I'm not one of those who believes that racism is dead or that we have put all of our racial disparities in this country behind us. There is still quite a bit of anger at blacks under the surface in this country, and the fact is that blacks are born into poorer communities, do have a harder time finding jobs, and do usually end up going to crappier schools. I think it's worthwhile to try to take steps to even things out, and so I don't have all that much sympathy with the folks running willy nilly on the radio airwaves screaming about reverse discrimination.
On the other hand, I have grown increasingly skeptical in my old age about measures like welfare, affirmative action, restitution payments, and identity politics. I have serious doubts about whether these are actually successful at evening things out, at all.
The truth is that these measures reinforce a sense of difference and victimization. This can be both good and bad. Recognizing that you are a victim, for example, can lead you to seek help. It can cure disillusionment by assuring you that the problem lies not in your abilities but in your victimizers' cruelty. It can give you the anger and determination you need to overcome your victimization and make something of yourself. On the other hand, a sense of victimization can lead to a sense of entitlement. It can lead to a sense of despair. It can lead to misdirected anger. It can lead to disregard for all authorities, laws, and values because you think they're all out to get you.
Perhaps worst of all, a community of victims who band together may begin to feel that victimization is an important part of their value and identity, and may (consciously or unconsciously) come to want to be victimized. They may see victimizers where there are none, or even do obnoxious things in order to provoke others into victimizing them. Because if ever they stopped being victims, they wouldn't fit in to the community any more.
I don't feel sympathy with the Republicans who scream about "reverse discrimination," because to some degree I think they suffer from the same kinds of problems I just listed. They have convinced themselves that white Christian Americans are the new Jews, and everyone is out to get them. But on the other hand, I don't feel sympathy for blacks who cry and preach and campaign against racism, either. Quite honestly, the black community does quite a bit that only reinforces the stereotypes and prejudices against them. They have created a culture that rewards unproductive and disorderly behavior.
Or maybe we have created that culture. We, with our patronizing affirmative action programs and our welfare checks, hand out monetary rewards for unproductivity where the black community itself can only give kudos.
Frankly, maybe it's time to stop being so conciliatory. As long as we're making lovey-eyes at the poor oppressed blacks saying, "oh, you poor things," we can hardly expect them to try to change their circumstances. Maybe it's time to demand of them that they start contributing to society, following the same rules all good citizens follow, and taking responsibility for their own actions. Because of course as long as we're taking responsibility for their success and survival and dignity, they're not really equal anyway. It's only when they take responsibility for themselves that they'll really be in a position to engage the society on equal footing. And I think we'd all be amazed how fast the prejudices would go away once blacks quit confirming them for everybody.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Moral Sacrifice in '24'
I just watched the Season 7 finale of 24, and it occurred to me that religious themes of sacrifice and redemption were powerful undercurrents in this season.
In the two-hour movie prologue to Season 7, suggestively titled "24: Redemption," Jack Bauer is on the run from the law and from his guilt for all the terrible things he has done in the line of duty. At the end of "Redemption" he turns himself in in order to save some African children and to honor a fallen friend. Season 7 begins with Jack facing interrogation before a Senate tribunal investigating his use of torture in the line of duty. Jack refuses legal counsel, choosing instead to speak on his own behalf. He is insistent that he does not regret anything he has done, but he also seems prepared to face the legal consequences for it.
Throughout the season there is a constant tension between what is right and what is necessary. Jack readily admits that the things he has done are wrong and weigh heavily on his conscience, yet he regrets none of them, because they were necessary. An exchange between Jack and Renee in the Season 7 finale perhaps explains it best. Jack says that if there are fifteen people and a bomb on a bus, he will do anything-- anything whatsoever-- to save those people. He knows at an intellectual level that the laws should be more important than the people, but his heart would not be able to live with that. Thus he is willing to break the law and to face the consequences for his actions. Jack is prepared to make himself a moral sacrifice for America: to sacrifice his conscience to save lives, and then to sacrifice his freedom to save America's collective conscience.
