”), and the “Quorum of the Seventy” (all elder men).  This group of leaders oversee local leaders of various jurisdictions down to the local level called the ward.  The ward is lead by a Bishop.  Mormons believe this is the exact structure originally installed by Jesus when he was on the earth.

           

            Basic Doctrines and Tenants.[11]  While many volumes are available on Mormon Doctrine—produced by both Mormons and non-Mormons—this post will not even scratch the surface.  In the simplest of overviews, Mormons do not hold to a Trinitarian view of God, but instead believe that God was once a man, just as we are today, who worked to become a god and then had many spirit children with “Heavenly Mother.”  Jesus and Lucifer (who later became Satan) were among these spirit children.  Both Jesus and Lucifer suggested a plan of salvation to the Father, who selected Jesus’ plan.  Lucifer rebelled and was cast out of heaven along with 1/3 of the other spirit children who supported his rebellion.  Incidentally, the spirit children are synonymous with angels and demons. 

            There are three levels of heaven, with the third level containing an additional three levels.  The best of these levels allows those accepted to become gods and repeat the entire process on another world of their creation.  However, in order to enter any heavenly level, a spirit child must first come to earth to obtain a physical body and work through various ordinances, including entering one of more than 120 Mormon temples to perform baptisms for the dead, be sealed to a spouse and family for all time and eternity, and receive the right to wear special undergarments.  In order to enter the temple, Mormons must be “worthy, which includes among other practices, abstaining from coffee, tea, tobacco, and sex prior to marriage.  Mormons must also give a “full tithe” or 10% of their total gross income.”[12]  The temple is closed to all but fully practicing, “temple worthy” members.  Mormons hold that salvation comes through grace, only “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23).  They practice sacrementalism and subsequently, sacerdotalism.  In addition, the LDS church has many other minor doctrines, including the more infamous that deal with matters of polygamy and the priesthood (which will be addressed in the next section of this post).  

Analysis of the Mormon Religion

            A Shaky Foundation: Inconsistency of Doctrine.  To an outside observer, it would seem that an open cannon has allowed for convenient changes to doctrines and practices.  For example, Brodie chronicles many incidents of Smith’s behavior with other women prior to his 1831 ‘revelation’ authorizing the practice of polygamy, recorded in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1843.[13]  It might also appear that this revelation helped solved the problem of remarriage after the death of a wife to which a man was already married and sealed.  Ironically, Parley Pratt, a close friend to Smith, just so happened to be dealing with this problem.  Through revelation, polygamy was allowed and practiced in the Mormon church.  However, in 1890, facing political pressure, the inability for Utah to obtain statehood, and even the possibility of criminal charges, the Prophet Wilford Woodruff received a timely ‘revelation’ that the practice was to stop.[14]  In a similar situation, facing political pressure, Spencer Kimball received a revelation allowing Blacks to receive the priesthood, thus, giving them the ability to enter the temple to perform temple ordinances to potentially become gods, something they were prohibited from obtaining prior to September 30, 1978[15].  Before 1978, it was thought that colored skin was the mark of unrepentant sin.  In hindsight, one outside the LDS Church might suggest this ‘revelation’ would not have come had it not been for the Civil Rights Acts.

            But the open cannon is not the only mechanism allowing for shifting doctrine.  A Prophet might teach a doctrine that a subsequent Prophet can reverse or allow to fall out of practice.  The “Adam-God Doctrine” is one such example.  Walker states, “Young [the Prophet at the time] preached from the Tabernacle in Salt Lake City that the first man, Adam, ‘is our father and god the only god with whom we have to do’ (Journal of Discourses, vol. I, p. 50).”[16]  Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner also provide a number of photographed journal entries, articles, and printed statements by Young that demonstrate many other instances when Young taught this doctrine.[17]  However, “this doctrine was quickly repudiated by the LDS church after Young’s death.”[18]

