08AR13-05
( - previous issue - )
Apologia Report 13:5
February 7, 2008
Subject: What does it mean to "accept" another worldview?
In this issue:
MORMONISM - accepting the LDS, in spite of their teachings. Why? Because the movement is "composed of real people"
MYSTICISM - evangelicals and Mormons, equally prone to "open a Pandora's Box of subjectivism"?
UNITY SCHOOL OF CHRISTIANITY - sympathetic book-length overview considers criticism
-------
MORMONISM
"Meet the Mormons: From the Margin to the Mainstream" by Mathew N. Schmalz -- argues that everyone should respect Mormons despite their "deeply alien," "strange" teachings. Schmalz explains that "Joseph Smith claimed to have seen God and observed that he has a form much like our own - with ears, eyebrows, and other human features. This God is not only the spiritual parent of us all, he is also the spiritual and physical parent of Jesus Christ. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus also had a prior 'unembodied' existence as 'Jehovah,' God of the Old Testament."
Further, "Some Mormon prophets and theologians have speculated that those who attain exaltation become gods of their own planets and give birth to spirit children who pass from preexistence through corporeal life to the afterlife. This redemptive vision was further clarified when Joseph Smith examined an Egyptian papyrus obtained from a traveling mummy exhibition. On the papyrus, Smith proclaimed, was a depiction of Kolob, the planet or star 'set nigh to the throne of God,' nearest to the celestial realm.
"It was Kolob and associated exotica that first drew me to the study of Mormonism. It all seemed so strange...." Now, it appears, Schmalz would take issue with that conclusion. Personal experience has proven to him that Mormons are not so bad. Nuf said, it would seem. Schmalz's conclusion is representative the oblivion that religious liberalism tends to have toward the concept of spiritual danger. What never comes up for discussion, isn't the character of the LDS, but rather the consequences of "accepting" their theology.
One point in the argument for respecting Mormonism is "the surprisingly broad spectrum that exists between [LDS] orthodoxy and apostasy. I discovered this in 2004, when I attended the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake City. The Sunstone Education Foundation is a Mormon organization that encourages open discussion of LDS experience, culture, and scholarship. Mormon political and cultural views turn out to be much more expansive than most people imagine. Sunstone magazine, for example, argues that one can be a practicing Mormon and a Democrat at the same time, and has published articles critiquing Mormon patriarchy."
While extolling the virtues of such "progressive Mormonism," Schmalz notes that "The most hotly debated issue in Mormonism today is the historicity of the Book of Mormon. LDS leadership in Salt Lake City recently issued a statement reaffirming the book as literally true 'history.' and the lack of archeological evidence? 'Spiritual matters are best verified by spiritual means,' the statement explains - which is to say that one sees the historicity of the Book of Mormon through the eyes of faith. Other Mormon theologians, however, see a different relationship between faith and historicity." Dan Wotherspoon, editor of Sunstone magazine, is given as an example. For him the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction." And, in support of that oxymormon <pun intended>, Schmalz explains that "many Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, consider parts of the Bible 'inspired fiction' - passages that relate events with religious significance and truth even though the events may never have actually occurred.
"The notion of inspired fiction reminds us that one doesn't have to accept the entirety of a religion's claims in order to take it seriously." Schmalz concludes with a sleepy platitude: "Talking about Mormonism in 'good faith' does not mean accepting all - or any - of Mormonism's teachings. Instead, it means accepting that Mormonism is composed of real people who are best seen close up...." Cover story ("The Mormon Vision"). Commonweal, Nov 9 '07, pp16-19.
---
MYSTICISM
"Does God Give Subjective Revelation Today? The Place of Mysticism in Christian Decision Making" by Ken Hornok -- begins with a review of how Mormonism sanctions the confirmation of decision through emotional appeal and then suggests that history provides examples of how this has backfired catastrophically. The primary example of LDS emphasis on the subjective is how confirmation regarding the truth of the Book of Mormon is commonly confirmed - that oft-cited "burning in the bosom" experience. Yet, says Hornok, "Many Evangelical Christians, perhaps unknowingly, do much the same thing. This is no more obvious than in the area of guidance for life's decisions."