I think this is a profound take on the morality of torture. It insists that torture is wrong and that there are no exceptions to its wrongness. Yet it also suggests that there might be circumstances under which it is necessary for the greater good. Torture does not cease to be wrong in these cases, and those who carry it out must be held accountable. They are guilty. But it is a noble guilt, because they took it upon themselves knowingly and for a worthy purpose. These people know when they torture someone that they will be prosecuted for it. They are willing to become sacrifices to the founding ideals that we as a nation cannot afford to compromise.
At the end of the season finale Jack is dying due to exposure to a biological weapon in the line of duty. On his deathbed he calls in a Muslim imam in hopes of finding some peace with what he has done. The imam tells Jack it is not too late to find forgiveness. "You don't know what I've done," Jack says. The imam forgives Jack anyway, and Jack finally seems at peace. "It's time," Jack whispers in words reminiscent of Jesus' on the cross. He thus becomes a literal as well as a moral sacrifice for the nation.
Jack, however, is not completely dead. At the end of the episode his daughter decides to go through with an experimental stem-cell treatment that might yet save her father's life. Since filming for Season 8 has already begun, it seems that he is to undergo a resurrection of sorts.
In a parallel storyline, President Taylor turns her daughter in to the Justice Department, even though it tears her apart inside to have to do it, and even though her husband urges her to cover up the murder her daughter orchestrated. President Taylor sacrifices her family to a higher power for which she feels an even greater love and duty: the Constitution.
This, for me, was the most powerful season of 24 yet, partly because here we had here some of the deepest moral struggles the show has yet depicted, and partly because of the powerful mythic resonances we feel as nearly all the show's main characters sacrifice themselves in one way or another for the ideals on which the country is founded.
In the two-hour movie prologue to Season 7, suggestively titled "24: Redemption," Jack Bauer is on the run from the law and from his guilt for all the terrible things he has done in the line of duty. At the end of "Redemption" he turns himself in in order to save some African children and to honor a fallen friend. Season 7 begins with Jack facing interrogation before a Senate tribunal investigating his use of torture in the line of duty. Jack refuses legal counsel, choosing instead to speak on his own behalf. He is insistent that he does not regret anything he has done, but he also seems prepared to face the legal consequences for it.
Throughout the season there is a constant tension between what is right and what is necessary. Jack readily admits that the things he has done are wrong and weigh heavily on his conscience, yet he regrets none of them, because they were necessary. An exchange between Jack and Renee in the Season 7 finale perhaps explains it best. Jack says that if there are fifteen people and a bomb on a bus, he will do anything-- anything whatsoever-- to save those people. He knows at an intellectual level that the laws should be more important than the people, but his heart would not be able to live with that. Thus he is willing to break the law and to face the consequences for his actions. Jack is prepared to make himself a moral sacrifice for America: to sacrifice his conscience to save lives, and then to sacrifice his freedom to save America's collective conscience.
I think this is a profound take on the morality of torture. It insists that torture is wrong and that there are no exceptions to its wrongness. Yet it also suggests that there might be circumstances under which it is necessary for the greater good. Torture does not cease to be wrong in these cases, and those who carry it out must be held accountable. They are guilty. But it is a noble guilt, because they took it upon themselves knowingly and for a worthy purpose. These people know when they torture someone that they will be prosecuted for it. They are willing to become sacrifices to the founding ideals that we as a nation cannot afford to compromise.
At the end of the season finale Jack is dying due to exposure to a biological weapon in the line of duty. On his deathbed he calls in a Muslim imam in hopes of finding some peace with what he has done. The imam tells Jack it is not too late to find forgiveness. "You don't know what I've done," Jack says. The imam forgives Jack anyway, and Jack finally seems at peace. "It's time," Jack whispers in words reminiscent of Jesus' on the cross. He thus becomes a literal as well as a moral sacrifice for the nation.
