Why Become Roman Catholic? A Response to Christian Smith and Others

Don’t get me wrong; I have great respect for sociologist Christian Smith and many others who have converted from Protestantism to Roman Catholicism. The history of this goes back a long way; I can remember when Gordon College English professor Thomas Howard converted. Then came Peter Kreeft and many, many others. I have had excellent, bright, very evangelical students who have converted to the Church of Rome—from so-called mainline Protestantism and from evangelicalism. I have no personal quarrel with or even personal criticism of converts to Roman Catholicism or animosity or antipathy toward Roman Catholics. Here I only want to ask a question and answer it myself while leaving the door open to responses from Catholics (especially Protestant converts to Catholicism).

A few years ago Christian sent me the manuscript of his book The Bible Made Impossible where he describes and decries “pervasive interpretive pluralism” which is the indisputable fact that there exists among even sincere, dedicated Christians a plethora of seemingly irreconcilable interpretations of the Bible. Pervasive interpretive pluralism is a reality beyond dispute and it seems to become more pervasive all the time.

I agree that it is a problem….

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

Not long after his book was published Christian joined the Roman Catholic Church. I assume (although I have not confirmed this with him) that one reason was to have an authoritative interpreter of Scripture, to avoid pervasive interpretive pluralism. Other Protestants who have converted have given me that as their primary reason.

One of my best students converted to the RCC. When I asked him why he was doing that he said because he did not want to make his own decisions about Christian belief; he wanted someone else to do that for him. I volunteered, but apparently I was not what he wanted. I pointed out to him that by converting to Rome he was making his own decision; nobody was deciding that for him. Of course, there’s the possibility that God was deciding that for him, but I’m not taking that into account here. If I were convinced that was the case I would, of course, agree with his decision.

The big problem here is that the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture is just one more example of “pervasive interpretive pluralism.” Of course, Catholics don’t think so; they will disagree with that claim. But, of course, every Christian group thinks its interpretation is the right one! So what makes the RCC’s interpretation(s) better than others?

The usual answer given is that it is ancient and venerable—continuous with the apostles themselves via apostolic succession. But, of course, the Eastern Orthodox churches have even a better claim to that. And while there is much overlap between EO and RCC doctrine and interpretation there is also much disagreement.

I am a church historian and historical theologian and I am convinced by my own many years long study of church history and historical theology that many novel interpretations of Scripture with which the apostles would not agree have crept into RCC doctrine—especially the dogmas of papal infallibility and the Marian dogmas. But, of course, I realize that’s debatable. But that’s my point exactly! Joining the RCC does not solve the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism except in the minds of those who do it. (Even then, I think they will find interpretive pluralism within the RCC. It may not be as “pervasive” as among Protestants, but it’s there nonetheless.)

As an analogy I will bring up the U.S. Constitution. Talk about pervasive interpretive pluralism! Among even educated and intelligent American citizens, even among experts in American jurisprudence, pervasive interpretive pluralism is rampant! It’s a fact beyond dispute. But, someone will say, America has a Supreme Court to settle disputes about the meaning of the Constitution. True enough, except it doesn’t really settle them. It settles some of them de jure but not always de facto. The debates continue and who would really argue that Supreme Court decisions about the meaning of the Constitution are always right? No one in their right mind—unless by “right” they simply mean “enforceable.”

Do Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism really think that the magisterium has always been right—in a sense other than enforseable within the church? Most I have talked with admit that there are some doctrines and possibly even some dogmas of the Catholic Church of Rome with which they do not fully agree. And what about the Catholic Church’s rather slippery way of reinterpreting decisions made by councils such as Trent that condemned Luther and all his followers? Those anathemas have now been set aside. They no longer apply. How is that different from admitting they were wrong in the first place (which the Church does not say)?

My plea to Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism is this: Please don’t use the argument that doing so solves the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism. At best, at most, it might for you, but that claim is meaningless to those of us who don’t join the RCC. We see it as just another denomination—partly right and partly wrong (like all of them). Find a better reason if you want us to be impressed.

Civil, respectful, helpful answers (in the spirit of dialogue) welcome…

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Now I turn to Chapters 5 and 6–both great chapters with which I mostly agree.  I think Chapter 5 especially is extremely helpful and all evangelicals should consider Smith’s (not entirely original) proposal.  It won’t fix the problem of PIP, but it will go a long way toward resolving numerous difficulties we run into when we try to treat the Bible as a flat terrain without highs and lows (not of inspiration but of authority for belief and life).

Chapter 5 is entitled “The Christocentric Hermeneutical Key.”  With this chapter Smith turns to proposed partial solutions to the problem of pervasive interpretive pluralism (PIP).  However, I think his proposal in this chapter is valuable independently of the PIP problem.

Here’s how Smith sets up the chapter’s argument: “what is needed to improve on biblicism is some kind of stronger hermeneutical guide that can govern the proper interpretation of the multivocal, polysemous, multivalent texts of scripture toward the shared reading of a more coherent, authoritative biblical message.  Such a stronger hermeneutical guide would also, of course, have to be consistent with, if not directly derived from, Christian scripture and tradition.” (95)

His proposal is this: “The purpose, center and interpretive key to scripture is Jesus Christ. … Truly believing that Jesus Christ is the real purpose, center, and interpretive key to scripture causes one to read the Bible in a way that is very different than believing the Bible to be an instruction manual containing universally applicable divine oracles concerning every possible subject it seems to address.” (97-98)

To that I can only say Amen!  I have been promoting a Christocentric hermeneutic to my students for many years.  Smith is not being original here and doesn’t claim to be.  Luther practiced such an approach with his litmus test for biblical interpretation.  For him, that is especially God’s Word to us that promotes Christ (“was Christum treibt”).

Smith makes clear that he is not advocating a kind of allegorical or typological approach to Scripture that “sees” Christ in every verse of the Old Testament (for example–the tabernacle in the wilderness and every part of it a type of Christ).  Rather, his approach is this: “If believers want to rightly understand scripture, every narrative, every prayer, every proverb, every law, every Epistle needs…to be read and understood always and only in the light of Jesus Christ and God reconciling the world to himself through him.” (99)  Again, to that I say Amen!

Smith rightly appeals to great theologians such as Bonhoeffer, Barth, G. C. Berkouwer, Geoffrey Bromiley, Donald Bloesch, and to contemporary theologians (some evangelical) such as John Webster and Kevin Vanhoozer.