And in addition to subsequent Prophets changing doctrine, the Book of Mormon has been changed 3,913 times as documented by Tanner and Tanner.[19]  This should cause one to ask, If Joseph was given the tools to correctly translate the golden plates (the autograph), why the need for the changes?  Could it be that English words have already shifted in their meaning?  Maybe.  However, this cannot account for many of the documented changes.  For example, early printings of 2 Nephi 30:6 indicate that if a dark skinned person were to repent, he would be turned “white and delightsome,” but later printings state “pure and delightsome.”[20]

            The Name Game: Christians who Reject Christian Doctrine?  This author has noticed in recent years, a tremendous effort by members of the LDS church to identify themselves as “Christians.”  Stephen Robinson provides Mormons with a ready-made argument to the question, “Are Mormons Christian?” on the LDS website; “Why would anyone say otherwise” writes Robinson.[21]  And there seems to be a strong desire to connect with Evangelical Christians in the voting booth.  Even the LDS Church logo was changed before the 2002 Winter Olympics, making the name of Jesus Christ much larger.  When challenged, Mormons will resort to saying, “What’s the name of our church?  See if it’s in our name, then we are Christian.”  First, the name might be the same but it is not the same Jesus.  To this, Walker writes,

Evangelicals should be aware, however, that the LDS have a “different gospel” and a different Jesus than theirs (2 Corinthians 11:3-4). In 1998, the Mormon prophet Gordon B. Hinckley confessed that he believed in a different Jesus than the “traditional Christ” worshiped by those outside of the LDS Church.[22]

Second, one should ask, Why do Mormons want to be included under the Christian umbrella when their doctrine states that there was a great apostasy and no true Christianity in the world, that no churches were right when Smith was seeking one?  Or could it be that the Mormons simply want to redefine the term, “Christianity” and then claim it exclusively as their own?

How Should Christians Share Their Beliefs With Mormons?

            In his book, I Love Mormons, Dr. Rowe, a former professor at Salt Lake Theological Seminary writes, “My prayer, my dream, is that you, the reader, would come to understand Latter-day Saints and their culture and wed this understanding to a profound love and respect for them that they will sense as you relate to them.  This is how bridges for the biblical gospel will be built into their world, their lives, and even their worldwide church.”[23]  The key idea, as it might be in all apologetics and evangelism, is to build a bridge.  Historically, Mormons have suffered persecution and they tend to be somewhat sensitive about any criticism of their faith.  Therefore, going on the offensive, or even pointing out flaws in their religion might cause them to raise their guard.  (Admittedly, this post will likely produce this result.)  But in every case this author is aware of, people who left Mormonism did so after a season of questioning their own religion.  Being a safe source for answers is possibly the best way to build the bridge Dr. Rowe mentions.

            However, if one desires to approach an active Mormon in an effort to present the gospel, there are some basic tips of which to be mindful.  First, do not dance around the idea that there are some serious differences between Mormon and Christian doctrine.  These differences are real; address them honestly and respectfully.  Second, Mormons are strong supporters of a “personal testimony” so present the gospel from your personal perspective, using a positive approach rather than trying to "chip away" at their beliefs.  Present a positive example of God’s love and grace.  Of course, use Scripture, but remember that the Mormon can always fall back on his or her belief that the Bible is not correctly translated.  Often, a “correct” translation of a passage cannot be provided because this is simply a defense against biblical truth.  Understand that Mormonism is an all-encompassing lifestyle, so a person, if he or she were to convert to Christianity, is not just leaving a religion, but an entire culture.  Try to avoid bashing on that culture.  If you do feel the need to point the Mormon to specific Mormon material, use material he or she might be (or should be familiar with as a typical Mormon) instead of some obscure quote from fifty or one-hundred years ago.  (I admit that I have resorted to a long forgotten doctrine when discussing shifting doctrine; however, it was by choice that I did not use a present doctrine as an example.)  Often, the best source for LDS material is the Doctrine and Covenants; but again, only if you feel you absolutely must.  This will do far more to start the season of questioning than quoting an unknown sermon by say, Brigham Young. (It is easy to fall back on historical quotes, even has this post has done, but this is not often the most effective way to discuss the differences in Mormonism and Christianity when chatting with a member of the LDS faith.)  Try to ask many questions but do not demand an answer on the spot; allow the questions to work in the person’s mind so the Holy Spirit might drive the answers deep into the Mormon’s heart.  And above all, pray continually for the Mormon.  Pray.      

