MormonInfo.org

The biggest disappointment that did not even take place within the formal events of those three evenings revolved around well-known Christian song writer and singer Michael Card's statements in the press. I read about it after the fact. Card performed for the tabernacle event, and his statements in the paper, assuming the reporter got it right, of our theological unity with LDS made me ill. According to the article, Card stated that "he doesn't see Mormonism and evangelical Christianity as opposed to each other. They are more like the two ends of a long thread--part of the same thing. 'The older I get,' he said, 'I guess the more I want to integrate everything'" (cf. this Deseret News report). Ravi, being the general editor to The Kingdom of the Cults should have informed Card that Mormonism is a cult, since it was the former who invited the latter to perform in the tabernacle with him.

But what about Dr. Craig Hazen of Biola University? He had the job of giving the closing prayer. He simply said,

Your servant James taught us that God will give wisdom generously to all who ask Him for this precious gift. Even the Mormon Scriptures say that Joseph Smith, Jr. sought wisdom at a crucial time in his life. No one in this room should ever fear asking You, oh gracious Father, for wisdom. So in a common voice we ask you to give us divine wisdom and the truth about You, about Your Son, about Your Holy Word, and about Salvation. You have promised to answer such heartfelt prayers, and I ask that You would not let a single person leave this great hall tonight without the light of truth being kindled in his or her soul.

This also set off a of controversy from many agitated Evangelicals, who thought that this would certainly lend credence to Joseph Smith and LDS belief, as well as to pray about something that we shouldn't pray about since God has already spoken about it in His word. I on the other hand agree with what Craig prayed. We should ask God for wisdom in everything, including our understanding of God's word. There are good people who think that James 1 can also be extended to intellectual trials, and they wouldn't deny that the Lord leads us to answers via prayerfully searching the Scriptures and natural revelation. Of course Smith's account of his first vision story is so fraught with contradictions that it's dubious he ever did it. But then again, I've used "Samuel the Lamanite" in the Book of Mormon as "an" example of the legitimacy of street preaching in order for LDS to back off on criticizing the means by which I'm relaying information to them. Even Paul said, "'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man" (Acts 17:28-29). This doesn't mean Paul was advocating being pagans. Sadly, for too many Christians, anything that smacks of imitating Smith is of the devil. But this is just myopic. Smith was an American. Does that mean we should all move out of the country now?

Some are incredulous that I don't see this the way LDS are expected to see this, but I'm incredulous that so many Evangelicals are making such a big deal of this particularly when there's a particular context for the prayer. If the prayer was given to some random LDS off the street without them knowing Craig or anything else, then yes I would agree that they'd think it was a prayer given by some LDS. But 1) Craig's position as a Christian professor from Biola was totally clear, and 2) it was Ravi's job to preach the message of salvation in Christ alone (more on this in a moment). 3) Craig's job was to close in prayer, and urge the LDS to pray about what they had just heard that I believe contradicted their own theology.

I obviously wouldn't have prayed that prayer, but I'm not Craig. I'm the guy who holds those signs up in front of Temple Square, and preaches for LDS to repent. But that doesn't mean I think everyone should be me. For what Craig did, I'm fine with, because it was Craig. If my mom would have been asked to close with prayer in that situation, she probably would have prayed the same thing. So would a ton of other Christians who would simply want to have a role in encouraging people to pray about what they just heard that contradicted their own theology. What Craig performed was a service that God gave Him to do. He wasn't called in that particular situation to be the focus of attention, but ironically that's what it turned out to be because some Christians are so thirsty for LDS to get put in their place. And rightly they should, but not everyone is called to do that at all time. Ironically, I saw Craig humbly putting himself at the back of the table, and this controversy, for better or for worse, has certainly put him at the head of it (along with Mouw).

Now I'll even go so far to say that if some LDS were to have given that prayer, I'd still find the prayer appropriate. I'd find it appropriate, because it's calling people to go before God and ask what He thinks about what was just said. Smith may have understood God telling him one thing, but we should still follow his example and ask God for ourselves. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ" (2 Cor. 5:10).

I even asked my LDS friend, Jen, who I brought with me to hear Ravi at the tabernacle, specifically whether she thought Craig's prayer lent any credence to Mormonism or Smith, and if so, what type of credence specifically. I told her, "Don't tell me what you think I want to hear, but tell me what you really think." She said exactly what I think concerning this whole issue. It was a neutral prayer for a neutral time of bridge building between the two communities, and the only credence given in the prayer to Smith was that he asked God for wisdom like we're all supposed to do. She said she was blessed by the whole evening.