One problem I have with Smith’s examples of Christocentric hermeneutics is his appeal to the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message of the Southern Baptist Convention.  He says it includes the phrase “all Scripture is a testimony to Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” (108) However, he fails to note that the 2000 BF&M dropped the following sentence from the 1963 BF&M (which is still the consensus statement of the Baptist General Convention of Texas): “The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.”  Dropping that sentence seriously weakened the phrase the 2000 BF&M kept.  It is one thing to say Christ is the “focus” of divine revelation and something else entirely to say he is the “criterion” for interpretation of Scripture.  The 1963 criterion phrase was dropped purposely, in my opinion, in order to strengthen the kind of biblicism Smith decries as impossible.  So, if Jesus Christ is not the criterion by which the Bible is interpreted, what will be that criterion?  No doubt the framers of the revisionist 2000 BF&M would say it doesn’t need one because it is wholly perspicuous.  But, of course, that’s simply naive.  I suggest that for them, the unacknowledged criterion is themselves–i.e., their vision of Baptist tradition.  I agree with Smith about this and it applies, in my opinion, to the moves made by the SBC in its revision of the BF&M and to its leaders approach to the Bible: “The reality is that it is not possible to take fully seriously a Christocentric hermeneutic of scripture and to hold to biblicism.  One or the other must give.  In most cases to date, the biblicist tendencies overwhelm Christocentric gestures and intuitions.  Nobody ends up explicitly denying that Christ is the purpose, center, meaning, and key to understanding scripture.  But in actual practice Christ gets sidelined by the interest in defending every proposition and account as inerrant, universally applicable, contemporarily applicable, and so on, in ways that try to make the faith ‘relevant’ for everyday concerns.” (109)

What Smith doesn’t say (or say enough about) is that in these cases what takes the place of Christ as the criterion of biblical interpretation is not nothing but some tradition–whether the “ancient Christian consensus” as in paleo-orthodoxy or the “received evangelical tradition” as in conservative evangelicalism/neo-fundamentalism or the magisterium of the Catholic church as in Roman Catholicism.  My question to Smith would be: Can you really practice what you preach in this chapter as a Roman Catholic?

I agree with Smith (at least the Smith of this chapter!) that a “canon within the canon” is inevitable and it ought to be Jesus Christ (was Christum treibt).  If it isn’t him, it will be something or someone else.  And I probably agree with Smith now (after the book was written when he joined the RCC) that there is always and must be a “canon outside the canon”–some tradition that guides us in interpretation.  Where I disagree (probably) is that this canon outside the canon must be binding on our interpretation of Scripture.  I say it (for me The Great Tradition of Christian teaching heralded by the church fathers and restored by the Reformers) always gets a vote (in matters of doctrinal controversy) but never a veto.  Jesus, however, gets a veto!  That is to say that if a doctrine conflicts with the character of God revealed in Jesus Christ, however many verses can be piled up to support it, it cannot be true.

Perhaps Smith’s most radical claim in this chapter (and perhaps in the book) is this: “The Bible is of course crucial for the Christian church and life.  But it does not trump Jesus Christ as the true and final Word of God.  The Bible is a secondary, subsidiary, functional, written word of God, the primary purpose of which is to mediate, to point us to, to give true testimony about the living Jesus Christ. … Biblicism borders on idolatry when it fails to maintain this perspective.” (117-118)

Again, I respond with a hearty Amen!

Smith goes on to deal with objections to Christocentric hermeneutics and he handles them very well.

Let me use Smith’s chapter and the approach it takes to explain WHY I AM NOT A CALVINIST AND CANNOT BE ONE.  I am constantly besieged by critics who claim my theology–Arminianism–is exegetically weak.  What I think they are saying is that they can pile up more verses for their theology than I can for mine.  EVEN IF THAT WERE TRUE (which I’m not about to concede), it wouldn’t settle the issue between us.  The Bible is not a textbook of truth in the way they handle it.  It is inspired testimony to Jesus  Christ who reveals God’s character perfectly.  I see them trying to look behind Jesus Christ to some God whose character is different from Jesus’.  And then they impose that mostly Old Testament view of God onto Jesus Christ and the New Testament.  My first and utter loyalty is to Jesus Christ.  I agree with Zinzendorf who said “If it weren’t for Jesus I wouldn’t believe in God” only I would alter it to “If it weren’t for Jesus I wouldn’t love or worship God.”  Thank God for Jesus!  When I look at most Calvinist attempts to prove their theology (and here I mean high, TULIP, double predestination Calvinism) what I see is an interpretation of Scripture that leaves Jesus behind; God’s character is derived from a chain of biblical passages interpreted in such a way that they are not only NOT consistent with the character of God revealed in Jesus, they positively CONFLICT with the character of God revealed in Jesus.  I know this sounds shocking to biblicist ears (as Smith defines biblicism), but I agree with Wesley who said of the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 “Whatever it means, it cannot mean that!”  Why not?  Because of Jesus Christ.

Now don’t jump on me for sentimentalizing God and Jesus.  Sure, God revealed in Jesus is intolerant of evil and judges it.  But he is a God who loves his human creatures, created in his own image and likeness, and wants them all to be saved and has done everything in his power to save them.  If they are not saved it is because they prefer to remain in the “far country” than to return home to the waiting father with his open arms.

Next time…Chapter 6 “Accepting Complexity and Ambiguity”

Now I turn to Chapters 3 and 4 of The Bible Made Impossible.  Chapter 3 is entitled Some Relevant History, Sociology and Psychology and Chapter 4 is Subsidiary Problems with Biblicism.

First, let me say that, contrary to the impression some have gotten, I am not at all dismissive of Smith’s overall argument; I happen to think it is worthy of serious consideration.  Otherwise I would not be engaging it in such detail.  Nor do I disagree with it entirely; I have qualms about some parts of it.

Second, I think there is at least one cause of PIP (pervasive interpretive pluralism) Smith overlooks that will inevitably plague any text and its interpretation: presuppositions people bring to the text that the text itself does not directly address.  I’ve written about some pre-biblical philosophical and theological presuppositions previously here.  One is nominalism versus realism with regard to universals generally and with regard to God’s nature specifically.  Does God have an eternal, immutable character that governs his actions or is God entirely free from any constraints on his power and what he wills?  Someone might try to argue that the Bible settles this, but I don’t think it does.  Luther certainly read the Bible and took it seriously and thought voluntarism (nominalism applied to the doctrine of God) was the right way to read it.  Others read the Bible, take it seriously, and think realism is the right way to read it.  The Bible doesn’t settle the matter.  To expect ANY text settle all possible ways of reading and interpreting it in advance is unrealistic.

Now, I realize Smith might say one thing wrong with biblicism is its expectation that the Bible can be read and understood without presuppositions or that it settles all such issues so that only one set of presuppositions can reasonably be brought to its interpretation.  Perhaps some biblicists think that.  But my point is that NO TEXT–and that includes any interpretive tradition or magisterium–can possibly settle all such potential presuppositional issues in advance.  There will always be ambiguity in any interpretation precisely because of this matter of perspectives caused by philosophical presuppositions.  So no proposed solution to PIP can be comprehensive.  PIP is inevitable.