Bibliography

Brodie, Fawn McKay. No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Baker reference library. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001.

Hindson, Edward E., and Ergun Mehmet Caner. The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics. Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008.

Rowe, David L. I Love Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005.

Smith, Joseph. The Pearl of Great Price. Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981.

Tanner, Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Mormonsim: Shadow or Reality?. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987.

---

     [1] Walter Elwell. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker reference library, Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2001), 792.

     [2] Edward E. Hindson and Ergun Mehmet Caner, The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics (Eugene, Or: Harvest House Publishers, 2008), 360.

     [3] Joseph Smith, The Peal of Great Price, Extracts from the History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, History of the Church, Vol. 1, Chapters 1-5 (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981), 47, 1:5.

     [4] Smith, 48, 1:11-15.

     [5] Hindson, 358.

     [6] Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet (New York: Vintage Books, 1995), 16.

     [7] Brodie, vii.

     [8] Smith, 51-55, 1:27-55.

     [9] Doctrine and Covenants (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter –day Saints, 1981) 294, Declaration 2.

     [10] Smith, 60, The Articles of Faith 8.

     [11] This entire section comes from both personal observation and Hindson, 360-361.

     [12] Hindson, 360-361.

     [13] Brodie, 297-308, 334-347.  The Doctrine and Covenants introduction to Section 132 seems to suggest that Brodie may be correct, including, “Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831” 266.

     [14] Declaration 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants, added on October 6, 1890, records Woodruff’s statements on this matter.

     [15] Declaration 2 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

     [16] Hindson, 359.

     [17] Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Mormonsim: Shadow or Reality? 5^th ed. (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987), 174-178D

     [18] Hindson, 359.

     [19] Tanner, 89.

     [20] Hindson, 360.

     [21] Stephen E. Robinson, “Are Mormons Christians?” LDS.org, http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e0710e2cbc3fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 [Accessed December 6, 2009].

     [22] Hindson, 362.

     [23] David L. Rowe, I Love Mormons: A New Way to Share Christ with Latter-Day Saints (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005), 9. 


*This post was, in its entirety or in part, originally written in seminary in partial fulfillment of a M.Div. It may have been redacted or modified for this website.  I have no material connection to the books recommended in this post. 
** Photo of Statue is registered under a Creative Commons License: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilmungo/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0. Photo of  Street Preacher is registered under a Creative Commons License:http://www.flickr.com/photos/dianaschnuth/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The Word of God, Hebrews 4:12

A deist is one who believes that God created the world and set it in motion, but does not interact with his creation; or if there is interaction, it is extremely rare, and only in the miraculous. The analogy of the clockmaker is often used; that is, that God is like a clockmaker that created a clock, wound it up, and then set it on a shelf never to touch it again. But the Bible does not teach that God has walked away from his creation, uninterested.  In fact, there are hundreds of stories, thousands of scriptures, that demonstrate the opposite. And while we could look at many, many scriptures, today we'll examine Hebrews 4:12.

 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  (Hebrews 4:12, ESV)

Here, we see that the Word of God is alive and doing something in this world, in us.  In this verse, the Word is dividing "soul and spirit" and "discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." The NIV translation says "it judges the the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12, NIV). But what is the Word of God that is alive and active?

