Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical
Book review Back to Articles
“Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation Between a Mormon and an Evangelical,” by Dr. Millet and Reverend Gregory Johnson is a book about a work in progress; a work between two idealists and their followers whose purported goal is to bridge the communication gap between Mormons and Christians. The book is divided into four parts, with an appendix at the end for further clarification.
Part One covers the backgrounds of the authors; their upbringing, education, and brief testimony of how they came to the belief systems they now hold. Part Two consists of questions they ask each other in regard to their respective faith traditions. The topics under discussion include “Only True Church,” the Creeds, definition of an Evangelical, the Fall of Adam, the nature of God, and grace, among others. Part Three covers questions from the audience, which include queries about LDS doctrine, the Trinity, Book of Mormon evidences (or lack thereof), concerns with Evangelicalism and Mormonism, the Rapture, the role of Prophets, “What We Have Learned From Each Other, ” and several other commonly asked questions about both religious viewpoints. The authors conclude the book with their personal aspirations for Mormons and Evangelicals, what they hope to accomplish with their dialogues, and how they see the future in regard to forming a vibrant friendship between two religious groups that have historically been hostile toward one another. The last appendix offers 25 suggestions they feel would facilitate an interfaith friendship.
At 185 pages, the book is an easy read, given the authors’ writing style. It is more or less a transcript of portions of Millet’s and Johnson’s public dialogues. I was able to finish the book in a little over two days, even with all the highlighting and comments I made in the margins. The book will likely be a hit with many LDS readers, who will see it as another step toward inclusion in mainstream Christianity, and by theologically liberal Christians, who will view it as a groundbreaking milestone in ecumenism.
The book begins with a foreword written by Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary and Stephen Robinson of Brigham Young University, in which they refer to a book they co-authored called, “How Wide the Divide.” They write about the subjects they tackled in their work, namely, “…what our particular community believes, often held misconceptions about those beliefs by outsiders, and why we still remain at least partially unconvinced by the other group’s position on the topic” (Bridging the Divide, pp. x-xi. Emphasis mine). This should give the reader a heads-up for the rest of book. The statement made by Blomberg and Robinson is an admission that the converse it true; they are now partially convinced by the other’s position. It appears we now have a New Testament professor in a Christian seminary partially convinced that Mormonism is right! Parents beware as you consider where to send your children for their religious education!
In promoting “Bridging the Divide,” Blomberg and Robinson assert that Johnson and Millet “want to tell the truth to each other, and thus to their audiences, about what each believes as a representative of their respective faith communities…they want to avoid side-stepping the hard questions that still keep each community from believing that the other has the fullness of the gospel” (Ibid. p. xiii. Emphasis mine). My question for Mr. Johnson is, who exactly are you representing; a small constituency? Certainly not the evangelical community at large! My question for Mr. Millet is this; why do you allow yourself to be introduced as a representative of the LDS “faith community” when you know very well that only General Authorities, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidency authoritatively speak for the Church? Since neither of you officially represent either faith community, these dialogues are more like two friends sharing religious opinions with each other over lunch. My question for Blomberg and Robinson is, what exactly is meant by “questions that still keep each community from believing that the other has the fullness of the gospel?” This sounds very ecumenical, like once these questions are answered and the barriers broken down, Mormons and Christians can become One Church with One God. You can cross-breed a horse with a donkey, but the product (a mule) will be sterile. A blending of Mormonism and Christianity would make a sterile gospel indeed. It does not do justice to either belief system.
The book leads readers down a changing path, a journey in which Johnson and Millet flip-flop like politicians, themselves unsure of where they will end up. “To some degree, this process is a bit messy because it’s not really clear how things are all going to turn out, how what we’re trying to demonstrate will materialize,” says Johnson (Ibid. p 3). Millet and Johnson allude to the fact there are major theological differences between Mormonism and Christianity, but they seem to minimize those differences or skirt around them altogether. Despite such a lofty list of topics enumerated in the Table of Contents, there is a lack of serious depth to any of them. As can be expected, anyone expressing genuine concern about the effects of their ministry together is accused of being "mean-spirited," a common epithet used by Mormons and those in close association with them.
The book jacket describes the Millet/Johnson dialogues as “heroic in their candor, integrity, and courage, to breach old barriers of misinformation and misunderstanding,” yet the discerning reader will be unable to find many examples of this. For instance, on page 35, in reference to Joseph Smith’s revelation that the LDS Church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth,” Millet writes, “It does not mean that God-fearing Christians who are not Latter-day Saints will not go to heaven.” This is only a half-truth. The average Christian, unfamiliar with LDS doctrines, will assume this means Mormons DO believe Christians go to heaven. They will not see a doctrinal difference in this. To a Christian there is only one heaven. But in Mormonism there are three levels of heaven and not all of them include living in the presence of God for eternity. The LDS Church teaches that God-fearing Christians who refuse to accept the Mormon gospel will only go to the second level, called the Terrestrial Kingdom, where they will be able to associate with Jesus, but not with God the Father. For all his claims to address the “hard topics,” Johnson does not call on Millet to clarify this, nor does he take the opportunity to clarify it himself.