Okay, on to Chapter 3.  There Smith discusses philosophical assumptions behind modern evangelical biblicism and what is called Scottish Commonsense Realism in particular.  He traces the influence of SCR on the Princeton theologians Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield and through them on contemporary conservative evangelicals such as Wayne Grudem.  He concludes that, since SCR has been discredited and replaced by critical realism, “the philosophical assumptions on which Hodge and Warfield built their theologies of the Bible are seriously problematic.” (59)  Since modern and contemporary evangelical biblicism is largely based on the theologies of Hodge and Warfield, then, biblicism is itself problematic.

Next Smith discusses sociological and psychological conjectures as to why PIP is not more troubling to biblicists.  He goes through a laundry list of reasons and concludes that “the general psychological structure underlying biblicism is one of a particular need to create order and security in an environment that would be otherwise chaotic and in error.” (64)  I think he could replace “biblicism” in that sentence with “fundamentalism” and it would be just as true if not truer (depending on how closely biblicism is tied to fundamentalism).

No doubt some philosophically trained or minded evangelicals will want to critique Smith’s treatment of SCR.  No doubt some will object that his reasons for why PIP does not trouble conservative evangelical biblicists more are mere conjectures.  But he admits the latter.  His argument doesn’t seem to be scientific so much as impressionistic.  The point is that he thinks these are reasons and you might too, if you consider them.  I’m not a biblicist in Smith’s sense and I’m not as troubled by PIP as he is.  But I don’t think it’s for any of the reasons he suggests.  Although, one specific reason might apply to me.

Smith’s second reason (p. 61) is because, he says, many evangelicals are simply in denial about the depth of PIP; they claim the differences among evangelicals are minor compared with their areas of agreement.  He rejects this reason and says that “Disagreements among biblicists (and other Bible-referring Christians) about what the Bible teaches on most issues, both essentials and secondary matters, are many and profound.  If biblicists hope to maintain intellectual honesty and internal consistency, they must acknowledge them and explain them.” (62)  I simply don’t agree.  I find that evangelicals do agree on the essentials of the faith–matters Christians have historically considered cornerstones of orthodoxy.  And when someone comes out and denies, say, the deity of Jesus Christ or the Trinity, evangelicals ostracize them from the evangelical movement.  Sure, some may attempt to ostracize others over non-essential matters as well (e.g., inerrancy or premillennialism), but that isn’t true as a general rule.  Most evangelicals are ready to accept as fellow Christian believers all who adhere to the few cornerstones of historic Christian orthodoxy.

I think the reason I’m not more troubled by PIP is because I have come to terms with it as inevitable.  What I’d like to know is how Smith handles PIP.  Oh, yes, he joins the Roman Catholic Church.  (No sarcasm intended.)  That a respectable move even if I disagree with it.  I still consider him a Christian and possibly even an evangelical Christian (thought I think that would be in spite of some traditional beliefs of the RCC rather than because of them).  What I think is that he will eventually discover PIP there as well.  Who interprets papal pronouncements and conciliar decrees?  Obviously they’re open to varying interpretations.  Just because that particular church has a mechanism for expelling people who stray too far does not mean PIP doesn’t exist within it.  It just means it can enforce conformity when it chooses to.  But what if those with power to enforce are wrong in their interpretation of the Bible?  Then nothing is really gained except artificial uniformity.

Chapter 4 deals with “subsidiary problems with biblicism.”  Some of these are: “blatantly ignored teachings” of the Bible (68-69); “arbitrary determinations of cultural relativism” (69-72); “strange passages” (72-74) and “populist and ‘expert’ practices deviate from biblicist theory” (75-78).  Let’s take the first one and consider it.  Smith argues that biblicists routinely flout clear commands and teachings of Scripture such as “Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (68)  One has to wonder if he really thinks serious biblical scholars have never examined these commands and explained why they are not universally applicable.  Surely he knows better.  But he seems to think biblicism REQUIRES that commands such as this be adhered to to the letter and not qualified–even by serious hermeneutical reasoning.

Smith admits that this argument does not in and of itself prove biblicism impossible.  It may be, he suggests, that biblicists simply disobey such commands.  But he doesn’t think that all there is to it.  He thinks there are commands in Scripture that biblicism, as a theory of the Bible, should take literally and that biblicists, if they really believe in their theory of the Bible, would at least admit they are disobeying.  Instead, he says, biblicists simply ignore these commands.  They “simply [go] in one ear and out the other.” (68)  I think that oversimplifies more sophisticated evangelical biblicism.

I think many of Smith’s criticisms of biblicism strike against folk religion and unsophisticated fundamentalism.  But evangelical scholars who adhere to most, if not all, of what Smith calls biblicism early in the book have offered reasons for considering these commands culturally conditioned.  But he thinks the reasons offered are “arbitrary.” (69)  I just think he gives evangelical biblical scholars very little credit OR he would just say they are not biblicists insofar as they find and offer good reasons for considering these commands culturally conditioned and not universally applicable.  Again, I think William Webb, author of Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (IVP Academic, 2001) is a biblicist (even if not exactly fitting Smith’s profile) who offers sound reasons for considering some biblical injunctions culturally conditioned.

Smith admits midway through the chapter that “none of these empirical observations necessarily discredit biblicism.  It could be that biblicist theory is correct and that actual, empirical biblicist practices and experiences are often compromised.  Life sometimes works this way.” (78)  But Smith doesn’t think that’s the explanation.  Rather, he says, “biblicism is impossible to practice in actual experience–because of, among other reasons, the multivocality and polysemy of the texts.” (78)  Again, I wonder who exactly he means by “biblicists” here.  Apparently, they would have to be literalists–what one of my seminary professors called “wooden literalists.”  (I never quite figured out what the “wooden” meant unless “inflexible.”)  In other words, old fashioned, unreconstructed, unsophisticated fundamentalists–such as I grew up among.  Yes, one reason I left them is because I found their theory of the Bible, such as it was, impossible to believe consistently and impossible to practice.  But at times Smith SEEMS to want to include ALL conservative evangelicals among his impossible biblicists.  He specifically names Wayne Grudem a couple times.  While I disagree with Grudem’s view of the Bible, I’m not sure it’s as unsophisticated as Smith makes it out to be.  That is, I don’t think even Grudem is as literalistic as Smith suggests biblicism has to be or at least he offers reasons for not greeting fellow Christians with a holy kiss.

Another example Smith gives as a “subsidiary problem with biblicism” is “the genuine need for extrabiblical theological concepts.” (82-84)  Here’s his explanation: “Biblicism suggests that all of the pieces of the Christian doctrine and morality puzzle are right there in the Bible as propositions to be pulled out and put together in their logical ordering. … Yet a bit of reflection on orthodox Christian theology makes clear that numerous absolutely crucial doctrinal terms are not themselves found in the Bible but were invented or appropriated by the church during the patristic era.” (82) His examples are the terms Trinity, homoousion and creatio ex nihilo.

