One of the most frustrating things for those of us who work in the field of apologetics to the LDS people is having our motives and tactics be misunderstood. For example, many Mormons believe that anyone who tries to share the Christian faith with them must somehow be motivated by hate. The term “anti-Mormon” is a common term used to denigrate anyone who has the audacity to suggest that Mormonism is not the same as Christianity. Opposition, they argue, is nothing less than intolerance.
Yet those who belong to the LDS Church are not the only ones who are critical of various apologetic approaches. Some Christian scholars have also shared their opposition to methods they consider too aggressive. Certainly former Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw—who likes to hobnob with BYU professors and LDS general authorities—is well known for his vocal disagreement against groups like Mormonism Research Ministry. Based on his talks and writings, it seems that he feels that there are more similarities than differences between Mormonism and Christianity.
Recently I came across an article in Perichoresis, a publication of Emanuel University of Oradea, Romania (Volume 10, Issue 1 (2012): 23-39), written by a theology professor (Dr. Glen G. Scorgie) at Bethel Seminary San Diego, my alma mater where I received an M.Div. The title of his article “Confrontational Apologetics Versus Grace-Filled Persuasion.” You can certainly look at my detailed response to his piece here, but I want to share a few reasons why I think this type of argumentation is faulty.
For example, the title is nothing less than the either/or fallacy, suggesting that there are only two ways to do apologetics. One method utilizes an aggressive, negative tactic (Dr. Scorgie likes to call this “smash-mouth apologetics”), with the other tactic marked by a gentle, positive demeanor. Demonizing styles that emphasize “stranger evangelism,” he apparently teaches his graduate students that lifestyle evangelism is the only appropriate way to do biblical apologetics. Using a word (“civility”) popularized by Richard Mouw (a man who, in Dr. Scorgie’s own description on page 33, “profoundly affected me”), he writes in his paper’s abstract, “The great challenge before Christian apologists is to speak and live in ways that combine uncompromising faithfulness to revealed truth with a generous spirit of loving service and civility. Grace-filled persuasion always trumps smash-mouth apologetics.”
Dr. Scorgie creates straw man arguments to make “confrontational” apologists look unbiblical. For example, he criticizes “important apologetics reference works” (even those written by scholars) by saying these apologists typically don’t teach proper ways of civil engagement. (I show in my article that his claim is baseless.) He saves his harshest criticism for those who are involved with apologetics to those in the cults, writing on page 31:
“Take, for example, someone who has a life-long ministry to cults. Have you noticed how, over time, they can start to sound a bit like a cult members (sic) themselves? Or consider this example. If a soldier has to fight the Taliban at close quarters for long periods of time, the risk is that they will begin to behave more and more like them. The principle is that we tend to absorb something of the tactics and tone of our opponents. In the sphere of apologetics this can be disastrous.” (p. 31)
Ironically, Dr. Scorgie’s generalization seems to use “smash-mouth” tactics rather than anything that could be considered “grace-filled.” Suppose I said, “Take, for example, someone who has been involved with higher education for all of his or her life. Have you noticed how, over time, they can get so caught up in their writing and pontification in the classroom that they seem quite comfortable in their ivory towers…” I certainly don’t believe this is true, even in a general way, because I do know a number of scholars who take their skills outside the classroom/research walls. Yet here is a man who, in one broad statement, is willing to throw lay apologists under the bus by painting them all as angry, bitter debaters.
People are going to hell, yet by their words, some Christian scholars don’t seem to mind. It would be nice if Dr. Scorgie would be willing to assist the apologists in the goal of reaching out to those who are enmeshed with false religions rather than just shooting his brothers and sisters in the back. After all, aren’t we supposed to be on the same team?
Well Eric,
You’ve tripped a lot of random thoughts in my mind regarding this topic.
First of all, was John the Baptist effective? Didn’t he dress weird, eat weird stuff and shout out at the top of his lungs on occasion, “You brood of vipers……….”
Then wasn’t the apostle Paul sort of confrontational at times? I seem to remember the term “stiffed necked” which he applied to some listeners.
What is effective in bringing people to Christ? I would say there are a variety of approaches that have merit depending on the situation. The guys you cite in your article have seemed to have settled on something they are comfortable with and want it as a prescription. That’s like making someone else wear a sweater because you’re cold.
