I've spent some time this summer working on a manuscript (which is almost completed) on Evangelical perspectives on Mormonism. Since most people hold out a warmer welcome to IRS auditors than to friends who want them to read a "manuscirpt I've been working on," I thought the blog would be an unintrusive way to ask for feedback.
And, since most of you on the email list are not Mormon, I thought a good excerpt to throw out for examination would be the part where I talk about some of the stupid stuff we Evangelicals do.
I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts, and I promise not to call for a more detailed follow up.
Evangelicals and Division
Another common charge Mormons make against other groups, Protestant and Catholic alike, is that of needless divisions. Aside from the debate between Mormons and Evangelicals, this is an important issue and one which most people unfamiliar with Christianity in general often have much initial difficulty understanding; why are there so many different kinds of churches? Why would there be so much division within a religion which holds the same holy text and worships the same God?
There is a legitimate and illegitimate side to this. The main two sections of Christianity are Protestant and Catholic, a divide which occurred in the early 16th century, initially under the movement led by the Catholic monk, Martin Luther, to protest and reform corruption he observed in the Roman Catholic Church. This movement resulted in Luther and his followers being excommunicated from the Catholic Church, thus giving birth to the many Protestant churches which exist today. The issue of divisions within the church is much more relevant to Protestantism because the Roman Catholic Church has remained relatively unified. But these divisions of Protestant groups don’t always indicate what it may first seem. Many of the points that divide are not theological. In fact, for the most part, the majority of all Protestant churches agree on the theological essentials of orthodox Christianity, largely embodied in the Apostle’s Creed and the Nicene Creed.
One common factor that separates different denominations is church government. Some churches have an Episcopal style of government which entails leaders outside the local congregation who help make administrative and doctrinal decisions for the congregation. Others practice a congregational style, in which all decisions for the church are made autonomously by the local congregation. The fact that there is no unified form of church government agreed upon by all Christian congregations does not indicate a serious flaw in Protestantism because there is no official form of church government given in the New Testament. In all the narratives of the Gospels and Acts, and in all the epistles that follow, there is never given any elaborate explanation of how Christian congregations are to govern themselves, so with ambiguity comes liberty.
Another, rather unofficial, factor involves different personalities and individual “wirings.” Mormons may sometimes perceive the number of Protestant churches as being the result of disgruntled divisions, when, in many cases, it is the result of a rich diversity of personality. One of the Christians who is often pointed to as a stalwart champion of Evangelical Christianity is C.S. Lewis. I personally consider Lewis to be my mentor in many ways. However, Lewis was Anglican, and, if he were here today, would probably never consider joining the type of congregations I have belonged to throughout my Christian life, with relatively informal atmosphere and little emphasis on liturgy. Though Lewis has been one of the dearest influences in my Christian life, the fact that he would likely express his Christian worship in an atmosphere very different from the one I’m most familiar with presents no problem or contradiction in our beliefs. Just as there is no contradiction in two brothers who express their love for their father differently by presenting him with different gifts, there is no contradiction in different Christians expressing their worship in different ways—ways that reflect their own personalities and, in some cases, their cultures. Some people feel they could only feel the reverence appropriate for true worship in a cathedral-like building, in a service led by a minister or priest in a robe, and where formal liturgies are a central focus. Others feel stifled in such environments, and can open themselves in worship most where they feel they can loosen their collar and clap their hands. Some feel that drum sets and guitars squelch an atmosphere of worship; some can’t imagine worship music without them. Some feel that organ music is eerie and deadening; some feel it is reverent and worshipful. None of these contradict the others, but rather reflect a richness of diversity and personality among Christians. Diverse personalities show themselves in worship much as they do in other aspects of life. None of this presents a fundamental problem for Evangelicals, because, like church government, there are not a lot of specifics in the New Testament about how Christian congregations are to conduct their times of collective worship.
This issue of diversity in worship practices and styles within Christianity brings up an important contrast in Mormons’ and Evangelical’s perceptions of each other. Another point I found admirable when first introduced to the LDS Church, was its uniformity. I’ve heard many Mormons point out that no matter where in the world a person attends a Mormon sacrament meeting, it will always proceed the same way because of the order and organization of the church. Order and solidarity are great things, but as I became more involved in different Evangelical churches in different cities over a period of years, I began to see the diversity in approaches to worship as a positive rather than a negative. Seeing the way people worship reflecting their personalities was refreshing to me; it struck me as a mark of authenticity, it seemed to make Christianity more organic than mechanical. Mormons tend to take great comfort in their uniformity in worship and see the diversity in Protestant worship as a sign of a lack of solidarity and confusion (a point elaborated upon below). But Evangelicals often perceive the uniformity in Mormon worship as too homogenous, sometimes to the point of being sterile or robotic. My wife, describes her change in perspective on worship in transitioning from a Mormon to an Evangelical Christian to the point in the Wizard of OZ when the world changes from black and white to color. Like many, rather than a sign of confusion, she came to see a great richness and an underlying unity in the different expressions of Protestant worship, much like a large family with drastically different personalities all bound together in their love for the same father, expressing that love in ways most fitting to each person.