The evening wasn't a time for LDS to be convicted that they are in a cult and that they needed to repent. That wasn't the purpose of the event. Those Evangelicals who thought it was had their sights set too high, and wound up terribly disappointed. Any little thing that spoke well of Smith, Mormons, or Mormonism, these Evangelicals perceived as lending credence to Mormonism. The prayer was appropriate for the specific situation, which did not, at least in the mind of my LDS friend, lend credence to one side over the other. And she thought her take was typical of LDS.

Now what about Ravi? I agree with others that Ravi could have been clearer for an LDS audience, but this is a somewhat relative notion. Everyone can always be clearer. Keep in mind that the clearest Communicator was still misunderstood. It wasn't His fault; it's the problem of His thickheaded listeners. Nonetheless, I still think Ravi could have ("should have" is another issue) at least stated things in such a way that hardly any LDS would walk away thinking that Evangelicals and LDS are both Christians. As a result of the approach taken, I get an e-mail from one of my supporters telling me that her LDS sister went to the tabernacle event, and the sister was thrilled saying, "Now I see that we are Christians and there is no opposition."

(At this point, I proceed with fear and trembling since Ravi has forgotten more apologetics than I'll ever know!) I'm not boasting here, and I know many other evangelists to LDS that come to mind here, but we don't ever have this problem. I've had LDS thank me for respectfully sharing why I don't think they are Christians, and for any LDS who will give me the time, none walk away thinking that I think they are Christians and everyone of them know why. For example, when I was a teaching assistant for Intro to Philosophy at the University of Utah, I had to clearly delineate between classical theism and Mormonism so the LDS majority of my students would know exactly what we are talking about in the philosophy of religion section. Then I got the chance to argue against Mormonism and for classical theism. No one had a problem with it, because it was done respectfully. Ravi simply did not do this.

Now why didn't Ravi do this? Two possible reasons: 1) As skilled as Ravi is intellectually, and even with understanding LDS thought, it didn't seem that he's as skilled in breaking things down for LDS to understand what the basic differences are. Three examples: A) In the Q & A session the first night, Ravi answered a certain question I asked by claiming that God is eternal. He just left it on this level. Now for someone skilled in speaking Mormonese, she'd know that this is something LDS readily agree with. In fact, all humans are eternal as intelligence, and God Himself was simply an human intelligence as well. The point isn't that God is eternal, but that God is eternally God or God by nature.

B) My director Kelly Neyland wrote me concerning a statement Ravi made either the first or second nights,

Remember the story Ravi told, of when he addressed the U.N., & a delegate came up to him afterwards? This fellow had been very moved by Ravi's words, & said that he hoped he & Ravi could be roommates in Heaven. Ravi responded by saying that he appreciated the sentiment, but figured that his wife may not appreciate that, in so many words. While it made an interesting story, my spirit sunk immediately at the thought that there would be Mormons in the crowd, who might interpret that as meaning that Ravi believed in the concept of celestial marriage. Hopefully it just went over most people's heads, but we must choose our words carefully & wisely!

In fairness though, on the last night at Weber State, Ravi did an excellent job during the Q & A time answering an LDS guy who was concerned about meeting his wife in the afterlife and continuing to be married throughout eternity to her. This was a very stark difference for LDS.

C) Sunday night in the Tabernacle Ravi did mention the Trinity, but again, he simply mentioned it. Many think this was totally incompatible with Mormonism, but to the LDS mind, the Trinity simply means the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, who are separate gods, but one in purpose. In fairness though, Ravi did deal with it in much more detail in the Q & A time Monday night, but here again, no contrast with the LDS "Trinity" was explicitly made.

2) More importantly, perhaps Ravi did not lay out the basic differences because it was not in keeping with the philosophy of ministry of those who invited him here--Standing Together Ministry and Bob Millet of BYU. They conduct various national bridge building style dialogues together. When asked by an apparent LDS girl during a Q & A to state what exactly the differences are, Ravi declined by claiming he was a guest. He went on to affirm there are deep differences, and then simply talked about how we are to dialogue respectfully between the two faiths. Now perhaps Ravi would have answered this girl's question in some other venue, but as a result of the approach he took on this occasion, there's a very important respect in which Ravi did not appear as he was trumped up to be, viz. "the modern day C. S. Lewis". When Lewis gave his famous lecture "Why I am Not a Pacifist", I've been told he gave it to a group of pacifists.

Was this a disappointment for me? Somewhat, but not much since I and many other Christians understood what Ravi was saying and were extremely blessed by it, and I pretty much expected Ravi to operate the way he did. I just thought Ravi would have been a little more surgical-like in defining rather important terms so the average LDS would be more benefited.

