On page xv Millet expresses his vision for Evangelical-LDS relations: he believes they should unite in a common effort to defeat orchestrated evil. This, however, makes many Evangelical Protestants uncomfortable. I think a major reason for that is that if Evangelicals accept Mormons as Christian brothers, Mormons will nevertheless continue to believe that Protestants lack the Restored Gospel. If proselytism from the Protestant side ceases, then it will be uni-directional, and potentially pose a threat to Protestant groups that want to send their members to work alongside Mormons. The truth, in fact, is that Mormonism gains the large majority of its converts from historic Christian denominations rather than from non-Christian persuasions. I think that fears like these could be alleviated if some sort of temporary, mutual non-proselytism agreement were in force while the two sides engage in common efforts toward social justice.
Millet's book is definitely tailored to appeal to Evangelical Protestants. During the course of reading it, I occasionally wondered whether in his zeal to build bridges Millet was watering down certain convictions or forcing them into Protestant categories that they don't really fit. He also appears to represent the "Neo-orthodox" school of Mormon thought, which takes a more minimalist view with respect to historic Mormon doctrines than many lay Church members might.
On that note, In the "Why This Book Was Written" section Millet mentions the question of sources in establishing what is or is not LDS doctrine. He asserts that old sermons by church leaders are not considered a reliable source for church doctrine. On the other hand, church doctrine can be found "in official church pronouncements, within current church manuals and handbooks, and would be a topic discussed regularly in general conferences and other church gatherings." Contrast this with Stephen Robinson, who makes it sound like scripture is the only reliable source for latter-day doctrine. (In How Wide the Divide Robinson does say that we need prophets to interpret scripture for changing cultures and language, but on pp. 73-74 also says this: "The parameters of LDS doctrine are clear-- Scripture is normative, sermons are not. Almost anything outside the Standard Works is also outside those parameters." Robinson is a big fan of Ezra Taft Benson's re-emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and-- unlike Millet-- affirms that he believes in Biblical inerrancy.) I think the disparity between Millet's and Robinson's views is important to resolve, as far as Evangelical/LDS conversation goes, because (for example) Robinson's view would allow us to reject the notion that the worn out phrase "God was once a man like us on a world like ours" is LDS doctrine. Millet's view, by contrast, would tend to affirm this phrase as a church-sanctioned expression. Perhaps the difference is that Millet's view is descriptive (what do LDS believe) whereas Robinson's view is prescriptive (what must LDS believe in order to remain LDS)? Or, perhaps, Robinson is just an ultra-minimalist. The confusion on this issue is only aggravated by the Joseph Smith quote Millet provides on pages 16-7: "Search the scriptures... and ask your Heavenly Father... to manifest the truth unto you... You will not then be dependent on man for the knowledge of God; nor will there be any room for speculation." This quote seems to argue in favor of Stephen Robinson's view that the only real source for LDS doctrine is scripture. To look to church leaders and prophets for clarity, it seems, is to depend too much on the speculations of men. In this light, I think that Craig and Copan in the New Mormon Challenge are right to affirm that the way is open for Latter-day Saints to accept the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
Although Millet does not spend a considerable amount of time criticizing Evangelicalism, it is interesting to find him endorsing the view of Roger Olson, which he cites on p. 15:
...too strict an adherence to sola scriptura and a complete rejection of church tradition... may lead to problems and challenges for the church. "Evangelicals have lost their memory of the Great Tradition of Christianity... Is it any wonder, then, that so much of our preaching and teaching is shallow and that we keep repeating the errors of the past? New forms of the heresies that bedeviled the churches in the generations immediately after the apostles' deaths repeatedly appear in evangelical circles...I wonder if Millet realizes that the Great Tradition to which he refers includes the Nicene Creed, and that Mormons are considered by this Tradition to have revived several of the "heresies that bedeviled the churches immediately after the apostles' deaths." Olson seems to be saying that if the debate over a given heresy has already been resolved at some point during the church's history, we shouldn't waste our time rehashing it.