Again, I would argue that only the most unsophisticated evangelicals steeped in fundamentalism or folk religion (or both) think the Bible contains every important theological term.  I grew up in a very unsophisticated evangelical and even fundamentalist church and home and went to a college steeped in that tradition and I knew from a relatively young age that the Bible did not contain the term “Trinity” but it was something we were to believe anyway.  Why?  Because even though the Bible does not use the term, the concept it names is found in the Bible.  At least all the ingredients for it are there such that it is inevitable as one reflects on them.

Now, Smith seems to think even that kind of thinking is inconsistent with biblicism.  Maybe it is–as he defines biblicism.  But again, that just raises the question who actually believes in that kind of biblicism?  I do agree that many evangelicals, mostly ones I would call fundamentalists or folk religionists, are inconsistent about these matters.  In other words, as Smith is pointing out, they say one thing in their doctrine of the Bible but practice something else and claim consistency.  That is a problem.  But I find that MOST non-fundamentalist evangelicals, even ones I consider conservative, do not actually make the claims for the Bible Smith says they do.  Or they qualify them so severely (e.g., inerrancy, harmony, etc.) that the words they use are not really meant in their ordinary meanings.  (For example, progressive revelation and accommodation are standard qualifications of harmony.)

Smith concludes Chapter 4 thus: “When we confront biblicism’s many problems, we come to see that it is untenable.  Biblicism simply cannot be practiced with intellectual and practical honesty on its own terms.  It is in this sense literally impossible.” (89)  Again, I agree insofar as biblicism means rigid literalism, claims to absolute perspecuity such that all reasonable people will agree about its meaning exhaustively, technical inerrancy, etc.  It’s just that I don’t think most evangelicals who call themselves biblicists adhere to these beliefs about the Bible in unqualified ways.

What I do think is that SOME conservative evangelicals, including some biblical scholars and theologians, pay LIP SERVICE to beliefs about the Bible (to keep constituents off their backs) that they KNOW are not true.  I’ve been around in this evangelical movement for all my life and I’ve seen it frequently and perhaps done it myself at times.  For example, I know evangelical scholars who teach at very conservative institutions who DO NOT believe in inerrancy IN ANY WAY similar to their constituent pastors and lay people but who pretend to in order to keep their jobs or not rock the boat.  Now there’s a very real problem.  And there are SOME conservative evangelical theologians and biblical scholars and certainly pastors and denominational leaders who do seem to adhere to biblicism as Smith describes it.  It is impossible IF TAKEN THAT STRICTLY.  But I think most non-fundamentalist evangelical scholars and many, if not most, non-fundamentalist pastors and administrators gave up that kind of UNQUALIFIED biblicism long ago.

In spite of all my qualms and questions, I think Smith is putting his finger on an important problem that especially conservative evangelicals are reluctant to face and deal with.  It’s this: The grassroots of evangelicalism are much, much more conservative and unsophisticated in their biblicism than evangelical scholars and many evangelical scholars have to cater to that when they know better.  They are biblicists themselves, in a highly qualified sense, but they know that unqualified biblicism of Smith’s description is impossible to reconcile with the phenomena of the text and impossible to live out consistently.  They know that sophisticated hermeneutical moves are necessary to preserve biblicism and that it is necessary to qualify concepts like “inerrancy” almost to death (perhaps to death!).  But they don’t tell their constituents out of fear of a backlash and losing their jobs.  It happens.  I won’t name names, but anyone who pays close attention knows of recent examples.

So, yes, unqualified, unsophisticated biblicism as Smith describes it is impossible, but I just don’t think most evangelical scholars and leaders really believe it.  They preach it to the choir to keep the choir happy with them.  And that’s a real problem.  But there is a biblicism that is not that unsophisticated and unqualified and its not impossible even if it does raise some difficult questions and issues.  The alternatives, however, are worse.

A Newish American Church Phenomenon: INC (Independent Network Christianity)

I learned the name of this relatively new phenomenon via a review of the 2017 book The Rise of Network Christianity (OUP, 2017) by sociologists Brad Christerson and Richard Flory by James K. A. Smith. The review was published in the Los Angeles Review of Books and can be found at https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/how-to-find-god-on-youtube/. The review’s title is “How to Find God (on YouTube).” Christerson and Flory have given this phenomenon a name: “Independent Network Christianity” or “INC.”

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

I’ve been watching this phenomenon develop for years; what Christerson and Flory have done is describe it sociologically and give it a name. What Smith does in his review is critique the phenomenon theologically and politically. Here’s the “hook.” “[t]he volume offers insights into a religious mindset and posture that could partly explain the rise of a populism eagerly awaiting a strongman savior.” If that doesn’t grab your attention, I don’t know what would.

Here’s an irony that I can’t help mentioning. In 2006 Christian Century offered me the opportunity to write a kind of counterpoint article about Pentecostalism as many were celebrating the alleged centennial of the birth of the movement. (Reference the Azusa Street Revival of 1906. I say “alleged” because exactly when the modern Pentecostal movement was born is unclear. When I attended a Pentecostal college and took a course in Pentecostal history the birth year given was 1901! But I won’t go into all the reasons that history has been revised.)

Back to the irony. My article was entitled “The Dark Side of Pentecostalism” and some of the “dark side” I wrote about is reflected in Smith’s critique of this newish “brand of post-Pentecostalism” (viz., “INC”). Now, I will let you compare the two articles (my 2006 article and Smith’s book review) and decide for yourself how much they coincide and overlap—in terms of critique. I see a lot in common. And yet, in 2006 Smith wrote a biting letter to the editor of CC criticizing me for tarring the whole Pentecostal movement with the same (negative) brush—without providing specifics. My thought then was, if Pentecostalism doesn’t deserve these criticisms, why did you leave it? I think both my critique and Smith’s (of INC) were and are fair.

So what is INC? According to Smith, according to Christerson and Flory, “a defining feature of INC Christianity is not a shared dogma or common affirmation of faith, but rather the relational currency of loyalty, allegiance, and identification.”

Smith’s critique of INC: “[i]t’s hard not to sense here some kind of arrested development, a spiritualization of irresponsibility.”

Now if you’re wondering exactly WHO compose(d) INC, Smith provides some names: Chuck Smith and Calvary Chapels (the beginning of the phenomenon), John Wimber and Vineyard, C. Peter Wagner and the whole New Apostolic Reformation movement. These are the roots of the phenomenon. Among today’s best-known representatives, Smith says, are Ché Ahn’s Harvest International Ministry, Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church in Redding, California, Mike Bickle’s International House of Prayer and others. (I have to wonder why these men and their ministries are singled out when others—mostly Calvinists—could fit the structural profile of INC just as well!)

As I said, I’ve been watching this phenomenon develop for years. I’ve had a lively and strong interest in denominations and church networks as evidenced in my most recent publication—Abingdon Press’s Handbook of Denominations in the United States (2017). In fact, I included some of these INC networks in it because they are, in my estimation, just as much denominations as many traditional denominations like Churches of Christ (no headquarters).