Jack, however, is not completely dead. At the end of the episode his daughter decides to go through with an experimental stem-cell treatment that might yet save her father's life. Since filming for Season 8 has already begun, it seems that he is to undergo a resurrection of sorts.
In a parallel storyline, President Taylor turns her daughter in to the Justice Department, even though it tears her apart inside to have to do it, and even though her husband urges her to cover up the murder her daughter orchestrated. President Taylor sacrifices her family to a higher power for which she feels an even greater love and duty: the Constitution.
This, for me, was the most powerful season of 24 yet, partly because here we had here some of the deepest moral struggles the show has yet depicted, and partly because of the powerful mythic resonances we feel as nearly all the show's main characters sacrifice themselves in one way or another for the ideals on which the country is founded.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Why the Consequence Argument Begs the Question
A while back on this blog I discussed the issue of libertarian free will and determinism with Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler. Not surprisingly, Blake defaulted to his favorite argument for libertarian free-will, which philosophers call the "Consequence Argument":
Yet that obviously is not a nonsensical thing to say. It is in fact a perfectly natural thing to say. Our computer program satisfies all our most intuitive criteria for "control": it monitors and manipulates a system so that the system remains within certain desirable parameters. The fact that laws and events of the distant past are sufficient causes of the current core temperature simply does not negate the fact that the computer exercises control-- except, of course, in a universe where the only acceptable definition of the word control is the counter-intuitive one invented by libertarians.
1. If determinism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born.I have said before that every argument for libertarian free-will smuggles special, counter-intuitive libertarian conclusions into the premises, and the Consequence Argument is no exception. The crucial question-begging here comes in the third premise. A fairly simple counter-example should serve to illustrate how this premise assumes a special, counter-intuitive definition of "control". Let's look at the premise again:
2. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature.
3. If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B.
Therefore
4. If determinism is true, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts.
Therefore, assuming that responsibility requires control,
5. If determinism is true, then we are not responsible for anything we do or think.
Therefore, assuming that freedom entails responsibility,
6. If determinism is true, then we are not free, which is to say that every form of compatibilism is false.
If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B.Let's say that "A" refers to the events and natural laws of the distant past, "B" refers to the current core temperature in a nuclear reactor, and "we" refers to a highly sophisticated computer program designed to monitor reactor pressure and temperature and to make adjustments to keep them at safe levels. If the premise were true, then it would be nonsensical to say that our computer program "controls" the reactor temperature.
Yet that obviously is not a nonsensical thing to say. It is in fact a perfectly natural thing to say. Our computer program satisfies all our most intuitive criteria for "control": it monitors and manipulates a system so that the system remains within certain desirable parameters. The fact that laws and events of the distant past are sufficient causes of the current core temperature simply does not negate the fact that the computer exercises control-- except, of course, in a universe where the only acceptable definition of the word control is the counter-intuitive one invented by libertarians.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Animals: The New Holocaust?
Lest Orson Scott Card's misguided rantings on gay marriage and atheism cause us to forget that he has expressed plenty of perfectly liberal ideas, too, here's a sampling from his novel Lovelock (coauthored with Kathryn Kidd). It's a fairly elegant statement of the case for animal rights. This is from pages 280 and 281, where the protaganist contemplates killing a female monkey whose continued existence poses a danger to him.
But why is it absurd? Because I gain so much benefit and pleasure from eating animals' flesh? Because I don't know them, I have no investment in their well-being, I never have to see their pain, so I can pretend it doesn't exist?
The arguments for human rights look so self-evident to us today. We look back with disdain at previous racist generations. The racists were blind to the suffering of blacks because they gained so much benefit from keeping the blacks enslaved, because they didn't know or care about the blacks personally, because blacks were considered inferior. The same rationalizations we use to assuage our guilt for our treatment of animals.
