.: Do Debates Between Greg Johnson
(Standing Together Ministries) and Robert Millet (BYU
Professor) Bridge the Gap Between Evangelicals and Mormons?
Due to the popularity of the debates
between Johnson and Millet and the claims that have
been set-forth regarding Mormonism, we feel it is necessary
to share some of the concerns we have regarding their
effort to make Mormonism "appear" as if it
has more in common with evangelical Christianity than
it truly does. As you read the following article by
Rob Sivulka of MormonInfo.org,
we hope that if you have bought into this movement,
you will begin to exercise greater discernment in evaluating
the claims made by Johnson and Millet. We also encourage
you to read "An
Open Letter of Concern" by Tracy Tennant
as she shares the impact Standing Together Ministries
has had on her family. In Tracy's letter to Greg Johnson,
she wrote the following:
"...I initially wrote that your
ministry has had an impact on my family. Let me just
say that thanks to your efforts to 'Stand
Together' with Mormons, two of my
sons went back to Mormonism, in part
because people like you, Richard Mouw, Craig Blomberg,
and other well-meaning Christians who don’t
know what they are doing, have legitimized
Mormonism as being 'just another Christian denomination.'
My sons’ feelings are that since Christian leaders
are teaming up with Mormons, it must mean The Church
is True after all. And since people like Robert Millet,
Stephen Robinson, and other 'paid defenders' of Mormonism,
have misrepresented Mormonism through slick
words and disinformation, my boys have come to believe
that there really is not a big difference between
Mormon beliefs and Christian beliefs. Oh,
and as a side note, my always-LDS son sees the return
of his brothers to Mormonism as a 'fulfillment of
prophecy' and he’s going to be faithful to the
end so his other siblings and his dad and I will someday
return to The Church..." Click HERE
to read more of Tracy's Letter...
EVANGELICAL SEMINARY'S OUTREACH TO MORMONS
DOES NOT BRIDGE THE GAP by Rob Sivulka of www.MormonInfo.org
Are friendships with Mormons and criticism
mutually exclusive? And should all evangelism to Mormons
be in the context of friendship? The Salt Lake Theological
Seminary Bridges movement 1. would
answer in the affirmative to both questions. The movement
has become quite influential in the minds of many that
conduct ministries to Mormon people. In fact, it seems
that it has become quite an influential mode of doing
any evangelism in our post-modern culture. This movement
seems to be manifesting recently in a series of dialogues
between an Evangelical and a Mormon. Certainly times
and people change, but as a result of these dialogues
the question is raised concerning how far our modes
of evangelism should cave to the culture. There certainly
are concerns that this particular Bridges mode of evangelism
does in fact excessively cave to the culture.
The seminar, video, and workbook
produced by Salt Lake Theological Seminary (Bridges:
Helping Mormons Understand God's Grace) is an attempt
by some local Utah educators and ministers to provide
an alternative to traditional confrontational evangelism
(evangelism that is primarily concerned about confronting
with the gospel truth and not about first building friendships).
In fact, traditional confrontational evangelism is not
even a legitimate alternative according to this Bridges
program. Rather, confrontational evangelism is generally
an impediment and ineffective for Mormons coming to
the real Christ. Ken Mulholland, president of Salt Lake
Theological Seminary, and one of the driving forces
behind the Bridges movement, argues that when an LDS
individual is highly committed to her church, then apologetics
is generally "counterproductive". "[T]here
is a strong temptation to use logical arguments and
apologetics to convince Mormons of the flaws of their
religion", says Mulholland. "This approach
generally backfires since the Latter-day Saint 'knows'
-that is, feels emotionally - that his religion is true.
The stronger the effort to persuade him, the more he
will believe he is being persecuted."2
Not surprisingly, Mulholland has asked "for an
end to the in-your-face style of preaching."3
Pastor Scott McKinney of Christ Evangelical
Free Church in Orem, UT states in the Bridges video
curriculum, "We have to be about telling people
the good news about what is right with Jesus, not what
is wrong with their religion." In addition, Pastor
Ross Anderson of the Evangelical Free Church in Roy,
UT says in the video, "In our evangelism we put
the cart before the horse and we emphasize theological
truth first. I think we have to start with the spiritual
hunger." Shortly after this he said, "Theological
discussions, while they may help them understand me
better, or me understand them better, are really not
that fruitful in terms of leading someone to Christ."