Hornok's presentation regarding the flip-side of the LDS approach is alarming. He uses examples taken from John Krakauer's book Under the Banner of Heaven [1]. Fundamentalist Mormon excess in the form of polygamy, homicide, and kidnapping are cited. In each case, the hand of God, subjectively interpreted, was claimed as leading individuals. Hornok concludes that "these atrocities reflect the church's original roots."
As regards the presumably no-less volatile common evangelical approach, Hornok reviews how many non-charismatic evangelicals rely on subjective revelation. Examples from Bruce Wilkerson, David Pytches, Joyce Meyer, and Henry Blackaby are given. In passing, Hornok notes that dispensational luminary Charles Ryrie "made reference to a mystical approach to understanding the Bible, calling it an 'affliction.'"
Moving into instructional mode, Hornok provides biblical examples of objective revelation from God. He finds that "'impressions' and 'inner promptings' cannot be proved as coming from God" and are therefore most likely "self-induced." This is followed by a biblical review of the perils found in the role of "feelings, emotions, and desires."
Ultimately, Hornok comes down on the side of Garry Friesen whose argument is presented in the landmark book Decision Making and the Will of God. [2] Hornok observes that "Those who defend the traditional [subjective circumstantial interpretive] approach do not realize that they are opening a Pandora's Box of subjective mysticism in Christian experience." (In sum: Obey God - and make up your mind. - RP) Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 20:38 - 2007, pp15-30.
---
UNITY SCHOOL OF CHRISTIANITY
Steven Tsoukalas provides an exceptional service with his brief review of The Unity Movement, by Neal Vahle [3]. By calling attention to this resource he helps bring understanding to one of the more well-established, yet little known, groups that have been absorbed into the much larger and decentralized New Age movement.
Tsoukalas reports that "Neal Vahle, who holds a Ph.D. in American History from Georgetown University (and has worked in the publishing field, serving as editor of Unity Magazine), has for the most part written this book as a historian, providing a source for those wishing to learn of the teachings, organization, and growth and development of Unity. Most significantly, Tsoukalas points out that Vahle includes criticism of the movement in his discussion at various levels. For example, in his introduction, Vahle briefly summarizes the teachings of founders Charles and Myrtle Fillmore. Tsoukalas notes that "Unity is best known to evangelicals for what it denies (all essential Christian doctrines) rather than what it affirms." In subsequent chapters Vahle expands on these introductory remarks "admitting," reports Tsoukalas, "that teachers within Unity have criticized 'traditional Christianity ... for its inaccurate interpretation of the life and teachings of Jesus."
Later in the book, "Vahle dichotomizes between 'Representatives of Mainstream Christianity' and 'Scholars in the Field of American Religion.' The 'representatives,' it seems, are those who are less polemic in their remarks and take on a more reporting nature to their writings." Then Tsoukalas gives examples of two scholars who fail to make the grade: James Teener and Gordon Lewis. This begs the question, wonders Tsoukalas, if "any polemic against Unity is by definition not scholarly."
Nearing the conclusion to this work, "He [Vahle] further asks, 'Can the Unity movement at large: 1. Present its goals, purposes, and teachings in such a way that traditional Christianity will view Unity as falling within the broad spectrum of its teachings rather than as a cult or heretical sect? Speaking as one within traditional Christianity who has been a relatively long-time critic or Unity, my answer is that I certainly hope and pray so, but that in order for Unity to do so it would have to 'do,' as common parlance has it, 'a 180.'" Asbury Theological Journal, 60:2 - 2005 (three years behind schedule), pp155-156.
-------
Sources, Monographs:
1 - Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, by Jon Krakauer (Doubleday, 2003, hardcover, 400 pages, ISBN 0-3855-0951-0)
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385509510/apologiareport>
2 - Decision Making and the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View, by Garry Friesen and J. Robin Maxson (Multnomah, 2004, paperback, 528 pages)
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590522052/apologiareport>
3 - The Unity Movement: Its Evolution and Spiritual Teaching, by Neal Vahle (Templeton Fndn Prs, 2002, paperback, 504 pages)
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890151963/apologiareport>
--------
( - next issue - )