The "Word of God" has several different meanings throughout the Bible.  The word "word" is translated from the Greek word (the language the New Testament was originally written in) logos.  The word itself has many possible meanings, which is why the phrase can carry multiple meanings.  The Word of God could mean the speech of God or maybe God's decrees (Genesis 1:3, for example).  It could be the actual words spoken to a person or people, like when God spoke to Moses (Exodus 20:1-3) or when God spoke to the crowd at Jesus' baptism (Matthew 3:17).  There are many Old Testament instances of God speaking through a human prophet; Deuteronomy 18:18-20 explains how God spoke through these men.  And of course the Word of God can mean the written scriptures, that is, the Bible.  (Please see Joshua 24:26 or 1 Corinthians 14:37.) And there are rare Scriptures that indicate that the Word of God is also Jesus Christ.

(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (2) He was in the beginning with God. (3) All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3, ESV)

Here we clearly see that the Word was with God but was also God.  The reference to "the beginning" is a reference to Genesis 1:1 when God was creating the world. This is not simply spoken words or the Scriptures.  And we see that all of creation was made through the Word.  But what or who is this Word.  John 1:14 gives us the answer:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14, ESV)

Clearly this Word is not like the aloof clockmaker; this God entered flesh and walked among the creation.

Getting back to Hebrews 4:12, it is most likely that the Word of God is the Scriptures (although it is beautiful to see the deeper connection between the Scriptures and the Christ).  Often the Holy Spirit uses what is written to convict us, to show us where we have blemishes in our intentions and attitudes.  And through this conviction we find we can turn to Jesus Christ, who has made a way for us to escape the punishment of sin and dwell with God eternally.  If, however, God is like the clockmaker, why do our thoughts and attitudes need investigation?  Why even leave man with the living and active Word of God at all? No, this God is not like the clockmaker.  This God is living and active in the lives of his creation.  

Mainstreaming Mormonism

I recently wrote a a short subsection for a Burnside Writer's Collective piece on the trends and events of the past decade in American Christianity.  My contribution was on the issue of the mainstreaming of the LDS Church.  I'm expanding on the discussion with this post. 

The last decade has seen a continued growth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, Mormons), especially in South America.  In 2000, there were over 11-million members and nearly 61,000 missionaries, according to the LDS Church.  In 2008, there were 13.5-million members in a decade where many Christian denominations saw flat growth or even decline.  Living in Salt Lake City, I often Mormons argue that this fast growth support the LDS church's validity as the one and only "true church." This is a flawed argument, but the church records do seem to show explosive growth.  However, we need to remember that these statistics do not reflect the number of members who have gone inactive or left the Church without removing their names from the records.

While very challenging to document, their growth might be, in part, a result of the mainstreaming of the Mormon faith.  What do I mean by mainstreaming?  Basically, there's an effort, intentional or not, to bring the Mormon Church under the umbrella of orthodox Christianity.  In the past ten years, more Mormons have raised to public positions of prominence than ever before.  This decade, Mormons have followed the Osmonds into the entertainment spotlight, appearing on nearly every reality television show in prime time, landing on best-selling author’s lists, and singing to the masses.  Sixteen Mormons presently serve in the US Congress, including the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid from Nevada, and Orin Hatch who ran for the Republican nomination for the US Presidency in the 2000 election.  Mitt Romney, one of a good-sized handful of Mormon Governors, also ran for the US Presidency, thrusting the LDS Church into the public eye even further.  And let’s not forget conservative talk show host Glenn Beck.       

In 2002, Salt Lake City, the international headquarters of the LDS Church, hosted the world during the Olympic Winter Games.  Before the coming of the all the cameras and attention, the Church adjusted its logo so “Jesus Christ” is larger and more prominently displayed.  And the Mormon members were discouraged from calling themselves Mormons, in favor of “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

Slowly, the LDS Church is working to slip into the term “Christian” without sharing in much of the same theology.  Many Mormon Facebook users list their religion as “Christian,” and they often take offense when challenged on the issue.  Mormons are doing more to give out a King James Bible with a Book of Mormon now.  And the missionary discussions place greater focus on Jesus, albeit many (including the late LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley), argue that Mormons do not view Jesus the same way Evangelicals do.  Two of the three Evangelicals ever to speak in the Mormon Tabernacle, two did so in the latter half of the decade.  Ravi Zacharias and Nic Vijucic were guests of Standing Together, a Christian organization attempting to bridge the divide by focusing on the similarities.  Other Christian groups, such as Mormon Research Ministries are opposed to such mainstreaming without centering the discussions on the differences in theology.   While those who want to focus on the simularities say it reaching out to Mormons in love, others suggest that it leaves Mormons no reason to leave the faith.  Additionally, the LDS can use the bridge efforts to further the mainstreaming.  Both approaches make some valid points, but the best Christian apologetic efforts might be best to settle somewhere between these too positions.

