Customer Reviews

Bridging the Divide: The Continuing Conversation between a Mormon and an Evangelical

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I found this very informative and insightful. Subjective, personal beliefs aside, there simply is no basis to the ranting, the bickering and the arguing over who owns "Jesus" or who's Jesus is the correct and "biblical" Jesus and who's Jesus is not "biblical."

As a student of comparative religions (and the Bible), this is the best book I have read in quite some time on the subject. I have always been curiously intrigued by the theology of Mormon Christians (i.e., Latter-day Saints) and how their beliefs compare (or differ) from what is often termed "traditionalProtestant or Catholic Christianity" -- though I will state that the term "traditional" is misleading to anyone who is a serious scholar of Christian history. However, despite my best efforts at research, I find that I am often at a loss to find an objective discussion, publication, or analysis on the comparative theology of Mormon Chrisitaity. I finally had to resort to purchasing the LDS book, "Jesus the Christ," which answered many of my questions on this topic and which I would also recommend to any serious student of Mormon Christianity.

Unlike other comparative publications on this topic by Evangelicals or by Mormon Christians, the authors of this book remained entirely objective and respectful in their discussions. Dare I say that a deep and profound respect and mutual admiration for each other could be felt in its pages? Dare I say that the authors, two highly educated religion scholars, showed an example of how to find common ground? Dare I say to the Evangelical Christian and the Mormon Christian communities that this is how dialogue should occur? Dare I say that this behavior is exactly what Christ himself would want? I wholly enjoyed reading this book. I will be picking up the other book written by these authors so to continue my reading of their respectful and enlightening conversations.

Very thoughtful and productive book. Though listing both Mormon and Evangelical contributors as co-authors, it definitely appears slanted a bit more to an evangelical audience. I don't state this to be critical, as frankly, though a Mormon myself, I have no problem with that undertone existing. But it does tinge the after-affect, with a slightly more pro-evangelical tilt than a truly bi-partisan approach would have achieved. For example, near the end Reverend Johnson states 5 "principles" which, given he is their author, take a somewhat paternalistic approach to tolerance, as if the unspoken assumption is that his evangelical position is of course the "true" one, yet gracious enough to be tolerant of the "less" true Mormon position. I found that slightly condescending, which is the main reason I marked the book down 1 star. Obviously, Bob Millet, the Mormon theologian could have pronounced the exact same 5 principles, from the position of magnanamous toleration for the evangelical theology. At the end, it felt a bit more like this was Reverend Johnson's book, with Bob Millet as the interviewee. Not a major problem, but left me feeling a bit unsatisfied as I felt a little patted-on-the-head. This was true of the end of the book, but not true of the middle book, where just true open conversation was made with no attempt to monopolize the dialog by either side.

Other than that, this book does what few others even attempt. (With the exception of the Stephen Robinson/Craig Blomberg book "How Wide the Divide".) An unheated, mature, and rationale discussion of two great religious traditions, sans rancor or entrenched one-ups-manship. It's clear these are two honest-in-heart theologians, following in the tradition of great men like Richard Mouw, simply trying to exemplify the maxim; "understand to be understood." They ask questions, opine on their theological positions, and treat each other with respect. The conversation is blunt, without grandiosity or pretense. It is very readible, with large margins and actually a very quick read in spite of 185-page length. It's sad that such an exchange qualifies as such an unusual thing, especially when it would ostensibly seem only the normal "christian" thing to do. I also purchased the DVD "A Mormon & an Evangelical Christian In Conversation" which I haven't watched yet. It features the same two theologians and I look forward to seeing it, but wanted to read the book first. Well done and I hope to see more outreach between the faiths. Perhaps, if the Muslims and Jews could pull this off, we'd see some good results in the Middle East for a change.

I shared this book with my mother after reading it. She is an Evangelical Christian and I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints of 13 years. My mom and I both share a love and devotion to Jesus Christ and a desire to pattern our lives after His. We both love and revere the word of God. I just happen to have a testimony of something that she does not; namely, that God continues to speak through a Prophet in modern times as he did in ancient times. Our conceptions of Deity also differ. Hers is based on the conception hammered out at the Council of Nicaea convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in AD 325. Mine is based on the experience of a humble, 14 year old boy who read James chapter 1:5 and was inspired to find a quiet place where he could kneel and appeal to God directly through prayer for an answer.