Of course, one might object that blacks aren't inferior, whereas animals are. Well, what if blacks had been inferior? Would that have justified slavery and torture? Are we justified in tormenting children, the elderly, the crippled, the mentally handicapped? These people really are inferior according to some standards of measure. It's no accident that in the Holocaust the handicapped were among the first to go. Did their physical or intellectual inferiority give Hitler the right to systematically exterminate them?
Will future generations look back at McDonald's and Burger King and see a Holocaust? Will they be horrified at how we blinded ourselves to intolerable suffering, just to fill our bellies and satisfy our cravings? Do I sound crazy and paranoid yet? Maybe. Or maybe just unsettled by a thought experiment that led me places I wasn't quite prepared to go.
[...] she was an animal, right? She didn't have feelings, right?A perfectly rational argument, and yet one against which our emotions instinctively rebel. That's absurd, we think, without really thinking at all.
That was humanist thinking: Because animals aren't exactly like us, they are infinitely different, wholly other. Thus we can treat them however we like.
But animals are not wholly other. Their consciousness steps down from ours in infinitesimal steps, just as there is infinite variation among us. Who is to say that the most intellectual and creative of chimpanzees is not above the level of the most stupid and brutal of humans? And behind chimpanzees, other primates, and behind them, perhaps, dolphins or dogs, whales or cats. None of them wholly different from us, but rather differing only in degree. Capable of love, of feeling, of knowing, of remembering. And so if it matters how you treat humans, then it matters how you treat animals.
But why is it absurd? Because I gain so much benefit and pleasure from eating animals' flesh? Because I don't know them, I have no investment in their well-being, I never have to see their pain, so I can pretend it doesn't exist?
The arguments for human rights look so self-evident to us today. We look back with disdain at previous racist generations. The racists were blind to the suffering of blacks because they gained so much benefit from keeping the blacks enslaved, because they didn't know or care about the blacks personally, because blacks were considered inferior. The same rationalizations we use to assuage our guilt for our treatment of animals.
Of course, one might object that blacks aren't inferior, whereas animals are. Well, what if blacks had been inferior? Would that have justified slavery and torture? Are we justified in tormenting children, the elderly, the crippled, the mentally handicapped? These people really are inferior according to some standards of measure. It's no accident that in the Holocaust the handicapped were among the first to go. Did their physical or intellectual inferiority give Hitler the right to systematically exterminate them?
Will future generations look back at McDonald's and Burger King and see a Holocaust? Will they be horrified at how we blinded ourselves to intolerable suffering, just to fill our bellies and satisfy our cravings? Do I sound crazy and paranoid yet? Maybe. Or maybe just unsettled by a thought experiment that led me places I wasn't quite prepared to go.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Catch Me on the Mormon Expression Podcast
Be sure to catch me on the Mormon Expression Podcast discussing the Book of Abraham controversy. Thanks to the folks at Mormon Expression for having me on, and to John Larsen for his great work organizing and editing the thing. We lost our connection something like a dozen times during the discussion, so John had his work cut out for him making it seamless. Here's the abstract:
In this episode the panel is joined by historian Chris Smith to discuss the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham. Between critics and defenders, the Book of Abraham is probably the most contentious of all Mormon issues. To the uninitiated, these issues can quickly become technical and complicated and here we hope to unravel the mystery a bit. Topics discussed include the 19th century understanding of Egyptology, Reformed Egyptian, the Egyptian and Hebrew languages, The Catalyst Theory, the Missing Papyrus Theory, the Anthon Transcript, the Kirtland Egyptian Papers (KEP) and the theories of John Gee and Hugh Nibley.
Friday, July 10, 2009
This Summer's Sunstone Symposium
Sunstone just put up their Preliminary Program for this summer's Symposium. The Symposium runs from August 12 to 15, and is held at the Salt Lake City Sheraton Hotel. The program this year looks just as loaded with fascinating presentations as it is every year, so you'll definitely want to start buying tickets and making reservations! The only downside is that sometimes there are so many great papers being given concurrently that you'll have to make the agonizing choice between them.