Here are two questions that those of us who are involved in ministries to Mormons need to ask.
One, why do Mormons leave Mormonism?
Two, of those who come to Christ, how did that happen (apart from the obvious that they were led by the Holy Spirit).
Here’s what I’ve noticed with the second group. Something sets them off on a journey to investigate the religion that they belong to; Mormonism. They study on their own and over time they come to that critical decision point where they realize Mormonism is false, so now what do they do about it. That leads to all sorts of decisions about leaving, resigning, accepting Christ and finding a church to settle in.
Not that I don’t think street evangelism isn’t important because I do, however, how often does it happen that a Mormon actually gets converted by this means? I don’t know.
I really like Micah Wilder’s testimony. Someone did take the opportunity to share Christ with Micah which set him off on a journey to study the NT which led to his coming to (Christ) in faith.
OK here’s a short video. Is this guy being confrontational to Mormons and is he effective? Smash Mouth? These are short but they get at our topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5jwVk7LVoI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP7sohncqSo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opclqw2FsHc
Well Eric,
You’ve tripped a lot of random thoughts in my mind regarding this topic.
First of all, was John the Baptist effective? Didn’t he dress weird, eat weird stuff and shout out at the top of his lungs on occasion, “You brood of vipers……….”
Then wasn’t the apostle Paul sort of confrontational at times? I seem to remember the term “stiffed necked” which he applied to some listeners.
What is effective in bringing people to Christ? I would say there are a variety of approaches that have merit depending on the situation. The guys you cite in your article have seemed to have settled on something they are comfortable with and want it as a prescription. That’s like making someone else wear a sweater because you’re cold.
Here are two questions that those of us who are involved in ministries to Mormons need to ask.
One, why do Mormons leave Mormonism?
Two, of those who come to Christ, how did that happen (apart from the obvious that they were led by the Holy Spirit).
Here’s what I’ve noticed with the second group. Something sets them off on a journey to investigate the religion that they belong to; Mormonism. They study on their own and over time they come to that critical decision point where they realize Mormonism is false, so now what do they do about it. That leads to all sorts of decisions about leaving, resigning, accepting Christ and finding a church to settle in.
Not that I don’t think street evangelism isn’t important because I do, however, how often does it happen that a Mormon actually gets converted by this means? I don’t know.
I really like Micah Wilder’s testimony. Someone did take the opportunity to share Christ with Micah which set him off on a journey to study the NT which led to his coming to (Christ) in faith.
OK here’s a short video. Is this guy being confrontational to Mormons and is he effective? Smash Mouth? These are short but they get at our topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5jwVk7LVoI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iP7sohncqSo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opclqw2FsHc
Of course evangelism should be done w/ gentleness from a heart of love (and I see MRM doing this). They (people in the Mouw/Scorgie camp) may be approaching evangelism with the wrong expectations.
Do they expect that people should not be offended? The only sense where that is true is when we don’t offend intentionally. However, the message of the cross (we are unworthy sinners in need of a savior) -is naturally offensive (Gal 5:11). Jesus was hated because He showed that the works of the world are evil (John 7:7). Jesus is the rock of offense (Is 8:14) and on and on… I think part of the territory of evangelism is that some will be offended. The book of Acts shows us that much. Weren’t we promised that we would be hated and persecuted (Luke 21:17, 2 Ti 3:12)? The world doesn’t hate and persecute you because you live a moral life, it hates us because they are offended; for the same reason Cain hated Abel – the way we are righteous and acceptable before God. The gospel says we are not worthy of free forgiveness – that is contrary to and offends Mormon doctrine.
Are they expecting to make friends from lifestyle evangelism? James 4:4 says something about that. Great if we end up being friends w/ those we evangelize, but we can’t put friendship ahead of truth.
Do they expect tolerance? Tolerance does NOT mean what a lot of people think it means: “I agree” or “I think your way is valid.” How can we tolerate that with which we agree? If we agreed, what is left to tolerate?