Now let me say a word to all those who wish that LDS would have been put in their place as it were for those three days, as well as to those who were fully supportive of what happened. There's a fundamental problem in doing ministry in Utah, and in doing ministry to Mormons in general, which keeps us from seeing the kind of fruit we'd like to see. Regardless of all my disagreements with Greg Johnson, I must admit that in theory he's on to something when it comes to the issue of unity within the Body of Christ. The problem is that there's a lack of unity when we don't give our brother or sister the benefit of the doubt and trust God to use their feeble efforts and glorify Himself. Instead of being supportive, we fight or shun each other, the LDS take notice, and they never think twice about leaving the uniformity they are accustom to (I thank my good former LDS buddy Matt Randquist for this point). The great evangelist Dwight L. Moody put it this way:

I never yet have known the Spirit of God to work where the Lord's people were divided.

There is one thing that we must have if we are to have the Holy Spirit of God at work in our midst, and that is unity. If a church is divided, the members should immediately seek unity. Let the believers come together and get the difficulty out of the way.

...The Spirit of God does not work where there is division, and what we want today is the spirit of unity among God's children, so that the Lord may work (Secret Power [Ventura, CA: Revel, 1987], 124-6).

So whether you're a relational evangelist (RE) or a confrontational evangelist (CE), evangelists to LDS at least tend to think that everyone else has to do ministry their own "God-ordained" way. It's like they forget we're a body with various members that are gifted in different ways, and that we need each other. I think each side needs to loosen up, and get their focus on what the truth is and lovingly proclaiming it in whatever way one feels so led, all the while realizing 1) that no one is going to be perfect in it and 2) worrying about perceptions is over-rated (despite their importance).

Too many times, what one obviously perceives is not what the other obviously perceives. This is crucial here. REs have been crying for quite a while now that CEs like myself are not going about things in the right way, since what we do is automatically perceived by LDS as unloving. CEs have made much of the fact that perceptions are often deceptive (e.g., the child perceives no love when Mom makes her go to school), and sometimes what is more important is getting people the truth. So CEs give it, because they love the person and don't want him or her to go to hell. Can CEs give it for other ungodly reasons? By all means, but that's not the point. The point is that it's not always easy to tell what motivates one simply by perceptions.

Now Ravi and company come to town to play the role of REs, and all of a sudden the tables are turned. What comes around goes around as it were. The CEs are now the ones who are crying about perceptions. CEs start putting the guilt trip on REs about how their message would be perceived. "Would the average LDS understand what Hazen was doing in his prayer?" "Would the average LDS perceive that the Triune God that Ravi spoke of is clearly not the Triune Godhead of Mormonism?"

So did I just condemn myself since I thought Ravi could have been clearer? No, because I'm fine over-all with the RE approach that they took, and I'm trusting God to do what He promised to do and work out all things together for good for us and for those called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28). I never claimed that Ravi should clear things up as I would for that particular situation. Of course I naturally like to see things done my way (I wish I had about 20 people that would regularly stand outside Temple Rectangle with signs, pass out tracts, and mix it up with people), but how could I condemn the RE approach that others felt called by the Lord to use for those three days when there's no Scripture that says, "Thou shalt always use the CE approach that Rob Sivulka uses when you are speaking to LDS audiences." And there's no Scripture that says, "Thou shalt never use an RE approach in circumstances a, b, and c." Wasn't it Calvin who said something to the effect of "where the Scriptures do not speak, that must we pass over in silence"?

Last month I had an article on how a particular RE approach is having some deleterious effects on evangelism to the LDS community. It was published on two different web sites: TheologyWeb.com and Moriel.org. Now even though I was complimented on how clear it was written, there were still people that just didn't get it. So let me try it again: There is nothing inherently wrong with CE or RE, but in my paper I was arguing there's a certain way of doing RE that is wrong. Just as there are ways of doing CE that are wrong, there are ways of doing RE that are wrong. I don't care what approach is used so long as you are sure you are motivated by love, so long as you don't minimize or distort truth, and so long as you stop belittling your brother or sister who are not gifted with your approach.

Our unity does not entail uniformity; we can still disagree with each other. And we might even reach the point where we go about the biblical steps in separating ourselves from those who turn out to be heretics. But there's nothing heretical about either confrontational or relational evangelism in and of themselves. So in the words of that great Los Angeles riots ethicist of the last decade, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

Rob
Rob@Mormon Info.org
Mormon Info

****PRAYER LIST****

1. For Utah churches and individual Christians to support each other's various ministries
2. For financial provision
3. For the ability to get my rough draft comprehensive done soon
4. For God to use my web site
5. For love, protection, and wisdom as I minister
6. For fruit from the Ravi Zacharias events