I would like to make clear here and now that I do not necessarily agree that all of Smith’s criticisms of the named individuals or their organizations are justified; I’m merely reporting here what he says. On the other hand, I, too, like Smith, have some concerns about any and all radically independent, entrepreneurial religious movements with seemingly (!) unaccountable leadership and “members” who “connect” only via electronic media. Whether these characteristics fit any of the named persons or their organizations is up for debate.

It seems to me that “congregations” (whatever they may call themselves) as well as multiple thousands, perhaps millions of individuals, that are INC-identifiable, exist in virtually every city of any size in America. I have “spotted them” everywhere I go. As Christerson and Flory and Smith note, this phenomenon is almost completely “off the radar” of the news media and religious researchers. The INC phenomenon has become so thin in terms of organizational visibility—unless you know where to look on the world wide web—that many people who should know about it and report on it are missing it almost entirely.

I have two minor critiques of Smith’s review article and, by extension, apparently, of Christerson’s and Flory’s book (which I have not yet read).

First, what they identify as “INC” is really not that new. I grew up “in the thick” of American Pentecostalism and always knew of independent Pentecostal (and other) Christian networks led by totally independent “evangelists” who were maverick and entrepreneurial—absolutely outside the authority or oversight of any established denomination. These evangelists often had followings—people who listened to them on the radio and/or watched them on television and traveled far to attend their revivals. I clearly remember people all over the U.S. who practically worshiped “Brother Branham” or “A. A. Allen” or another Pentecostal evangelist. There still exist today a network of churches that considers William Branham an “end time prophet” and who perpetuate his memory and teachings.

Second, as I mentioned before, any description of INC ought to include Calvinist networks and their entrepreneurial preachers, podcasters, writers, and speakers. All over America there are very large week-night “Bible studies” or “gatherings” with one word names led by independent “Reformed” (mostly “Bible church” trained) evangelist-speakers who have no formal theological training but were mentored by one or more of the well-known, famous, household-name Calvinist pastor-teachers. Perhaps Smith and the book’s authors would argue that this iteration of INC doesn’t fit their profile because it has a confessional element (Calvinism) missing in the others. However, what they call “post-Pentecostalism” also has some common beliefs such as continuationism—the idea that all of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit and miracles (etc.) are still meant by God to be evident in churches today.

I will suggest that there are two primary iterations of what these authors and Smith label “INC.” The first is the one on which they focus—what before was called “Third Wave” (they call them “post-Pentecostal”) evangelists and teachers and their followers. The second is the one that seems neglected (although I will have to read the book to find out for sure)—the plethora of independent new Calvinist youth-oriented evangelists and teachers and their followers.

According to Smith (and I assume the authors whose book he reviews), a common factor of INC is religious populism. Of course, church historian Nathan Hatch wrote about this phenomenon in The Democratization of American Christianity in 1989. This descriptive phrase points to the apparent fact that millions of American Christians simply choose to follow a charismatic religious teacher, evangelist, pastor, regardless of his or her bona fides (education, credentials, orthodoxy, etc.). What attracts people to them is their charisma and (often implicit) promise of a better life by following them.

But doesn’t this sound familiar—to any of us who’ve been around in American evangelical Christianity for many years? Do I need to mention Bill Gothard in the 1970s and 1980s? Oral Roberts in the 1950s through the 1970s (at least)? Kenneth Hagin in the 1960s through the 1990s? T. D. Jakes now?

The only thing that seems really new about INC is the technology used. Again, however, many of us will remember the phenomenon of fax machine networking in the 1980s. If you signed up with an independent evangelist or teacher who lived far from you, you could “attend” his or her meetings by fax. If you had a fax machine, you could receive weekly or even daily faxes—quicker than surface mail. Longer than Twitter, but not really all that different.

I’m not sure why Smith’s critique of INC doesn’t equally apply to a long line of entrepreneurial evangelical evangelists and teachers going back at least through my lifetime—beginning in the 1950s. It seems to be just a new iteration of something much older. I share most of his concerns, though. I just wish he had acknowledged the truth of my concerns in 2006 rather than blasting (that’s how it felt to me) me in a letter to CC’s editor.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Can Mormons Be Christians?

For me, there is no simple answer to that question. I cannot give an unequivocal “yes” or “no.” I know that really bothers a lot of people. There are some who want me to say “yes”—without qualification and embrace Mormons as fellow Christians. There are those who want me to say “no”—without qualification and reject Mormons as non-Christians (if not “cultists”). I have blogged about this here before and talked about it in churches and in my theology classes—over many years now. And through it all I have known many Mormons personally, invited them into my classes to speak, and interacted with them in different contexts.

Recently I was invited by Mormons at Brigham Young University to participate in a commemoration symposium—of “The Living Reformation: 500 Years of Martin Luther.” I gladly accepted the invitation and served as one of several speakers at the symposium on the campus of BYU (sponsored by BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Understanding). Most of the speakers were non-Mormons of different traditions: Catholic, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Methodist, and Baptist. Some were Mormons or as they prefer to be known Latter Day Saints. We, the speakers, were diverse in every way—women and men, ethnically different, and of different ages. It seemed to me that the symposium’s organizers planned for its diversity.

This was my third invited visit to BYU. I have spoken there twice before, each time as part of a symposium of some kind. Each time I have been treated with impeccable hospitality and kindness. Again, I was impressed by the professionalism, courtesy, genuine interest in what I had to say (and what other speakers had to say), and overall kindness of the LDS people—professors, staff members, students, and guests who came to listen to the speakers.

During a break in the symposium, one of the non-LDS speakers took me aside and asked me this question: “How can Mormons have such bad theology but be such good people?” The person who asked me the question meant it sincerely. I had no good answer but agreed by saying “I’d rather have most Mormons as neighbors than many Baptists I know.” (I am Baptist, as most of my readers already know.)

This time, during my free time between sessions of the symposium, I wandered freely around the BYU campus and simply asked groups of students some questions. I also visited “Temple Square” in downtown Salt Lake City—my first visit there since I was 19 years old many, many years ago. It is largely unchanged since then—as impressive as ever.

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

Back to the question: Can Mormons be Christians? Many people want to know. Mormonism/the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is growing by leaps and bounds throughout the world. And I think I perceive some changes happening in its theology (insofar as it has one) and spiritual ethos. What are those changes? Well, others will inevitably disagree with me. But here is what I think I perceive happening. (Please remember that I have read many books of Mormon theology as well as books about Joseph Smith and early LDS history and thought and have interacted many times with Mormon people about their beliefs.)

First, there seems to be a shift toward greater emphasis on classical, orthodox Christian theology and away from some of the “scandalous” sayings of some of the past presidents/prophets of the LDS church. Yes, yes…I know Mormons will not disavow things said by their prophets (presidents of the church), but they seem to have a way of “downplaying” some of those things and “playing up” elements of their own history and theology that accord with historical, biblical, especially Protestant theology.