This "spiritual hunger" takes
the form of building relational, experiential bridges
of friendship. First and foremost, we ought to take
them to church, share testimonies, pray with them, and
in general, be nice to them. Then, and only then, does
one bring in theology or apologetics, but never in a
critical way. Referring to Rev. Greg Johnson (Evangelical
president of Standing Together Ministries in Salt Lake
City, UT), John W. Kennedy states in a recent Christianity
Today article, "He believes that evangelicals have
a greater potential for influence if they refrain from
criticism, and that civil discourse is an essential
prelude to a breakthrough."4
John Morehead of Watchman Fellowship in California led
a Bridges seminar and said, "Several shared with
us afterwards that while they were initially upset by
the statement that 'Mormonism is a culture not a cult,'
over the course of the day as Bridges unfolded they
realized that this approach is indeed the proper one,
and will likely be more effective than traditional apologetic
ones."5
At an LDS ward in Anaheim, CA on January
10th, 2004, Greg Johnson and Robert Millet (Richard
L. Evans Professor of Religious Understanding and Professor
of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University) conducted
a two-hour dialogue. The dialogue was presented before
a group of around a thousand Mormons and Evangelicals.
They spent a majority of the time talking about their
friendship, its intrinsic value, and how they could
still be good friends and disagree with each other.
They spent the remainder of their dialogue asking each
other clarifying questions regarding doctrinal issues.
At no point during the dialogue was the other
pressed further to make sense of his position, and there
was never any criticism of the views presented. This
dialogue was certainly not a debate, and there was not
a question-answer time.
Johnson and Millet are on a 14-city
dialogue tour according to the Christianity Today article
cited above. They have publicly dialogued with each
other on their friendship and religious similarities
and differences in such places as BYU, Christian colleges
like Westmont, public universities like UCLA, Christian
churches, Latter-day Saint (LDS) wards, and LDS institutes
of religion such as at Harvard University. They have
become good friends over the years, and have developed
a desire to encourage and demonstrate to both Evangelicals
and Mormons (groups that have been rather abrasive and
aloof toward one another) how a respectful dialogue
is to take place between the two groups.
The dialogue between Johnson and Millet
had the Bridges tenor about it. This comes as no surprise
since Johnson used to teach the Bridges seminar
for Salt Lake Theological Seminary. (It should
be noted though that the Johnson-Millet dialogue is
an evolving work in progress, and the February 11th,
2004 dialogue at the University of Utah avoided many
of the problems associated with this Anaheim dialogue).
First and foremost, one got the impression that all
evangelism needs to be bridge building. Johnson
seemed to run down confrontational evangelism to build
his bridges approach in several ways.
1. He explicitly distanced himself
from his early model, Walter Martin.
2. He noticed how "ineffective" Martin's approach
was; it was not bringing about Johnson's desired goal
of extended friendships with more resulting conversations.
3. He used the Bridges illustration of Christian mission
teams coming up to Utah to kick the beehive (Utah's
state symbol) over only to leave the poor local Christians
with such a backlash of some rather upset bees.
4. He attacked confrontational evangelism indirectly
by quoting Mulholland's statement, "Mormonism is
a culture not a cult". Confrontational evangelism
(or even some other bridge-building approach for that
matter) on the other hand is not worried about placating
LDS ears with such a platitude. Confrontational evangelism
will not do this for the simple fact that it is not
going to compromise truth. And the truth is the LDS
Church is a cult as well as a culture. (If it is not
a cult, then nothing is. What well-respected Evangelical
scholar who has written on the cults in general would
not include the LDS Church? A "cult" is simply
a term Christians use to specify a group that does not
bother retaining a traditional denominational title
and claims to be Christian even though it denies one
or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity.)
This does not mean that confrontational evangelists
(or again, some other bridge-building evangelists) will
lead with this particular controversial truth or even
bring it up during a conversation or monologue.
5. All instances of street preachers were talked about
in a negative way. Any stated positive instances would
jeopardize Johnson's program.
In addition to denigrating
confrontational evangelism, the dialogue also let Millet
get away with too much. Johnson did not really
call Millet on anything. Johnson asked all the substantial
theological questions with the exception of one that
Millet raised, and, as already mentioned, Johnson never
pressed Millet any further. For example, Johnson asked
Millet to state what LDS doctrine is since many Evangelicals
find that pinning a Mormon down on what the LDS Church
believes is like "trying to nail Jell-O to the
wall". Millet offered his four criteria for what
is LDS doctrine:
1. The scriptures (i.e., the standard works-King James
Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine
and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price),
2. Official LDS declarations or proclamations,
3. LDS general handbooks or approved curriculum, and
4. Material offered in current LDS general conferences
or other official gatherings by LDS general authorities.