You'll find my paper listed as session #222 on the program. I have to compete with George D. Smith, Ron Romig, and Scott Kenney during my timeslot. Ugh. At least my paper's in a different genre. Maybe that will help draw some literary types who don't really like history.
Here are some of the other sessions I'll be attending:
112 - James MacLachlan - MEDITATIONS ON WILLIAM H. CHAMBERLIN AND WHY ONE SHOULD REMAIN MORMON
123 - Trevor Luke - THE SCANDAL IN THE PRACTICE: JOSEPH SMITH AS RELIGIOUS PERFORMER
132 - Panel - MORMONS AND MEDIUMS: LDS WOMEN’S PURSUIT OF MEDIATED AND NONMEDIATED COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEAD
154 - Jeffrey Needle - IMMERSED IN ALL THINGS MORMON EXCEPT THE FONT
161 - Steve Warren - DRAT! MYTHED AGAIN: THE STRANGE PERSISTENCE OF CERTAIN QUESTIONABLE TEACHINGS IN TODAY’S MORMONISM
171 - Panel - AUTHOR MEETS CRITICS: NAUVOO POLYGAMY
191 - Panel - THE DYNAMICS OF POWER AND AUTHORITY IN THE LDS CHURCH
213 - Loren Franck - ‘YOUR BOSOM SHALL BURN WITHIN YOU’: AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN EXAMINATION OF THE LDS TESTIMONY
234 - Panel - DIVINE MALFEASANCE
251 - Don Bradley - MAPPING MORMON ISSUES: CONSPIRACY, DELUSION, OR REVELATION? THE 180-YEAR CONTROVERSY OVER THE BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES
264 - Michael Reed - CROSS AT THE CROSS: LDS CONTEMPT FOR THE CHRISTIAN SYMBOL
272 - Panel - PREVIEW OF A FORTHCOMING BOOK: MORMON POLYGAMY: NEW PERSPECTIVES—FROM JOSEPH SMITH TO WARREN JEFFS
315 - Brian Hales - GENDER-SPECIFIC ROLES AND THE ETERNAL PATRIARCHAL ORDER: A THEOLOGICAL LOOK AT JOSEPH SMITH’S POLYGAMY
323 - Panel - WHY GAY MORMONS ARE SO OFTEN TEMPTED TO BLOW THEIR STINKIN’ HEADS OFF (IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER)
355 - Peter and Mary Danzig - “IT’S EITHER TRUE OR FALSE . . . ” DICHOTOMOUS THINKING IN MORMON CULTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INDIVIDUAL
361 - Dale E. Luffman - MAKING A CASE FOR A NINETEENTH CENTURY READING OF THE BOOK OF MORMON
You'll find my paper listed as session #222 on the program. I have to compete with George D. Smith, Ron Romig, and Scott Kenney during my timeslot. Ugh. At least my paper's in a different genre. Maybe that will help draw some literary types who don't really like history.