I had a long and complicated conversation with an LDS BYU professor about “grace.” It seemed to me that he sincerely expressed belief that if someone is saved it is solely by means of God’s grace and not at all due to good works. He renounced Pelagianism while admitting that from an outsider’s perspective some of Mormon theology appears Pelagian. Another LDS person said to me that “most Mormons” simply believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate—in a unique way as “eternal God and Savior.”

When I was inquiring of a student who was also a guide about Mormon theology—very gently and without going into depth—she said to me (and I quote): “You know, we’re more of a culture than a theology.” Uh huh. That’s what I have come to think about LDS/Mormonism. Not that their BYU religion scholars don’t think about theology but that doctrine is not really the center of “Mormonism.” The center is a culture that revolves around a certain spiritual-ethical-theological ethos that highly values family.

Well, this could go on forever, so I’ll move on….

After years and years of studying Mormonism and the LDS Church I have come to the conclusion that…(drum roll)…individual Mormons can be Christians but the LDS Church is not a Christian Church. There are dismaying beliefs still held strongly by the church—about revelation, canon, authority, Joseph Smith, the nature of God, the Trinity (“three separate divine personages”), human nature and potential, etc., that cause me to demure from considering the LDS Church itself a Christian denomination. However, many Mormons I have met and interacted with seem to me to be genuinely God-fearing, Jesus-loving, Bible-believing Christians in their hearts even if they are confused about doctrine (some more than others).

But…I am not at all sure that many “Christian churches” are authentically Christian churches. I would say of many churches that exist well “within” traditional Christianity that they fall far short of being fully, authentically Christian—because (for example) they seem to place being American above and before being Christ-followers. That is just one example.

I have never, in my entire life, accepted as fully and truly and authentically “Christian” any church just because others consider it Christian and it calls itself Christian. In most cases that I can think of, however, I have always thought there were real Christians in those churches that I have to conclude are not authentically Christian churches.

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment only to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).

Is Mormonism Christian?

If you expect a simple, black-and-white answer to the question “Is Mormonism Christian?” you’ll be disappointed. I’m not going to offer that here. I will, however, offer my opinion about whether the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints is a Christian church. “Mormonism,” however, is less a clear and distinct idea than “the LDS Church.” The LDS Church is an organization with spokesmen and at least somewhat authoritative statements. Mormonism, however, is a bit amorphous and is always evolving. Yesterday’s Mormonism is not necessarily today’s Mormonism or future Mormonism. And Mormonism in the local Ward (congregation) is not necessarily the same as Mormonism among Mormon scholars at Brigham Young University or in the local LDS/Mormon Institute.

Of course somewhat the same could be said about the LDS Church, the Salt Lake City  headquartered 13 million member worldwide organization most people call “the Mormon Church.” (There are other Mormons and other churches that trace their roots back to Joseph Smith.) The LDS Church headquartered in Salt Lake City also changes over time. (For example it banned “plural marriage” or polygamy in 1890.)

Still, for purposes of this essay, “Mormonism” is a shape-shifting tradition difficult to pin down. Even the top scholars of the LDS Church at Brigham Young University do not agree one hundred percent about it. There is a sense in which Mormonism is a conversation around a central core with fluid and flexible boundaries. The LDS Church, however, has greater boundaries determined by its present authoritative leaders.

Before I offer my own understanding of Mormonism as a worldview, religion and tradition, please allow me to offer my “credentials” for speaking about it. I am not a Mormon and never have been, but I have a nearly life-long interest in Mormonism, have read many books about Mormonism by Mormons and non-Mormons, have engaged in vigorous discussions with Mormons of all kinds—from teenage missionaries to top scholars of the LDS Church and many “in between.” I have had friends and colleagues who were Mormons. And I have studied and taught about Mormonism for courses on American religion.

I count as a friend (or at least friendly acquaintance) one of the most respected Mormon scholars in the world—Robert (Bob) Millet of Brigham Young University. He is professor of ancient scripture and emeritus Dean of Religious Education at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah and the author of numerous books about Mormonism.

Perhaps my closest encounter with Mormonism was two weekend ecumenical dialogue events at Brigham Young University (henceforth “BYU”). I was invited by Bob Millet and his colleagues to read papers at these symposia; other participants ranged from Roman Catholic to Eastern Orthodox to Seventh-Day Adventist to Church of Christ and many other Christian traditions. No limits were put on what I could say and I took the invitations as opportunities not only to understand Mormonism better but also to witness to the Mormons about orthodox, biblical Christianity. (My read papers were eventually published in edited books.)

I learned a lot about Mormonism during those two weekends. The Mormons who hosted the events were clearly motivated by a desire to convince the rest of us—Christians of many traditions—that they and their church are Christians even if Christians “with a difference.” I discerned from them, as well as from reading contemporary Mormon literature, that the top leaders of the LDS Church very much want their religion and church to be considered authentically Christian—the fourth “branch,” as it were, of Christianity: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Mormon.

My weekends with the Mormon scholars at BYU convinced me of several things. First, the average Mormon does not really understand Mormonism the same way it is understood by Mormon theologians. After my weekends at BYU and after reading books about Mormon theology by Bob Millet and other contemporary Mormon religion teachers I shocked many Mormon missionaries and other “grassroots” Mormons by telling them what their own scholars believe and don’t believe. The gap is, in my opinion, very wide and deep.

So that raises the question I began with: What is “Mormonism?” Is it what the Mormon scholar-theologians at BYU say it is or is it what the average, garden-variety Mormon lay person believes? Or is it what past presidents of the LDS Church said? Or is it what conservative Christian critics of Mormonism say it “really” is? I am going to “go with” a mix of those while largely discounting what the conservative Christian critics who call Mormonism a “cult” say. In my experience most of them have not kept up with changes in Mormonism and many of them have never really read contemporary Mormon literature. Many, perhaps most of them, do not believe what Bob Millet and other “progressive” Mormon scholars say about Mormonism; they think they are simply lying or at least engaging in deception about Mormonism today. I know Bob Millet personally and disagree. However, I am not sure in my own mind that Bob Millet’s understanding of Mormonism coincides perfectly with either the LDS leadership or the average “bishop” of a Mormon ward or “elder” of a Mormon “stake.” I know they don’t coincide with some of the pronouncements of past presidents of the LDS Church and past Mormon spokesmen.

So what are my sources—other than talking to and listening to BYU Mormon scholars—about Mormonism? I have read several critical (scholarly) books about Joseph Smith and Mormon origins and history. One that has especially interested and impressed me is The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844 by Tufts University history professor John L. Brooke published by Cambridge University Press in 1994. I’ve read it twice. It’s not the only book about Mormon origins and history I’ve read, but it is the most scholarly and convincing. Brooke piles up a very strong circumstantial case that Joseph Smith was a sincere but deluded religious seeker who created an eclectic new religion out of preexisting traditions including Freemasonry, Hermeticism, radical Puritanism, Restorationist revivalism, and others. I am convinced that Joseph Smith, who Mormonism call “the Prophet,” came to believe his own mythology, but it originated in preexisting sources which he creatively integrated into what we might call “paleo-Mormonism”—Mormonism as it was in the 1820s through the 1840s and perhaps beyond.