Be encouraged! “Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. “Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven…” (Luke 6:22-23)
I have had several sets of LDS missionaries at my door since leaving the church. I decided I was going to talk to them if they would honestly tell me who their God is. They wouldn’t tell me, so I told them who my God is then told them who the Mormon god is and explained that we worship different Gods. Talk about defensive. They knock on doors wanting to spread their religion and convert but you better not be up front and honest with your own beliefs. I would like to be able to talk to Mormons in love but they aren’t receptive at all to anyone’s beliefs but their own. I wasn’t either as a Mormon. Civility is a two way street and I could just as easily call Mormons aunt tye Christian. I was aunt tye Christian while LDS, it’s what I was taught, especially at home. The only Christian church in our town is refered to as that weird little church on the hill. It’s been here 15 years and is still called that.
My pastor gave a sermon one Sunday about reaching out to others about the Gospel. He said if we don’t share it with those around us, we may as well be telling those people to go to hell because that’s where they will end up.
Tricky business…
I want as many people to come to Jesus as possible and some times that eagerness turns into frustration and I pummel people with information. Im told to let my life shine as an example and draw others to Christ but in the face of so much misinformation and in a world of self service the Christian life isn’t all that attractive. The truth is hard to swallow and Jesus him self said that narrow is the gate and few are the people that find it. I just want the message to come through minus my prideful must-be-right flesh. We can’t water down the message because the message is sharp. It will cut right through the lies, and it will likely hurt.
Here is my thoughts,
Some people on this blog have gotten upset with me and said I am very Confrontational.
(Waiting for Jokes from Falcon know). LOL.
Any way people keep quoting to me 1 peter 3:15. Now I dont have an issue with that, but at the same time, I could argure, Jesus and the disaples did not follow that. Jesus made a whip of cords, called his disaples, fools and slow of heart, the apostles called Blindness upon a false prophet, and said, I told you so. Things of this nature.
Then people my not like or agree with how I speak, but I have no respect for people who feel the need to water down what they say, or be all PC In how they speak. Like my pastor says all the time, People are dying everyday and going to hell for all of eterinty, do we care more about them being saved, or do we care more about how they will feel if we speak the truth to them, O-no, they will be offended if we say the hard things.
Then even if people come here and tell me I am wrong, let me use Cattyjane as an example, Over all God did the work in her heart, but he used me, and one other that I know of. I told her in my own way as I always do, the hard things she needed to hear, so believed and is now a christian. She has come here and stated as much. We even spoke via email about what I call, (Whiners) who speand more time giving me a hard time about how I say things than talking to Mormons.
Catty Jane even said, she is happy I did not do one of those, I cannot speak to you for fear of hurting your feelings, lest she either still be lost, or God simply would have used another instead of me. I also have pleanty of People write me and say, I read your replies and like what you say. I have promised them I wont mention their names or are talks, so if they choose to speak up and admit we spoke and they have no issue with my style then thats up to them. I also will say, if you take issue with what I say, then maybe just keep it to yourself, I will speak back.
I see fruit from things I have said and done, I stand alone before Jesus for what I say and do, I answer to Him and Him alone, as the Bible says, I am a tool in His hand, I am the hammer and the whiners are the tissue that God uses to clean up their tears, were both needed and have are jobs.
Just as the Bible says, are we both Eyes? are we both Feet? Are we both ears? we are differant and used by God differantly.
There are different forms and approaches for different groups. When you’re dealing with people in cults, you have to pull the claw out of their brains/spirits and then you’ve got a chance to preach the Gospel to them. That’s what we go through with Mormons. Think of this big ugly demon with a big claw right in the middle of their skull. Is that a little to graphic and over the top? Ah, just a little smash mouth from me.
But really, talk to anyone who has had to journey out of one of these cults and it’s a totally different path than someone who may have had no religion or may have been a nominal Christmas/Easter Christians. The testimonies of our former Mormon posters here speak to a freedom in Christ and breaking the chains of oppression and bondage.
Greg Laurie is a contemporary evangelist. He shares what’s been going on in his ministry. The reason I know a little about him is because the church I attend is going to be part of the event coming up soon. The approach is to invite someone to the media presentation. Does it work? Here’s some of what he reports.
What are you hoping Harvest America will accomplish this year?
Basically in the next 1,000 days—three crusade cycles—our objective is to reach as many people as it’s taken us 22 years to reach in live events around the country and abroad. We’ve had 4 million people come in person to our Harvest events. We’ve had about 400,000 people respond and make professions of faith, but we’re going to try in the next 1,000 days, by using all media platforms available, to equal or surpass that number. It’s just because we recognize that we can’t go to every city; we can’t go to every church; we can’t go every place that we’re invited. But by taking this technology, in effect, we can and we will.