Here are some of the other sessions I'll be attending:
112 - James MacLachlan - MEDITATIONS ON WILLIAM H. CHAMBERLIN AND WHY ONE SHOULD REMAIN MORMON
123 - Trevor Luke - THE SCANDAL IN THE PRACTICE: JOSEPH SMITH AS RELIGIOUS PERFORMER
132 - Panel - MORMONS AND MEDIUMS: LDS WOMEN’S PURSUIT OF MEDIATED AND NONMEDIATED COMMUNICATION WITH THE DEAD
154 - Jeffrey Needle - IMMERSED IN ALL THINGS MORMON EXCEPT THE FONT
161 - Steve Warren - DRAT! MYTHED AGAIN: THE STRANGE PERSISTENCE OF CERTAIN QUESTIONABLE TEACHINGS IN TODAY’S MORMONISM
171 - Panel - AUTHOR MEETS CRITICS: NAUVOO POLYGAMY
191 - Panel - THE DYNAMICS OF POWER AND AUTHORITY IN THE LDS CHURCH
213 - Loren Franck - ‘YOUR BOSOM SHALL BURN WITHIN YOU’: AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN EXAMINATION OF THE LDS TESTIMONY
234 - Panel - DIVINE MALFEASANCE
251 - Don Bradley - MAPPING MORMON ISSUES: CONSPIRACY, DELUSION, OR REVELATION? THE 180-YEAR CONTROVERSY OVER THE BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES
264 - Michael Reed - CROSS AT THE CROSS: LDS CONTEMPT FOR THE CHRISTIAN SYMBOL
272 - Panel - PREVIEW OF A FORTHCOMING BOOK: MORMON POLYGAMY: NEW PERSPECTIVES—FROM JOSEPH SMITH TO WARREN JEFFS
315 - Brian Hales - GENDER-SPECIFIC ROLES AND THE ETERNAL PATRIARCHAL ORDER: A THEOLOGICAL LOOK AT JOSEPH SMITH’S POLYGAMY
323 - Panel - WHY GAY MORMONS ARE SO OFTEN TEMPTED TO BLOW THEIR STINKIN’ HEADS OFF (IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER)
355 - Peter and Mary Danzig - “IT’S EITHER TRUE OR FALSE . . . ” DICHOTOMOUS THINKING IN MORMON CULTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE INDIVIDUAL
361 - Dale E. Luffman - MAKING A CASE FOR A NINETEENTH CENTURY READING OF THE BOOK OF MORMON
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Does Lanctantius Allude to Constantine's Vision?
In his work The Life of Constantine, written shortly after the great Christian Emperor’s death in 337 A.D., Eusebius of Caesarea claims that the catalyst for Constantine's conversion was a miraculous vision:
Some historians believe that Eusebius fabricated the account of the vision, especially since no other authors of his day-- including Constantine himself-- make mention of it. Constantine's son's tutor Lactantius made mention of the dream within a few years of the event, but omitted reference to the vision altogether. So it seems reasonable to assume that Constantine had a dream but that the tale of the vision that preceded it is an embellishment.
I think, though, that in Lactantius' account of the dream there may be a heretofore unnoticed allusion to the vision. In Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, 318 Lactantius says,
Granted, Eusebius likely exaggerated the importance of whatever Constantine saw in the sky. A number of scholars have noticed a similarity between the vision and a solar phenomenon called the "halo effect." The most common manifestation of this phenomenon is a rainbow that forms a halo around the sun (thus its name), but others include a cross of light with the sun at its center. According to A. H. M. Jones (Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, 96), the phenomenon is caused by the fall of ice crystals across the rays of the sun. Jones says, "The display may well have been brief and unspectacular, but to Constantine’s overwrought imagination it was deeply significant."
About noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.Eusebius also reports that the emperor had a dream the next night in which Christ appeared to him and showed him the same sign and told him to use it as a standard in all his army’s engagements.
Some historians believe that Eusebius fabricated the account of the vision, especially since no other authors of his day-- including Constantine himself-- make mention of it. Constantine's son's tutor Lactantius made mention of the dream within a few years of the event, but omitted reference to the vision altogether. So it seems reasonable to assume that Constantine had a dream but that the tale of the vision that preceded it is an embellishment.
I think, though, that in Lactantius' account of the dream there may be a heretofore unnoticed allusion to the vision. In Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, 318 Lactantius says,
Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ.It is tempting to assume that "the heavenly sign" is called "heavenly" because it is a divine or religious symbol. But what if it is called "heavenly" because the emperor had seen it in the heavens? Could this be an allusion to a prior celestial appearance?
