Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
An Unsatisfying Conversation, November 20, 2008
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
|
|
|
13 of 24 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Time to wise up per Acts 5, November 22, 2007
"Bridging the Divide" is the latest entry in interfaith dialogues between a prominent BYU professor and a leading Evangelical pastor. Unlike "How Wide the Divide?" and "Claiming Christ," this book really does read like a friendly chat between two friends who agree to disagree about a few (extremely important) things. Though relatively slight (in both physical size and substantive content), it's a charming read and I recommend it.
Part of the book is a Question and Answer session, typical of the kinds Drs. Millet and Johnson face when they appear in public forums together. Some of the questions asked by Evangelical participants are literally jaw-dropping in the ignorance they illustrate. For example, this gem is found on page 116: "After the crucifixion, the physical body of Jesus rose from his tomb. This did not happen with Joseph Smith. Doesn't this fact cast doubt on the LDS[] Church's claim of divinity for Smith?"
That made me burst into laughter. It never ceases to amaze me what outrageous misrepresentations Protestant ministers and others have made about our Church through the years, lies that are clearly believed by huge swaths of our Christian neighbors. I suppose sectarian clerics have felt justified in bearing false witness against us - repeatedly - because they need at least to try and slow the mind-boggling growth of our Church. For their own sakes, they should instead read and obey the Bible they claim to love so much:
" ... Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God" (Acts 5:38-39).
As dramatic evidence of how effective Protestant persecution has been of the Church of Jesus Christ, Rev. Johnson concedes that the population of Utah was 2% Evangelical in the 19th century. Now, after more than a century of hate-filled screeds and truth-starved attacks by paid pastors and their minions, the population of Utah is ... 2% Evangelical.
Apart from being reminded again, however, of what a super bright future the Church has once all these baseless falsehoods have been cleared away, I was struck again in the book by Evangelical complaints about the First Vision. In 1820, a prayerful teenager asked the Father and the Son which church to join, and he was instructed to "join none of them, for they were all wrong; ... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt," and so forth (Joseph Smith - History 1:19).
Time and again, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists have used these long-ago assertions of the boy Prophet to rationalize their present-day, aggressive, and deceitful denunciations of our Bible-believing, Bible-loving, Christ-centered religion as a Satanic cult, but their cries of outrage are disingenuous at best. All religions - and all religious leaders - have made similar foundational statements to explain why a new Christian denomination - and their respective ministries - were supposedly necessary. Here are merely two such examples:
"Mercy! Good God! what manifold misery I beheld! The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach" (Martin Luther in the Preface of his "Small Catechism;" see also the "Augsburg Confession," in which Luther sets forth the principles of Lutheranism, repeatedly noting that all doctrinal views - and rival sects - not in accord with his thinking are "condemned").
"The cause which I plead is the common cause of all the godly, and therefore the very cause of Christ - a cause which ... now lies, as it were, in despair, torn and trampled upon in all kinds of ways, and that more through the tyranny of certain [of my theological opponents]. ... For so far have the wicked prevailed, that the truth of Christ, if not utterly routed and dispersed, lurks as if it were ignobly buried; while the poor Church, either wasted by cruel slaughter or driven into exile, or intimidated and terror - struck, scarcely ventures to breathe. Still her enemies press on with their wonted rage and fury over the ruins which they have made, strenuously assaulting the wall, which is already giving way. Meanwhile, no man comes forth to offer his protection against such furies. ... [T]hose [miracles] to which our opponents lay claim are mere delusions of Satan, inasmuch as they draw off the people from the true worship of God to vanity" (John Calvin in his Prefatory Address in the "Institutes of the Christian Religion").
While Latter-day Saints believe and treasure the revelations of Joseph Smith, his own foundational statement for a new (restored) Church is now almost 200 years old. The Prophet wrote what he was told about the Restoration and his apostolic calling. Otherwise, however, and since that time the Church of Jesus Christ has been a model of open fellowship - proclaiming its truths without denigrating the beliefs of others. Luther, Calvin, and many others can hardly say the same - and the double-standard of Evangelicals in this regard is shocking. The anti-Mormon activities of professional bigots remain unprecedented and wholly unprovoked by Mormons. They hate us and they lie about who we are and what we believe because they are animated by a lying, hateful spirit.
Rev. Johnson does himself enormous credit by refusing to join any longer with the obnoxious "countercult" movement in continuing to persecute the Latter-day Saints. His statements in the book make clear that he has repented of his ill-advised anti-Mormon confrontations, and I have no doubt but that he is forgiven. To become a more Christ-like minister, however, he and those few Evangelical pastors who are similarly fair-minded in their relationship with Mormons should unequivocally denounce their less-Christian brethren, urging them to forsake their on-going slanders and libels against the Church of Jesus Christ. Evangelical flocks cannot be nourished by the poisonous rhetoric that continues to be served up by an insecure Protestant clergy, cooking up opposition to the Savior's modern prophets and apostles.
|
|
|
6 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Can a bridge be crossed if it doesn't reach the other side?, February 18, 2008
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
by Stephen E. Robinson
by Robert L. Millet