Another source or sources is, of course, the Mormon “canon” of Scriptures in addition to the Bible: The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Doctrine and the Covenants. I have also read many of the sermons and speeches of the Mormon presidents including Joseph Smith’s own “King Follett Discourse” and Lorenzo’s Snow’s sermons.

As for Mormon doctrine I have three main written sources: A Study of the Articles of Faith (Being a Consideration of the Principal Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) by James E. Talmadge, “one of the twelve apostles of the Church,” published by the LDS Church in 1890 (twelfth edition published in 1924 with a Preface by Talmage); Mormon Doctrine (Second Edition) by Bruce R. McConkie, also a member of the “Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles],” published by Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1979. Both of those books were widely considered authoritative summaries of Mormon doctrine when they were published if not today. Finally, LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference by Robert Millet, Camille Fronk Olson, Andrew C. Skinner, and Brent L. Top, published by Desert Books, Salt Lake City, 2011. Deseret Books would not publish it if it were not considered accurate and at least relatively authoritative.

In addition to those books I have read and rely on (for understanding LDS doctrine and Mormonism in general): The Vision of Mormonism: Pressing the Boundaries of Christianity by Robert Millet, published by Paragon House, 2007, Bridging the Divide: A Continuing Conversation between a Mormon and an Evangelical by Robert Millet and Gregory Johnson (a Baptist pastor in Utah who grew up Mormon), published by Monkfish Books, 2007, and How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation by Craig Blomberg (and evangelical New Testament scholar) and Stephen E. Robinson (a Mormon scholar) published by InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Years ago I read several books about Mormonism by Christian anti-cult apologists, but I have found much of what they said to be unreliable—not so much because it was blatantly false as that it lacked evidence of first-hand acquaintance with Mormon scholarship and, in my view, put the worst “spin” possible on Mormon beliefs—blowing some out of proportion.

Much anti-Mormon Christian criticism draws heavily on enigmatic sayings of past LDS Church presidents who are considered prophets by Mormons, but today’s Mormon scholars such as Robert Millet insist that those sayings are not considered either infallible or authoritative for all Mormons. For example, LDS Church president, Mormon prophet, Lorenzo Snow (1814-1901) preached that “What man is God once was; what God is man may become.” This is probably the most quoted Mormon saying by Christian critics of Mormonism. Robert Millet says that he and other Mormons are not required or expected to agree with it; it is not authoritative Mormon doctrine.

I find it very challenging to pin down exactly what it is Mormonism includes—in terms of beliefs. Determining key Mormon practices is easier. Yes, Mormon men generally wear special underwear, but so what? That doesn’t bother me, nor should it bother anyone. It’s part of their culture. Yes, Mormons engage in “temple works” including baptism on behalf of the dead and “celestial marriage” to “seal marriage for time and eternity.” Yes, Mormons stockpile non-perishable food and send their teen boys (now some girls, too) out two-by-two as missionaries for a year. I am more interested in what “Mormonism” means in terms of beliefs even if I find some LDS practices curious and even odd.

Here is an illustration of how difficult it can be to determine what Mormonism is in terms of beliefs. (You would think it would be easy since the three books of Mormon doctrine I mention above are all quite large, detailed, but in fact they seem to me to contradict each other and sometimes themselves! Well, that’s my “outsider’s” view.) At the end of my second weekend conference at BYU several Mormon scholar-professors asked me “Well, Roger, do you think we’re Christians?” I was prepared for that question. I asked “Do you believe Jesus is God?” (To me that’s a litmus test question as it is for the World Council of Churches.) They all said “Yes” without hesitation. But I knew enough about historical Mormon teachings about God and eternal progression and Jesus being the Father’s offspring that I then asked “Was he always God?” One said “No” and another said “Yes” and the third simply stared at me and the others. Then the three of them (and as I recall a few others) fell into deep conversation among themselves about what they believe about the preexistence of Jesus Christ and his eternal deity.

When I compare the three (at least relatively) authoritative books of Mormon doctrine mentioned above I find in them an evolution of Mormonism over time. Some of it is explicit and some of it is a matter of tone. Talmage’s book, written in 1890, is extremely harsh toward all non-Mormon churches, lumping them all together as part of the “great apostasy.” According to Talmage, the president of the LDS Church is “God’s mouthpiece.” Also, the doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone is a “most pernicious doctrine.” Salvation is by baptism and good works as well as faith. Talmage denied the omnipresence of God and condemned any idea of an “immaterial God.” He affirmed that eternal rewards in heaven (“degrees of glory”) are based primarily on “earthly works.” Perhaps worst of all, from a traditional Christian perspective, is Talmage’s account of Mormon belief about “Man’s Relationship to God” (Appendix 24, part 4): “In his mortal condition man is a God in embryo” and “in the far future…man may attain the status of a God.” Also, “Mormonism claims an actual and literal relationship of parent and child between the Creator and man—not in the figurative sense in which the engine may be called the child of its builder; not the relationship between a thing mechanically made and the maker thereof; but the connection between father and offspring.” Talmage also affirmed that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are “three…separate individuals, physically distinct from each other” and that the Father, like the Son, is a literal man. The “tone” of Talmage’s account of Mormonism versus traditional Christianity is illustrated in this saying: “We affirm that to deny the materiality of God’s person is to deny God….” (p. 48)

Most, if not all, of the stereotypical “heresies” attributed to Mormonism by anti-Mormon, anti-LDS Christian critics can be found somewhere in Talmage’s book. And the tone of the book is clearly, unequivocally anti-everything but Mormonism. The book affirms “eternal progression” after death—from one heaven to another—for those who receive baptism for the dead by living Mormons and for those who continue in good works after death. It also affirms the preexistence of souls or spirits as well as “exaltation” to deity for those Mormons who persevere in faith and good works as defined by the LDS scriptures and prophets.

Jumping to Bruce McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine. This book breathes a slightly different spirit from Talmage’s; it is less concerned with condemning non-Mormon churches even as it strongly affirms the “restoration of Christian authority” with Joseph Smith and the higher truth held by the LDS Church over others. McConkie’s exposition of the Mormon doctrine of God is less starkly materialistic than Talmage’s even as he quotes at length Joseph Smith’s “Teachings” that God was once “as we are now” and “is an exalted man [who] sits enthroned in yonder heavens.” McConkie also affirms as Mormon belief that “That exaltation which the saints of all ages have so devoutly sought is godhood itself. Godhood is to have the character, possess the attributes, and enjoy the perfections which the Father has. It is to do what he does, have the powers resident in him, and live as he lives, having eternal increase.” (p. 321) McConkie firmly rejects the traditional Christian doctrines of inherited sin, salvation by grace alone, the Trinity and final judgment after death. (A “p.s.” is in order here to head off Mormon objections. Yes, McConkie affirms that “salvation” of a general kind—resurrection to immortality—is by grace alone, but this is not “the salvation which the saints seek.” Salvation as future “inheritance of the kingdom of God” is dependent, McConkie says, on “repentance, baptism, receipt of the Holy Ghost, and continued righteousness to the end of one’s mortal probation.” In his article “Salvation by Grace” McConkie clearly condemns belief that real, ultimate salvation can be by grace alone and affirms that for it “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” is necessary. (p. 671)

Overall, McConkie’s tone differs somewhat from Talmage’s. There is real continuity between the two books, but one can discern in McConkie a softening of the “rough edges” of Mormonism and a greater generosity toward non-Mormons of good will who have a real chance at eternal salvation. Still, the basic core differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity about the transcendence of God, the depravity of humanity, salvation by grace alone, exaltation of saved persons to godhood and continuing revelation are found in McConkie as in Talmage.