Granted, Eusebius likely exaggerated the importance of whatever Constantine saw in the sky. A number of scholars have noticed a similarity between the vision and a solar phenomenon called the "halo effect." The most common manifestation of this phenomenon is a rainbow that forms a halo around the sun (thus its name), but others include a cross of light with the sun at its center. According to A. H. M. Jones (Constantine and the Conversion of Europe, 96), the phenomenon is caused by the fall of ice crystals across the rays of the sun. Jones says, "The display may well have been brief and unspectacular, but to Constantine’s overwrought imagination it was deeply significant."
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Some Thoughts on Mormon-Evangelical Dialogue
If you've been checking in here from time to time this week, you know I've posted interviews with three prominent and articulate evangelicals about their approaches to the Mormon community. Dean Jackson argued for reconciliation and repentance, Greg Johnson pleaded for "Convicted Civility", and Mike Stahura called for uncompromising commitment to the truth. But however much their approaches may differ, there is also a common thread among them. All three describe their activity as "dialogue".
This is an encouraging sign. In the past, evangelical outreach to Mormons tended to be described as "evangelism," "ministry," or even "missions," but rarely as "dialogue". "Dialogue" was a word that conjured the specter of an impotent ecumenical movement. It was a word that seemed to imply weakness and lack of conviction. So to see a conservative evangelical like Mike Stahura unashamedly using the word "dialogue" signals a welcome shift in the evangelical movement's attitude toward the term.
The great thing about the term "dialogue" is that it implies a two-way interaction. It means that both sides will have an opportunity to communicate their views, and both sides will be expected to listen to each other. The term "evangelism" suggests that one party has the knowledge and will be dispensing it to the other side, who is merely a passive recipient. In dialogue the two parties approach each other as equals, and both have an opportunity to be active participants.
It should come as no surprise that I disagree with much of what Mike Stahura said about Mormons. But at the same time, I respect his approach. He is a person of strong convictions, and he places all of those convictions on the table before entering into dialogue. There is something refreshing about the frankness with which he states what he believes is true. There is no masking of his views behind a facade of false acceptance or phony fellowship. The advantage of this is that his views and attitudes then become fair game for discussion. Assuming that he is sincere in his desire for dialogue, Mormons will have the opportunity to challenge his misconceptions with equal frankness. Whereas organized interfaith dialogue too often degenerates into an exchange of platitudes, Mike represents an opportunity for Mormons to engage in a robust exchange of ideas. This is interfaith dialogue of the truest kind. This is where the rubber meets the road.
This is an encouraging sign. In the past, evangelical outreach to Mormons tended to be described as "evangelism," "ministry," or even "missions," but rarely as "dialogue". "Dialogue" was a word that conjured the specter of an impotent ecumenical movement. It was a word that seemed to imply weakness and lack of conviction. So to see a conservative evangelical like Mike Stahura unashamedly using the word "dialogue" signals a welcome shift in the evangelical movement's attitude toward the term.
The great thing about the term "dialogue" is that it implies a two-way interaction. It means that both sides will have an opportunity to communicate their views, and both sides will be expected to listen to each other. The term "evangelism" suggests that one party has the knowledge and will be dispensing it to the other side, who is merely a passive recipient. In dialogue the two parties approach each other as equals, and both have an opportunity to be active participants.
It should come as no surprise that I disagree with much of what Mike Stahura said about Mormons. But at the same time, I respect his approach. He is a person of strong convictions, and he places all of those convictions on the table before entering into dialogue. There is something refreshing about the frankness with which he states what he believes is true. There is no masking of his views behind a facade of false acceptance or phony fellowship. The advantage of this is that his views and attitudes then become fair game for discussion. Assuming that he is sincere in his desire for dialogue, Mormons will have the opportunity to challenge his misconceptions with equal frankness. Whereas organized interfaith dialogue too often degenerates into an exchange of platitudes, Mike represents an opportunity for Mormons to engage in a robust exchange of ideas. This is interfaith dialogue of the truest kind. This is where the rubber meets the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)