My own view is that instead of arguing primarily about the things we find offensive in Mormonism, it would be good to spend some time reflecting together about what we mean when we both say that Jesus alone saves,. and that he paid the debt for our sin on Calvary.

This isn't a new thought. Just because this has not been done on an academic level before does not mean that it has never been done. Our primary means of protecting the unsuspecting investigator from the eternal consequences of Mormonism is to focus on what the LDS Church means when they say certain things. Looking at the differences naturally moves into what is offensive in Mormonism.

For the record: I do not believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God; I do not accept the Book of Mormon as a legitimate revelation; I do not believe that temple baptism saves; I do not believe that all people will be saved. And it is precisely because of this that when my good friend Bob Millet says that his only plea when he gets to heaven is "the mercy and merit of Jesus Christ," I want to respond by saying with enthusiasm, "Let's keep talking!"

I appreciate that and encourage you to continue in your discussions with Millet and others. I believe these kinds of conversations can be an asset that can add to the efforts that "trench-level" apologists have been doing for years. I also believe that comments such as yours can undermine our efforts as well. I will speak more about this shortly.

I hope this helps a little. I am deeply sorry for causing distress in the evangelical community. I make no apology for wanting to foster gentle and reverent dialogue with Mormon friends. But I want people to be upset with me only about things I really meant to say--and I failed on this occasion, on one important point, to make my case clearly enough. Blessings!

I am not following you here. What exactly are you sorry for? No one is asking you to apologize, "for wanting to foster gentle and reverent dialogue" with Mormons. What I am asking you to apologize for is your attitude towards "trench-level" apologetics that led you to apologize on our behalf.

There is an interesting irony to your apology. By apologizing to the Mormons on the behalf of Evangelicals, you have incriminated those of us who are innocent of your accusations. I believe that you owe us an apology for the apology that incriminates me and many others. By taking responsibility for the actions of Evangelicals, you have irresponsibly placed blame at the feet of those who have been acting responsibly in their witness to Mormons. This is an attitude that I see common among Christian academics, which leads me to my next major concern.

I see a growing animosity between Christian academics and trench-level ministries. This is disturbing to me. I can't think of one person who would disagree with me in saying that we need each other. If that is indeed the case, why are we fighting each other? More importantly, why are our efforts continuously placed as stumbling blocks at the feet of the opposite party? Trench-level ministries have undoubtedly made it difficult for those who are engaged in higher level apologetics to Mormons. Academics have shown an arrogant attitude in telling others that they have been doing it wrong without coming alongside their brothers. From what I have seen, mud has been flung from both directions. What can we do to stop this? Do we really want to stop this? Dr. Mouw made an interesting statement in his apology to the Mormons.

We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.

I think the academic community has done a very similar thing in condemning trench-level apologetics without first trying to help. You may see what you are doing as "helping," but the definition of "help" belongs to the one being helped. Richard J. Foster comments on self righteous service verses true service.

Self-righteous service is insensitive. It insists on meeting the need even when to do so would be destructive. It demands the opportunity to help. True service can withhold the service as freely as perform it. It can listen with tenderness and patience before acting. It can serve by waiting in silence. "They also serve who only stand and wait."

Self-righteous service fractures community. In the final analysis, once all the religious trappings are removed, it centers in the glorification of the individual. Therefore it puts others into its debt and becomes one of the most subtle and destructive forms of manipulation known. True service builds community.

Where is the community between academics and trench-level apologists? I think the point needs to be re-emphasized that this is not an either or issue. BOTH approaches are needed and valuable. While I envy the opportunity that my academic brothers have with high level Mormons, I am not convinced that my approach, and sometimes even my efforts, are genuinely appreciated. I have personally talked with a number of academics and they all have related the same thing to me. They honestly think that they are helping those of us in the trenches and that their new approaches are meant to encourage and offer us a more sophisticated line of defense. I must sadly say that you are losing your audience. Not only do we catch flack from uninformed Christians who think we are picking on Mormons, but now I am getting it from the other end of the spectrum; from those who should know better. Various papers, e-mails, and public statements to Mormons have, in effect, told many of us in the trenches "to hell with your approach," in a very offensive way. I see your condemnation, not your concern. This needs to change. If things do not change, I fear that the academics will be "Standing Together" alone with the Mormons.

Keith Walker
Evidence Ministries

• Previous Page   • Menu For This Entry   • About This Entry