The LDS Church appears to greatly want to be included in the evangelical voting block and be seen as part of the Christian family.  But as long as the LDS missionaries continue to try to convert Christians, they continue to show the world where they really stand on this issue.

Only time will tell of the mainstreaming efforts will favor the Mormons.  They had less full-time missionaries in the field in 2008 than in 2000, down to about 52,400.  The new convert rate has remained flat over the past decade, around 265,000 per year, with the remaining growth coming from births.  More recently, the LDS Church almost seemed surprised that many Evangelicals opposed Mitt Romney for the Presidency.  And the backlash of California’s Prop 8 is lingering with little sign of letting up.

No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brodie

No Man Knows My History:

The Life of Joseph Smith

By

Fawn M. Brodie

It took me a long time to finish, but I've finally turned the last page of the book the Mormon church would prefer never be read. I won't pretend to know the Church Of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints' official position on Brodie's work, nor that of the Mormon reformed church of the same birth; but based on discussions I've shared with Salt Lake Mormons, it's obvious that No Man Knows My History is in direct conflict with the sanitized history the LDS church and its members accept and worship.

I picked up No Man Knows My History, first, because I wanted to learn more about Mormon history; and second, because Brodie is a large source of information for many other books on Mormonism.

Fawn M. Brodie's writing style is dry and academic. Nearly every page features a citation in the footnotes. Most of her sources, in fact, come from church documents like History of the Church, or the published journals and letters of the characters themselves. Joseph Smith founded a religion in the time of the printing press, and Brodie built a book on the evidence of the printers.

She approaches Joseph Smith as a man, rather than the perfect mouthpiece of God as many Mormons view him. In some ways, this is an unfair approach. Abraham (of the Biblical Old Testament) looks like a crazy person if the reader doesn't accept that Abraham hears the voice of God and acts on those words. On the other hand, Joseph Smith wasn't a perfect mouthpiece; he wasn't God. Brodie outlines mistakes and failures as well as successes, and this makes Smith look a little more human that Mormons wish. Appearing human shouldn't be a bad thing. Paul (of the New Testament) knew he was a retched sinner, but he's revered almost next to Jesus in the Christian faith (but not quite).

Wading through this book is an insightful journey. Joseph Smith was an interesting man, strange, but still interesting. He ran for President of the United States.  He sent Parley P. Pratt, an elder in his church, on a mission to England and then married the man's wife while he was away. He was a Mason and adopted many Masonic practices and rituals into his religion. He was arrested many times, and fraud was often the charge; but on one occasion, warrants were written on the charge of murder. Smith was the mayor of Nauvoo and wrote his own laws, outside the scope of common law, his city charters, or the Constitution of the United States. Although Nauvoo was a dry community, Porter Rockwell (Smith's burly bodyguard and "Destroying Angel") ran a saloon in Smith's home and hotel until Emma (Joseph Smith's first wife of nearly fifty wives) put an abrupt stop to it. Smith had a love of the finer things in life and lusted after adventure, power, and the ladies (married or not, church members or otherwise). His death was tragic, but his actions in life may have predicted the possibility of his earthly demise.

Fawn M. Brodie's No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith is an fascinating book. Her work, no matter how controversial, is worth consideration. Although it crashes against the re-crafted history of the Mormon church, I recommend it to anybody interested in LDS history--especially present members of the LDS church, apologists working with Mormons, or anybody generally interested in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its history.

*I have no material connection to this book.