I think LDS Beliefs: A Doctrinal Reference constitutes a quantum leap from Talmage and McConkie with regard to tone and expression of Mormon doctrines. The chapter on “Godhood” is illustrative. The authors (and I suspect Bob Millet was the primary author of this chapter) go out of their way to express “exaltation” in terms of biblical and traditional Christian (e.g., Eastern Orthodox) “deification” (theosis). (In other writings Millett refers to Luther and Wesley and C. S. Lewis as proponents of deification.) The emphasis here is not so much on “man” becoming as God is as man becoming like God. It is much easier for an orthodox, evangelical Christian to accept this chapter’s account of exaltation or at least find some sympathy with it. The authors of LDS Beliefs go out of their way to soften the rough edges of past Mormonism to make its doctrines more acceptable to classical, orthodox Christians. Continuity rather than discontinuity is the theme. The chapter on “The Great Apostasy” is instructive and illustrative of the change in tone. While affirming the divine restoration of Christian authority with Joseph Smith and the founding of the LDS Church in 1830 the authors go out of their way to insist that God always had true followers throughout church history and people who strove to maintain authentic Christian faith in spite of the Catholic Church’s general apostasy. Most importantly, perhaps, LDS Beliefs is much more Christ-centered than earlier books of Mormon beliefs and more grace-centered. Less emphasis is placed on the necessity of works for ultimate salvation and more emphasis is put on Christ’s atoning work, God’s grace and mercy and human faith—all without diminishing the importance of personal holiness and faithfulness as fruits of forgiveness and reconciliation.

There is no doubt in my mind but that something is going on in the LDS Church and Mormonism in general that constitutes a gradual but discernable shift away from those doctrines most anti-Mormon Christian critics like to highlight toward a somewhat more biblical and even evangelical account of Christ and salvation. This comes out even more clearly in Bob Millet’s books The Vision of Mormonism, Bridging the Divide and A Different Jesus? And Grace Works. Millet all but denies belief that God was once a man “just like us” and that we will (hopefully) eventually become God just as the Father is God. He affirms the eternal deity of the Son of God and his incarnation in Jesus Christ and emphasizes the transcendence, even infinity, of the triune Godhead. He stresses the unity of the three persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He quotes voluminously from C. S. Lewis, John Macarthur, Dallas Willard, Max Lucado and numerous other modern and contemporary evangelical Christian writers and is very familiar with the church fathers and Reformers. Perhaps most importantly he vigorously denies and rejects polytheism—belief in many Gods.

Now don’t get me wrong; Robert Millet would want me to affirm that he is definitely Mormon. What I am suggesting is that there is a gradual but discernable shift taking place in the LDS Church and its Mormonism, or at least in the Mormonism being defined and re-defined by BYU scholars. An anecdote might illustrate what I’m talking about. When I was teaching a course on “America’s Cults and New Religions” at a Christian liberal arts college I invited the director of the local Mormon Institute, like a Bible college or seminary but not usually degree-granting, to speak to my class. He was obviously a very knowledgeable Mormon. When I asked him privately how he would describe the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity he said “Mormonism is to Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism.” I thought that was a somewhat fair description—in the sense that I perceived Mormonism to be qualitatively different from, even if rooted in, Christianity. But when I told that to Bob Millet and his colleagues at BYU they reacted very negatively insisting that Mormonism, as espoused by the LDS Church, is most definitely Christian—“with a difference.” In other words, they explained, it is not “orthodox Christianity” but true Christianity. Of course I disagree (that it is “true Christianity), but I came away from those two weekend long encounters with the BYU Mormons convinced that some Mormons are Christian in the personal sense of being genuinely God-fearing, Bible-believing and Jesus-loving—even if they do not interpret and understand God, the Bible and Jesus correctly. But if they are Christians, in my judgment, it’s not because they are Mormons but because they have crossed over a line in their own personal spiritual and theological lives from polytheism to dynamic monotheism (trinitarianism), belief in the transcendence of God and sinfulness of man (something Millet affirms even as he denies as I do inherited guilt and total depravity in the Calvinist sense), the unique and eternal deity of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace alone (something Millet affirms even as he insists that grace is never alone but always results in good works).

I fear that this trend, trajectory, among BYU Mormons has not filtered down to the garden variety Mormons of local wards (congregations) or even to the missionaries. I have told several Mormon missionaries they need to go read the books of Robert Millet. Most of them have never heard of him (which I find very strange as he is probably the LDS Church’s most published author).

I once asked Bob if he had the full support of the LDS Church president and he said he does.

Toward the end of my second weekend meeting with Mormons (and others) at BYU Bob interviewed me “on stage” about my attitude toward Mormonism and the LDS Church. He was not surprised that I still did not then (and don’t yet) consider them Christian and said he would keep working me. I told him that I would be praying that the same thing would happen in the LDS Church that happened in the Worldwide Church of God. It shed “Armstrongism” and became an evangelical denomination now known as Grace Communion International. Similarly (although I didn’t mention it) the Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints has shed its Mormonism (while holding on to belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and the inspiring value of the Book of Mormon) and become mostly a mainline Protestant denomination—the Community of Christ. Bob told me this would never happen in the LDS Church but, of course, adherents of Armstrongism in the WCG and adherents of Mormonism (never called that) in the Re-organized Church never thought the changes that eventually happened would happen. But the shift I see at least in “BYU Mormonism” is so dramatic—from Talmage’s Mormonism, for example—that I can envision someday the LDS Church evolving into a Christian denomination. For now, though, I consider it an alternative religion rooted in Christianity but also rooted, unfortunately, in Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s fantasies.

Note to potential commenters: Please keep your comments relatively brief, do not embed any hyperlinks in them, avoid snarkiness, personal insults, uncivil language and “preaching.” The purpose of this blog is dialogue, not condemnation or polemics. I will not post comments that indicate no real reading of the post itself or that go off on tangents or merely toss out epithets. Engage with what I said; agree or disagree or ask a question. If you disagree explain why; give reasons. Be civil and respectful.