By sticking with this criteria,
Millet can easily dodge such problems as former LDS
prophet and president Brigham Young's general conference
statements about Adam being "our FATHER and our
GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do."6
Now Johnson could have pressed Millet's criteria as
being arbitrary since not all LDS hold to this, or as
self-contradictory since Millet's own belief here is
not found stated within these criteria. Johnson could
have also tried bringing out the fact that Young claimed
that all his sermons were in fact "Scripture".7
Of course Millet would say that Young was mistaken,
but there are still problems with this.
First, the Bible damns Young as a false
prophet for this teaching of Adam being God (e.g., Deuteronomy
13:1-5), and Millet certainly would not claim this.
Second, Young was once a living prophet who spoke on
this topic of Adam in a general conference. Wasn't Young
supposed to be listened to, especially when he claimed
to have received this from God? In his time, who was
more authoritative than Young outside of Christ? And
isn't Young still more authoritative than Millet anyway?
Third, why are Young and others who followed him wrong
and modern prophets right? Was it just because the latter
are modern? But whom does this refer to-the fundamentalists
(i.e., polygamist prophets that today hold Young's teaching
on Adam) or those in the Salt Lake City headquarters?
Fourth, what difference do the standard works make for
being the final word when the LDS Church has seriously
altered them? So something is more authoritative than
even the standard works. But according to Millet, we
do not have to go along with this more authoritative
something or other under certain conditions. Fifth and
finally, what this comes down to is that the Spirit
will lead His (LDS) Church, and we do not need to know
everything. There is no need to determine if this really
is the Spirit of the Lord once one has received the
"testimony of the Spirit" (i.e., "the
burning in the bosom"). The Lord would not lie
and steer an individual in the wrong way. With
this sort of blind loyalty, it is hard to see what would
really count against the LDS Church in principle.
Now this may not bother Millet
at all, and perhaps Johnson should have pressed Millet
simply on how the Bible appears to at least contradict
the other standard works. Instead, Johnson explicitly
affirmed Millet in certain beliefs when Johnson said,
"Millet is the world's greatest authority on what
Millet believes." In other words, Johnson
didn't want the audience to accuse Millet of not believing
certain items that may in fact be generally held by
the LDS Church leaders or members when he explicitly
denies them. But allowing Millet to be in agreement
with Christianity on certain issues that go against
the typically assumed LDS beliefs (even if this really
is the case8) misses the primary
point that Millet may in fact have a problem being associated
with a hopelessly false church. In other words,
the dialogue focuses on Millet, and how he is really
not that bad of a guy. It's an autobiographical venture.
A good "old fashion" debate (using "criticism"
to Johnson's dismay) would rather steer away from what
is going on in Millet's head, and instead focus it objectively
on the LDS Church and what it teaches. As a
result of losing this focus, the Salt Lake Theological
Seminary Bridges approach utilized by Johnson seeks
to earn the trust of the LDS individual in developing
a meaningful relationship at the expense, at least initially,
of contending for the truth. This is the stance
of typical post-modern evangelism.
In and of itself, there is nothing
wrong with seeking to earn the trust of the LDS individual,
and in fact, it is quite commendable. And sometimes
this may require certain beliefs and criticisms foundational
for conversion to be temporarily withheld for the sake
of establishing a deeper friendship. However,
if these beliefs and criticisms are always permanently
withheld (e.g., "We have to be about telling people
the good news about what is right with Jesus, not what
is wrong with their religion", "refrain from
criticism", etc.) or even distorted in such a way
as to placate the other's ears (e.g., "Mormonism
is a culture not a cult"), then just how deep and
authentic is the friendship? And if in principle
any confrontation is ruled out from the beginning of
the friendship, then how can the Lord's occasionally
surprising will rule? Perhaps the Lord desires an individual
to confront and criticize a stranger whether friendship
between the two will result or not. The friendship though
must never be divorced from truth in the overall scheme
of things. And that is why other non-Salt Lake Theological
Seminary bridge-building evangelists are free to criticize
their friends at any point during the friendship, for
"[f]aithful are the wounds of a friend" (Proverbs
27:6) even though a "friend loves at all times"
(Prov. 17:17). Friendship becomes over-rated
and an idol when it is divorced from the leading of
"the Truth". This is the stance of
typical traditional evangelism.