Are there differences in the doctrines we accept? Absolutely. However, my mother and I have learned that while we may disagree about this doctrine or that, we can acknowledge the vital, central force for good that Jesus Christ has been and remains in our lives. For now we avoiding contentious discussions and focus instead on things that we both agree on, among them, that "ye shall know them by their fruits," not by their denominations. This book serves as a role model for effective interfaith dialogue and I commend its authors for their courage in addressing differences in such an honest, open, and respectful manner. On the road to greater Christian unity, it seems to me that Bridging the Divide is something that can only occur when both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints take the proverbial "high road," as these two men have.

Can evangelical Christians and Mormons be friends? How should we relate to each other? And what about the differences between our faiths? This book was written to answer these and other questions, but in a distinct way--one author is a Mormon while the other is an evangelical. Robert Millet is the Mormon contributor and a professor at Brigham Young University. Gregory Johnson is an evangelical who began the ministry Standing Together. These two friends seek to understand one another and their differences, publicly sharing their ongoing conversation to help members of both faiths relate to each other.

The outcome of their discussions is Bridging the Divide, an edited transcript from one of their public presentations. This book is broken into four parts: 1) the background of both authors, 2) questions they ask each other, 3) questions they both answer from the audience, and 4) their conclusion. The result is an easy-to-read conversation between two knowledgeable friends of different faiths.

Let me begin with some words of appreciation. Developing relationships with people of other faiths is a good thing. All human beings are important to God, and Mormons are no exception. Personally, I welcome evangelicals building friendships with Mormons and seeking to understand what their LDS friends believe. Johnson and Millet give us a public example of this difficult but important process. If anything clearly comes through in this collaborative work, it is that these men genuinely care for and respect each other.

At the same time, I have some severe reservations about some of the conclusions they have drawn through their relationship. While I could devote a lot of time and space analyzing and critiquing many of the points made by both authors, I would rather deal with the foundational errors that Johnson makes in their book.

To begin, many of his statements of faith are couched in subjective terms. For example, as Johnson introduces this book, he states: "as one who used to primarily engage Latter-day Saint people with an 'apologetics only' mentality, seeking to prove them wrong by contrasting their claims with my understanding of biblical truth, that a dialogue approach is frankly more difficult but at the same time far more rewarding" (xxx, emphasis added). On the following page, he continues: "Thus, in frankness, it is really not my job, nor is it within my ability to make Bob Millet embrace the truth of Jesus Christ as I see it" (xxxi, emphasis added). We have been called by our Savior to proclaim His revealed truth, not simply to share our religious beliefs as best as we understand them. Johnson seems to miss this vital subjective / objective distinction, all too often leaving his arguments in the realm of his own personal religious opinion. Rather than recognizing the need to clearly proclaim God's truth, he is content to merely compare and contrast his beliefs with those of his Mormon friend.

Consequently, Johnson sees himself and Millet as truth seekers on a common journey to know God. He says: "my role is to love Bob Millet, be his friend, to pray for him, share life with him, and honor him as my fellow human being and fellow truth seeker" (xxxi). Later, he writes:

"If we can imagine ourselves waling on a road, taking a long journey together, neither of us would be happy if the other one could not reach the final destination. Each of us might be happy that we made it but sad that our friend did not. Therefore the question you ask can never be answered in the spirit of 'I'm right and you're wrong' or 'I'm going to heaven while you're bound for hell,' but rather that we both long to go to heaven together and must be willing to do whatever it would take to help each other discover the Truth" (92).

And finally, he states: "It would be wrong to assume that neither Bob nor I are generally seeking truth and would be willing to embrace it wherever it might be found" (95). But is it really wrong to deny their common search? Biblically, no one seeks God unless he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Evangelicals and Mormons are not traveling down the same path together--we have reached our destination in Christ while Latter-day Saints are running away from Him by rejecting the essential truths of who He is and what He has done.