Here is another example of Millet giving a mendacious answer and Johnson’s refusal to call him on it. On page 41, Johnson says, “As I recall, one of your early leaders called the Fall [Fall of Adam] a ‘fall upward.’” On page 42 Millet responds by saying, “Let me correct slightly your mischaracterization of our doctrine; I’m not aware of anyone saying that Adam and Eve’s act produced a fall upward…” Yet, the Deseret News, Church Section, July 31, 1965, p.7, quotes Sterling W. Sill, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, as saying, “Adam fell, but he fell upward.” It is unlikely that a Professor of Religious Education who once served as Dean of that department and a lifelong Mormon would be unfamiliar with this phrase or teaching. In fact, we can know Millet is lying, or at least misleading, because on page 43 he continues, “In the words of the Church leader you misquoted slightly…” How would he know it was “misquoted slightly” unless he was familiar with the original quote? Again, Johnson is silent, letting it go on record that “the Fall upward” was a mischaracterization of Mormon doctrine.
One could easily wonder if Johnson knows very much about Mormonism, after all, he was only a member for a brief time from ages three to fourteen. He was never Temple Endowed and did not attend years of priesthood meetings where much of the unusual doctrines is discussed. Should he really be leading an interfaith dialogue of this sort when he seems to know relatively little about Mormonism? Or is there more to this than meets the eye? Perhaps his goal is to bring Mormonism under the umbrella of mainstream Christianity.
Johnson and Millet assert they have no goals and no agendas, but their words tell a different story. Let’s look at a few statements made in their book. Bold lettering is my emphasis. My comments are in red:
We have not settled all issues, and are soberly aware we may not do so in our lifetime. But we are in the business of engaging the issues, wrestling over doctrinal matters, acknowledging differences, and rejoicing in similarities and agreements. In other words, while the bridge is underway, it obviously has not been “fitly framed together” (Ephesians 2:21). (Millet, p. xxii) (If the bridge is underway, that means they intend to complete it)
To be candid, this is a work in progress (Johnson, p. 5).
I felt something was wrong, something needed to change, God and His church could surely do better (Johnson, p. 150) (And I suppose Greg means to show God how).
The last ten years of ministry in Utah have shown us that there is a better way; the future can bring greater harmony and peace between Mormons and evangelicals; and both communities can look to the one true God to bring us all closer to His truth than we might have ever imagined (Johnson, p. 161). (And who is the one true God Johnson is referring to? God of the Bible, Who is spirit, or the Heavenly Father of Mormonism, who is married with children?)
Or do we long to see the day where Mormons and Evangelicals could embrace one another in true Christian fellowship? (Johnson, p. 162) (Although Johnson follows by saying there still remain differences, he is convinced God is doing a work within both faith communities by drawing them together).
We can entrench ourselves [each denouncing the other]…Or there’s a second possibility: one day we might find one faith community completely embracing the other’s truth and renouncing their own (Johnson, p. 176) (I wonder which religion will end up embracing the other. All the accounts in the Bible indicate it was usually God’s people that embraced the paganism of surrounding nations in the end).
…but if we are patient, maybe, just maybe, someday Mormons and Evangelicals will be transformed by the very Savior we both profess to embrace and be able to sing together of God’s amazing grace (Johnson, p. 180)
If nothing else does, this last quote should raise a red flag among Christians, particularly pastors and other leaders. The Bible teaches us that when a person is “born again,” he is then transformed into a new creation in Christ. As Christians we have already been transformed, something Reverend Johnson should know, considering his seminary training, study, and background as a professing Evangelical! Johnson's statement is troubling to say the least.
In conclusion, the book will prove to be extremely disappointing to those on both sides who take their faith seriously. “Old school” Mormons will see Millet as compromising the gospel, being patronizing toward those who truly believe in the words of their leaders, and trying much too hard to be accepted by the world and the "less-enlightened" Christian community. Biblically-minded Christians who believe God says what He means and means what He says in regard to yoking themselves with false teachers and organizations will see Johnson as compromising biblical truth. In addition, they will see the Johnson/Millet dialogues as undermining the efforts of apologetics ministries that have had great success bringing the lost to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ through the methods Jesus and the apostles used some 2,000 years ago.
By the end of the book, one could easily wonder if Johnson has already set up meetings with the Mormon missionaries and committed to a baptism date. The only entity standing to gain from this whole Mormon-Evangelical endeavor is the LDS Church. Think about it. This should be a wake-up call.
|