After offering this criticism of the Evangelical tradition, Millet changes tacks in chapter 2. This chapter was a pretty scathing denunciation of "historical Jesus" pseudo-scholarship. It seemed a little out of place in the book, but I'm assuming it was a sort of attempt to engender solidarity: a way of saying to conservative evangelicals, "I'm on your side!" He also expresses an understanding of and empathy for Evangelicals' feelings in the following poignant quote:
Several years ago my colleague Brent Top and I sat with two Protestant ministers for a few hours in what proved to be a delightful and extremely enlightening conversation. Absent was any sense of defensiveness or any effort to argue and debate; we were earnestly trying to understand one another better. Toward the end of the discussion, one of the ministers turned to me and said: “Bob, it bothers you a great deal, doesn’t it, when people suggest that Latter-day Saints are not Christian?” I responded: “It doesn’t just bother me. It hurts me, for I know how deeply as a Latter-day Saint I love the Lord and how completely I trust in him.”Of course, Millet's empathy does not lead him to abandon his convictions. But it does lead him toqualify them in some (in my opinion) somewhat strained ways. On pp.49-50 Millet attempts to explain how the LDS church can be said to be the "only true church." He defines "only", then defines "true". The latter means a litany of things like "honest", "good", and "correct". The point Millet will make, however, hinges on the former, which he says "asserts a uniqueness and singularity". Given this flimsy definition, he can say that "only true church" indicates that the LDS church is "the most steady, sure, and solid institution on earth" (emphasis added). Obviously to get from "only true" to "most true" is a leap; "only" is an exclusive term!
My Protestant friend then made a rather simple then made a rather simple observation, one that should have been obvious to me long before that particular moment. He said: “How do you think it makes us feel when we know of your belief in what you call the great apostasy, of the fact that Christ presumably said to the young Joseph Smith that the churches on earth at that time ‘were all wrong,’ that ‘all their creeds [are] an abomination in my sight’ that ‘those professors were all corrupt’ and that in your Doctrine and Covenants your church is identified as ‘the only true and living church upon the face of the earth’?” I can still remember the collage of feelings that washed over me at that moment: it was a quiet epiphany, coupled with feelings of empathy, sudden realization, and a deep sense of love for my friends. (Pp. 43-4)
He then gives us a quotation from Neal Maxwell that takes a somewhat different tack and hinges everything on the definition of true. By defining "true" in an absolute sense, "as measured by divine standards", he can assert that the LDS church is the only one that measures up while still afirming that other churches have some truth. This is more believable than Millet's suggestion, but I wonder if even this suggestion is viable. Can even the LDS church claim to be absolutely true in every way, true according even to divine standards? I would be more comfortable with LDS claiming they are the "most true church" on the earth. But then, I guess that doesn't sound quite as impressive.
I thought that Millet's characterization of Mormons as "Christians but different" was very insightful. It preserves a distinction between the two groups without giving the impression that LDS don't believe in Jesus. There were a couple points in particular that I thought the "difference" was especially evident. One was on p. 76, where he says, "[Jesus] came to earth as a legal administrator, empowered to empower others. He ordained and set apart and bestowed priesthoods and authorities, and he thereby established his church and kingdom on earth." This conception of Jesus is quite foreign to the Evangelical Protestant tradition in which I was raised, as well as to my reading of the New Testament. I simply don't see him doing these things. The other was Millet's suggestion on p. 20 that Jesus "came to earth to get a physical body". I suspect that most Protestants would feel that this minimizes not only the real reason that Jesus came here-- to save humankind-- but also the teaching of Phil. 2 that when Jesus surrendered the form of God and took on the form of a man, this was actually an act of self-abasement and a voluntary surrender of divine privileges. The picture painted there certainly is not of a disembodied spirit who came to earth because he needed to get a body.