Where do Johnson's errors lead? "If you were to ask me if my friend Bob Millet is a saved Christian, I would have to answer that I do not know for sure. But I can say that it is entirely possible that he and other Mormons could be saved Christians in that they have a sincere and genuine relationship with Jesus Christ" (89). Millet and Johnson go on to say together in their conclusion: "But we also know, as C.S. Lewis once stated, that there are many people even outside the ranks of Christianity who are being led by God's 'secret influence' to focus on those aspects of their religion that are in agreement with Christianity and, as he said, 'who belong to Christ without knowing it'" (128-129). This is nothing other than an open endorsement of inclusivism, a dangerous and unbiblical belief that ultimately casts aside the necessity of evangelism. With such ambiguity in evaluating Millet's spiritual condition, it is no wonder that Johnson shuns a more confrontational approach.

Thus Millet and Johnson's book is an unsatisfying conversation. While all evangelicals should strive to foster healthy relationships with our Mormon neighbors, we must not compromise our commitment to the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and His revealed truth. I pray that we will lovingly, patiently, and yet firmly proclaim the gospel of our Savior to Latter-day Saints.

John Divito, Director
Africa Center for Apologetics Research

My purpose in buying this book to read was to get a grip on pretty much one aspect of Mormonism that I cannot understand - namely, the twain concepts of Restoration and Authority. The strong endorsement by Drs. Blomberg and Robinson also encouraged me to pick up this volume. As an aside I too was disappointed (see the other reviews) with the length of the book. At 186 pages, with large font and large margins this book is really only about 86 pages long.

This book does nothing to clear up just what was Restored, other than a vague notion of Apostolic Authority, or to tell us just how that "true" Authority ought to function.

Dr. Millet says, "Well then, what does `only true church' mean? More than anything else, it means that divine institutional authority (that we call priesthood) has been restored through Joseph Smith and that such power rests with the leadership of our Church. It means that doctrinal finality rests with apostles and prophets, not theologians or scholars" (page 36).

But that does not even begin to explain how (for e.g) Joseph Fielding Smith can speak as *the* Church spiritual Authority on matters pertaining to true doctrine of God Almighty and then the next generation is free to disregard those revelation(s) because the current group in Authority no longer actively teaches those same truths.

To use another example - I do not care that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Doctrine but I do wonder what the meaning of Restoration is when later Prophet-Seer-Revelators say `we no longer teach that'. Why was it ever taught if it is not still true?

This confusion within the LDS Church (over time and even among living Authorities) really sounds qualitatively *no different* than the reason given by LDS faithful as to why there needed to be a Restoration in the first place. Given a few more million members and another generation or two and there will be quantitative parity between all these `corrupt' denominational professors (whose work is `abominable' in the sight of the Lord) and the collective views of LDS Church General Authorities.

Contradictions abound in this book, on both sides, but especially on the side of Dr. Millet. Many contradictions are covered under the other reviews for this book. Here is another interesting contradiction in what Dr. Millet says that has broader implications, page 51, "Our belief is that the works of man are a necessary but an insufficient condition for salvation"; page 53, "I do not believe we will be saved by the merits of our works, but rather by the merits and mercy of the Holy Messiah...".

Dr. Millet, if our works are "necessary" (albeit insufficient) then it cannot also be true that we will not "be saved by the merits of our work". What Dr. Millet seems to be proposing, and what orthodox Christians have always objected to, is the LDS doctrine that a synergy exists between us and God and with God's help we effect our salvation. This view is precisely stated in Dr. Robinson's "Bicycle Parable" found in his book, _Believing Christ_ (I think that was the book but at any rate it can be found at the following URL and no doubt elsewhere on the web - [...]

In the book _How Wide the Divide?_(1997) Dr. Blomberg takes Dr. Robinson to task for the glaring inadequacy of this parable. To his credit Dr. Robinson completely concedes to Dr. Blomberg's criticism (cf. Pages 158-159, 180-181 and attendant end notes in _How Wide the Divide?_).

This parable gets repeated at LDS Church sponsored public events, at university events, in books (Deseret) and in other publications (Ensign, etc). So who is in charge that this errant teaching keeps getting promulgated? Where's the Restoration of Authority?