The Apostle Paul, for example, was
not worried about the appearance of eating with the
Gentiles as the Apostle Peter was when the Jews showed
up (Galatians 2:11ff.). Peter was over-valuing friendship
with the Jews and over-valuing their thoughts, and Paul
immediately and publicly rebuked Peter because of it.
At this particular juncture, Peter had disregarded the
truth when he should have stood for it.
This is why the relationship between truth and friendship
is asymmetrical. There can be truth without friendship,
but there should never be friendship without truth.
And this is why "the Truth" and "the
Prince of Peace" came not to bring "peace,
but a sword" to divide.9
The Johnson-Millet dialogue seemed
to confuse and bother more people than it helped in
its stated desire to demonstrate how an Evangelical-LDS
dialogue should take place. First, by not allowing Millet
to be pressed it left the unsuspecting very confused,
while it left the suspecting very bothered. For
the unsuspecting, Millet appeared to be rather similar
to an Evangelical. For the suspecting, they were bothered
that Millet was not pressed to clarify the nuances between
Evangelicals and Mormons on certain key issues.
Second, neither good friends nor strangers for that
matter are required to let each other get away with
this much. Why should all evangelism between two different
religious groups really look like this? Is this really
"the most effective" method? And effective
for what... the intrinsic value of friendship, for having
a better chance of having more open and friendly dialogues,
or for actually getting people into the kingdom? And
should effectiveness be the determining factor as to
how we do ministry anyway? Of course if God is not drawing
an unregenerate individual to Himself by the exclusive
preaching of the Word, perhaps He will do it via an
extended friendship.10 But why should
we automatically lead our evangelism with an extended
friendship that at least initially refrains from criticism
simply because some pastor-scientist-micro-managers
view this as a "more effective" way? If the
mind is just as fallen as the heart, there's no guarantee
that either will respond to the gospel or gospel-friendship
appropriately at any point in the relationship. Third
and finally in this regard, it became rather
tedious to hear how much the "we can disagree and
still be good friends" card was played. If they
really believed this, then why didn't they spend more
time just showing the audience? It appeared that there
was just too much cowering to LDS sensitivities.
In conclusion, an evangelist of either
a more confrontational bent or of a more bridge-building
bent is not going to want to be needlessly offensive.
But both realize that some things are too valuable not
to risk being offensive at times. No one likes to be
offended by someone banging on one's door in the middle
of the night, for example. But if the home is on fire,
the offense is understandable. Christ Himself is "a
stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (1 Peter
2:8, KJV), and His disciples are called to "contend
earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered
to the saints" (Jude 3, NAS emphasis added) as
well as to "demolish arguments and every pretension
that sets itself up against the knowledge of God"
(2 Corinthians 10:5, NIV). "Woe to you when all
men speak well of you, for in the same way their fathers
used to treat the false prophets" (Luke 6:26, NAS).
Building bridges with LDS must never be at the expense
of perpetually sparing the offensive truth of the gospel,
watering it down, distorting it, or not being open for
the Lord to use the preaching of His word and rebuking
even "out of season" (2 Timothy 4:2).
For more information on Johnson and Millet see:
For more information see:
 Greg Johnson/Robert Millet Debates (www.mormoninfo.org)
Mormon/Evangelical Discussions (www.christianresearchservice.com)
==========
End notes:
1 http://www.slts.edu/Conferences_Programs/Bridges.htm.
2 Bridges, Patricipant’s
Workbook, 28.
3 http://www.slts.edu/Press/Main_Street_Plaza.htm.
4 Christianity Today, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/002/14.18.html,
emphasis added.
5 Salt Lake Theological
Seminary, Newsletter [Winter 2003-04], 3: http://www.slts.edu/PDFs_Downloads/2004WI_Newsletter.pdf,
emphasis added.
6 Journal of Discourses,
vol. 1, 50.
7 Ibid., vol. 13, 95.
8 Millet has lately been
endearing himself to Evangelicals particularly over
his book Grace Works, since it seems, prima facie at
least, to uphold sola gratia and sola fide. But at least
one well-respected Evangelical researcher of Mormonism
says, “Where Dr. Millet really stands on this
issue depends on what page you are reading” (Bill
McKeever, Mormonism Researched [May/June 2004], 4).
9 Matthew 10:34ff.
10 This is similar to
wives being subject to their husbands so that if any
are unbelieving they may be won to Christ without a
word (1 Peter 3:1).
|