In some cases, however, the difference was substantially less pronounced even than Millet made it out to be. One such occasion was his rejection of the doctrine of "total depravity". Millet makes some statements to the effect that the doctrine devalues people and denies fundamental human dignity (84). Most people who talk about "total depravity", I think, mean by it what Millet affirms on p. 86: that there are no "good people". The classical doctrine of depravity also suggests that humans are not fundamentally capable of any good act (because even acts that appear to be good are actually performed for selfish reasons, like earning eternal salvation), but that the power of the Holy Spirit (or "prevenient grace", in Luther's terms) overcomes our depravity and makes us capable of doing good. Thus even our good works begin as an act of grace; even in our decision to choose Christ, Christ is the initiator. This is actually what Millet himself teaches on p. 88 (and 102-103): that it is a universal effect of Christ's atonement that overcomes our depravity and makes us free to choose right and wrong. I don't think the doctrine, properly understood, is as absurd as Millet tries to make it seem (vis-a-vis C.S. Lewis) on p. 85.
While Millet rejects depravity in name, he affirms its basic substance. Interestingly enough, Mormons often do the same with Original Sin. In one breath they claim not to believe in it and to expose the absurdity of the doctrine, but in the next they say that it is Christ's universal atonement that removes original sin (Moses 6:54-55). Apparently they do believe in it; they just believe that God's grace negates it.
It might be worthwhile to add a few comments here about the Trinity. I thought it was interesting to find Millet affirming that the three persons of the godhead are "infinitely more one than separate." I'm not sure even hardcore Trinitarians could say they believe that. Millet also reiterates the standard LDS view that the three persons are one "in will". This is a potentially confusing statement, since it could mean either that the three persons are in agreement or that they literally share one will. I suspect that the oft-quoted passage by Justin Martyr means the latter, but that Latter-day Saints mean the former. As for Evangelicals, though they readily affirm that the three are "one substance", I think they might find themselves hard-pressed to affirm that they are "one will", except in the sense of being in agreement (cf. Jn 4:34).
Millet's views on grace and works are not phrased in historic, confessional Reformation language, but neither I think would they be considered unorthodox from a Protestant perspective. He writes that salvation for Mormons is as much a process as an event (81). Most of what he says about grace/works (96-97) is good Wesleyan/Bonhoefferian fare. (If you've never read The Cost of Discipleship, I highly recommend it.) On the subject of ritual works, which are likely to be a subject of especial concern for Protestants, he echoes traditional Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican sacramental language by saying that the various LDS ordinances are simply "channels for grace". This will undoubtedly still make most Evangelicals nervous. They will be suspicious of covenant-making that has to follow a prescribed form in a prescribed location (namely temples). Evangelicals are notorious for their focus on the "spirit" of outward performances and for their rejection of explicitly sacramental theology. A key text for the charismatic movement, in fact, is John 4:24, which promotes a worship of "spirit and truth" along with an apparent repudiation of the prescription of sacred sites like the Temple and Mt. Gerizim.
Some Evangelicals be grateful to read Millet's comments on p. 117 about what deification is and, more importantly, what it is not. He stresses that deified human beings will not supplant the Godhead, and says that he sees no reason to believe that deified humans will ever be worshipped. Beyond that he seems unwilling to draw firm conclusions. Evangelical readers will probably also be pleased that, unlike a number of Church apologists, Millet refrains from the abuse of C. S. Lewis. He writes, "I honestly don’t know what Lewis meant fully (and certainly what he understood or intended) by these statements. The doctrine of the deification of man did not originate with Lewis, nor with the Latter-day Saints; it is to be found throughout Christian history and within Orthodox Christianity theology today. Whether Lewis would have agreed fully with the teachings of such notables as Irenaues, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and Augustine on deification — or, for that matter, with what the Latter-day Saints teach — I cannot tell."
Millet closes his book with some very insightful comments about "convicted civility". Civility is something that often gets lost in religious dialogue and debate. Evangelicals don't have to shed their convictions in order to be civil to their LDS neighbors. Richard Mouw's afterword, too, is nobly conciliatory and insightful.
Ultimately, I think this is a very helpful book. It is written clearly, carefully, and charitably. There is none of the biting sarcasm that sometimes surfaces in the works of Stephen Robinson and Daniel Peterson. Millet demonstrates that he worships the true Jesus simply by the way he presents his case: he seeks in every sentence on every page to be Christlike.
That's good enough for me.
0 comments:
Post a Comment