Or, more to the point; Why then is it being repeated (in essence if not in actuality) here in this book ten years after Dr. Robinson repealed it? Drs. Robinson and Millet know each other well, as good friends and colleagues. Dr. Millet has read and studied _HWD?_ for himself and has no doubt conversed with Dr. Blomberg and others on this very issue. The fact that this thinking, and even the Bicycle Parable itself, can be perpetuated for decades inside the LDS Church makes one wonder just what kind of Authority the LDS Church actually possesses.

This complaint qualifies as a "show stopper" according to Dr. Millet and Rev. Johnson but it really ought not to. This criticism goes right to the very center of the divide. Any takers?

Regards,
JS

For more than five years, former Christian pastor Greg Johnson and Robert "Bob" Millet, a professor of religion at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University, have sponsored sit-down conversations in front of audiences in public venues such as churches to encourage better understanding between Evangelicals and Mormons. In this 186-page $14.99 paperback book--don't worry, bibliophobes, as it shouldn't take more than two hours of reading in one sitting thanks to the large 12-point, double-spaced type printed with wide 1¼-inch margin--the two friends have compiled some of their public talks into written form. The reading is easily understandable for any reader, even those with little to no understanding of Mormonism.

The entire purpose of Bridging the Divide is laid out in the third and largest section that was both interesting and frustrating at the same time. The section, which is titled "Questions from the Audience," provides honest and even difficult questions posed by sincere Mormons (of which there are more than 13 million) and Evangelical Christians, which the book numbers at 700 million, though no source is provided.

The first question in this section refers to Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching that he gave during his presidency. Bob spends 4½ pages providing his answer, which is much longer than the average 1-2-page response normally given. In a nutshell, Bob explains that not everything the prophets say should be considered authoritative LDS doctrine. Is this teaching in the Standard Works? Is it in an official declaration or proclamation? Is it in general handbooks or approved curriculum? Is it talked about in general conference? Because the answer to all of these questions is "no," he says that Young's words were never considered authoritative for the Mormon people. Young certainly didn't seem to share this opinion, as he actually threatened his listeners with damnation if they treated his "doctrine" (his word) "lightly or with indifference." Consider also that Orson Pratt's reluctance to believe Young's teaching about Adam was, in part, why Pratt did not become Mormonism's third president.

Bob then lists some "non-central" issues that he apparently feels are not important and should therefore not be questioned, including, Who was God before he became God? How was Jesus conceived? and Why were Blacks denied the priesthood before 1978? On page 133, he adds that the "anti-Mormon propaganda" lists what "they perceive to be some of our `unusual doctrines,' many of which were presented by a few Church leaders of the past."

If his view is correct, then critics of the LDS Church should stay away from the more controversial teachings of his leaders. After all, if only a "few" leaders talked about these issues, why should anyone want to make a big deal of it? (I suppose we need to know how few are few in Bob's book. Would the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve be considered only a "few" in Bob's calculations?) Yet how is a person supposed to figure out just what is official doctrine in the first place? It appears that Bob wants to believe in men who are authorized to give "latter-day revelation," but nobody is allowed to examine the revelations these men give. How convenient that he is allowed to set the rules that prevent us from discussing Mormonism's "unusual doctrines." It is like going into a courtroom and having the judge arbitrarily dismissing pertinent information in a case.

On page 66, Bob throws out the gauntlet by saying, "If we're going to disagree, however, let's disagree on the right stuff, on matters that we actually believe and teach today, not just something that was said years ago but is not really a part of the doctrine of the Church." Later, on page 113, Bob claims the Virgin Birth is a peripheral teaching when he claims that Mormons "clearly believe in the same historical Jesus as Catholics and Protestants do: born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem of Judea..." On page 138 he again attests that Mormons "worship the Christ of the New Testament" and "wholeheartedly in His virgin birth..."

So what should the Evangelical response be? Here's how Greg officially responded in the book and apparently at that particular meeting regarding how Mormonism should not be understood from 19th and 20th century prophets: "Do you folks hear what Bob is saying? I think what he has just said is very important...I think it is both important and fair to let Latter-day Saints define themselves and not to obligate them to believe and defend everything that might have been taught in their 180-year history" (p. 66).