It also came as a surprise to me how little a part doctrine plays in many divisions between Protestant groups. It was an insightful moment for me when I realized that many Protestant pastors from different denominations went to the same seminaries, where they learned the same Christian history and theology. In attending seminary myself, I saw that in a class of thirty or so students, eight or ten denominations could be represented.
One of the most important factors of distinctions among Protestant denominations to understand is that many are distinguished from each other not because of opposing theologies but because of differing points of theological emphases
[1]. Baptist churches often emphasize the decisive act of individual commitment to following Christ, while Pentecostal and/or charismatic churches emphasize the effects of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Reformed churches emphasize the sovereignty of God, while Wesleyan churches emphasize individual holy living and the process of God sanctifying or purifying the life of the believer. Though certainly heated debates take place among these different groups, and in the case of Calvinists and Wesleyans/Arminians, there is a philosophical argument about the way God’s sovereignty works out into people’s lives, none of these different emphases are necessarily at odds with each other in the most basic way. An emphasis on the importance of a decisive personal commitment to following Christ does not negate the importance of the Holy Spirit in Christian experience, and an emphasis on God’s sovereignty is certainly not at odds with the Christian mandate for holiness.
“But,” many readers are likely thinking, “I was in a Baptist church just the other day, and the pastor virtually demonized Pentecostals from the pulpit.” And what about all the brow-beating and snubbing from one group to the other that is so often evident to even a casual observer. In response to this concern I must quote a favorite Evangelical professor of mine. In describing a conversation with a Jehovah’s Witness she noted a misconception the person had about Evangelical belief and responded by saying, “It’s not that we believe that. It’s just that most of us are stupid.” Indeed, there are few better examples of the stupidity, selfishness and ignorance that resounds within many Evangelical circles than one group demonizing another instead of engaging in sound-minded, mutually respectful debate. Another horrible, and horribly common, trait among many (not all) Protestant Christians is to pedestalize a favorite point of theological emphasis (e.g. submersion baptism, eternal security) and place it as the benchmark for all truly committed Christians, then dismiss those who don’t line up as quasi apostates. This way of thinking and the un-Christ-like behavior that accompanies it is usually based in ignorance and shallowness, and shows a greater commitment to one’s church tradition than to the ultimate foundations of Christianity and to the Christian endeavor of bringing the message of Christ to the world.
The Nicene Creed and the Apostles creed were formulated in the centuries following Christ largely for the purpose of establishing a concise statement of Christian orthodoxy to distinguish those who followed the teachings of Christ and his immediate disciples, as documented in the Bible, and the diverse groups—the Gnostics and the Marcionites were two of several—who were proclaiming Christ, but whose teachings were very much at odds with the Biblical records of Jesus and the beliefs and practices of his earliest followers. The creeds are essentially thumbnails of basic New Testament theology, and much of the motive behind their creation was to make a litmus test for orthodoxy. Even today, no matter how diverse a group’s worship practices or their points of emphasis in teaching, affirmation of the basic points in the creeds makes for unity among Christian groups on the most fundamental and important points of Christianity. As for the diversity that exists, most are encouraged by the Protestant maxim, “In the essentials, unity; in the non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.” When Mormons and others perceive Protestant Christianity as a hopelessly confused, fragmented, bickering entity with no real solidarity and no clear sense of its own identity, this is almost always because so many Protestant Christians don’t heed this mantra. Too many lack charity and mistake the non-essentials for essentials.
But however wrong it is to exclude others on the basis of non-essential points of doctrine, this is actually rather high-minded compared to the motivations that often cause churches to split and establish new congregations.
A friend of mine who is an ordained minister once started a new church with a small core-group. They began holding worship services in a rented facility on a college campus. At first there was around thirty or forty attending worship. Over time, more people began to come and be involved and the size of the congregation increased multiple times. At one point when the congregation had grown in size to the point where the original core members were only a small minority, some in that original small group began to be displeased because the time on Sunday morning was not as quaint and comfortable as it was in the beginning. There were so many people they didn’t know, so some in that original group left, looking for another church where they could feel more comfortable with a small group. Churches often fall prey to the temptation to be inwardly focused on themselves and their own needs, rather than outwardly focused on the non-Christian people we are mandated to try to reach with the message of Christ. Many churches have fragmented because of this type of selfishness.
One of the shocks I received in my early twenties, after being committed to a congregation for a short time was how many people go to Christian churches for reasons other than Christ. In my experience, the membership of many churches consist largely of people whose love for church life has little or nothing to do with God—perhaps a strong sense of community and care is the attraction for some, for others in positions of responsibility, a feeling of importance or power, and for others just the sense that church involvement makes him or her a wholesome person and provides a positive environment to raise kids. The pursuit of gratifying these and like desires rather than that of knowing the truth about God has, far too often, been a large factor in the fragmenting of Protestant churches.
[1] This point applies only to the conservative side of the Christian theological spectrum. The differences between Evangelicals and genuinely liberal Christians are foundational and essential, much like the differences between the Salt Lake-based LDS Church and the Mormon fundamentalist groups.