Yet it needs to be pointed out that Bob is not an official representative of the LDS Church. If what these past leaders said was not correct, then the current leadership ought to repudiate these teachings as false. But why shouldn't Mormonism be liable for what its leaders have taught in the past? After all, are these men prophets and apostles of God, or are they not? If they are, then shouldn't their sermons and writings be examined and critiqued so we can better understand and judge the character of such men? If Bob is correct, then the LDS membership should cease from the claim that they are being guided by latter-day prophets and apostles, admitting that these men are nothing more than latter-day opinion givers.

Although this was the perfect opportunity to utilize 1 Peter 3:16 and, in all gentleness and respect, respectfully disagree by pointing out the inconsistency, Greg makes it appear that Bob was correct in his assertion. In effect, he misleads people into thinking that these are no longer issues that ought to be considered by thinking Evangelicals and Mormons alike. However, the Mormon teaching of the Virgin Birth is not just a 19th century idea, despite what Bob may want the Evangelicals to think. Another example can be found on page 83 when Bob explains how the Garden of Gethsemane was only the first part of Christ's redemptive work, as he says the cross is inferred or talked about in other places by General Authorities. "We believe that what began in Gethsemane was completed on the cross, and that Jesus' suffering and death on the cross are a vital part of His overall atoning mission."(p. 84) While Mormon leaders certainly speak on the cross and its finishing act before the resurrection, there are a number of quotes that make it clear that the Garden is the crucial part of the LDS atonement story.

The danger from Bridging the Divide (and the talks given by the two in a number of Evangelical churches) comes when Bob is allowed to possess a license to say whatever he wishes. Deep down, he knows that there is a gentleman's agreement to abstain from rebuttals. In fact, he admits to this very thing on page 98: "Greg and I have likewise chosen not to push too vigorously the hard buttons, to focus unduly on matters that divide us most directly." Somehow, questioning a person's statement is akin to pushing a button. This, according to the new evangelism paradigm, is apparently contentious.

Greg insists that political and moral issues can better be tackled by making friends with the Mormons. He writes on page 152: "Without question, the shared values and morals that both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints hold dear are under sustained attack from a hostile, unregenerate world, and if we do not discover ways to come together, we will surely suffer together."

While it is certainly true that, generally, Mormons are very much in line with most Evangelicals when it comes to opposition to pornography, homosexuality, and many other moral and political issues, what is the biblical justification to join hands with other religions merely because they agree with us on what is right and wrong in the moral and political realms? Certainly Paul did not understand such a mindset! Allowing sheep to play with the wolves doesn't appear to concern Greg or his organization, and this is the problem.

As Blomberg and Robinson state in the preface, this book (and the mission of Standing Together) is all about dialogue and not debate; about conversations and not confrontations. But when truth is allowed to get muddled and there is nobody to sound a warning, which is really what happens in the public conversations Greg and Bob have with each other, I think there is definitely something amiss.

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. Part Three covers questions from the audience. 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 of suggestions they feel would facilitate an interfaith friendship.

At 185 pages the book is an easy read, more or less a transcript of Millet's and Johnson's public dialogues. The book will most 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.

In promoting "Bridging the Divide," Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary and Stephen Robinson of Brigham Young University assert in the foreword 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). Johnson does not represent the evangelical community at large, nor does Millet speak authoritatively for the Mormon Church, as only General Authorities, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidency can.

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). They allude to theological differences between Mormonism and Christianity, seem to minimize or skirt around them altogether.

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, 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. LDS doctrine states God-fearing Christians who refuse to accept the Mormon gospel will only go to the second heaven, 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's another example of Millet's 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 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's unlikely that a Professor of Religious Education once serving as Dean of the department would be unfamiliar with this teaching. Millet is 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 sat silent, letting it go on record that "the Fall upward" was a mischaracterization of Mormon doctrine.

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:

"Or do we long to see the day where Mormons and Evangelicals could embrace one another in true Christian fellowship? (Johnson, p. 162)

"...one day we might find one faith community completely embracing the other's truth and renouncing their own (Johnson, p. 176, emphasis) (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).

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 a meeting 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.
(Full review found on the Equipping Christians website)