I think people are very open to this technology now. … I think everyone recognizes that technology can be very effective, and there are many pastors like Craig Groeschel in Oklahoma and Steven Furtick in North Carolina that have campuses that are composed largely of a video stream and a live worship. We’re just taking this technology that other churches are using, and we’re taking it to a broader platform. We’ve also used this same technology in launching a new church here in Southern California called Harvest Orange County. We know it works, and we know it works very well, so why not use the technology? To me, it’s the modern equivalent of the Roman roads of Paul’s day. For so many years, there was no way to really reach around the world of that time, and with the Roman road system, you could take the Gospel to people who had never heard it before. We’re taking the modern Roman roads of technology and getting the Gospel out.
Do you think the church in general is doing a good or poor job in equipping people to make those kinds of proclamations, and how does Harvest Christian Fellowship equip its people to do that?
I would say the church could do a much better job of equipping people to share their faith and teaching them how to engage people and how to present the Gospel to people. That’s a big deal to us at Harvest. Our mission statement is, “Knowing Him and making Him known.” We love to study the Bible. We love to worship the Lord. And then we want to make Him known to this culture. Not only do we challenge and equip our own people to go out and lead others to Christ, but we develop resources to help the church do it as well. One of those resources is the Harvest Crusades. Also on our website, Harvest.org, we have a “How to know God” site that you can go to that actually shows a person how to come to Christ. We do it through our radio broadcast that’s in about 500 markets. And we’ve developed resources and tools to help other churches.
I think sometimes people feel that evangelism may be outdated and you just can’t do it the way it’s been done in the past. I think you can do it. And we should do it. Because some things never change, and the power of the Gospel will never change. We don’t ever want to back down from that Great Commission because it is given to us by Christ and it is a command to go into all the world. But for many, the Great Commission has become the great omission, and stats bear out the fact that most Christians have never led another person to Christ. I think that can change, but it probably should start from the top down with the pastor doing it. I think that maybe one reason that a lot of churches aren’t reaching lost people is that the pastor needs to ask himself the question, “Do I have a burden for lost people?” I’ve often said this at pastor’s conferences, “Do you have a heart for people that don’t know the Lord?” And then I’ll go on to say, “I don’t mean, ‘Do you mention it from the pulpit?’ But when was the last time you personally shared your faith when you weren’t behind a pulpit—just you as a Christian, not even as a pastor? When was the last time you engaged somebody?” And I think if the answer to that is “a long time,” that may be indicative of the fact that the pastor himself needs to ask that God would give him a heart for people that don’t know the Lord. As Spurgeon once said, “God will move them (speaking of the nonbeliever) by first moving you.” I think that our hearts need to be moved in this direction before we’re going to effectively move others to Christ.
Here’s the link to the whole article:
http://www.outreachmagazine.com/people/4704-greg-laurie-harvest-crusades-and-harvest-christian-fellowship-southern-california.html
Question: Is the Mormon door banging approach old school?
Finally in talking about evangelism, Laurie relates a conversation he once had with Billy Graham:
I once was talking to Billy Graham about this and I asked him, “If an older Billy could speak to a younger Billy, what would he tell himself to emphasize more as a younger preacher?” Without missing a beat, Billy’s response was, “I would tell myself to preach more on the cross and the blood because that’s where the power is.” Paul speaks of the power of the Gospel to those who believe. If we leave out the message of the death of Jesus and His sacrifice for us and the need to repent of our sin and put our faith in Him, then I think we’re falling short of what God is calling us to do. So let’s do it in a friendly way. Let’s do it in an engaging way. Let’s do it in a loving way. Let’s do it in an understandable way. But let’s make sure that we do it.
I think that’s good advice. What are Mormon Missionaries selling? Is it the Lord Jesus Christ, His substitutionary death on the Cross, the shedding of His blood for the remission of sins, putting faith in Him alone and not our efforts to get right with God?
No it’s all about Joseph Smith and joining the LDS church.
We have the message that leads to eternal life to those that would hear it and hearing it, believe.
The way we share the message is important, but it’s the message that has the power.
I’m afraid that these folks who believe in being “non-confrontational” and “relationship” driven are still waiting to see the first fruit of their approach.
Falcon, I wonder if Mormons are selling JS Jr.. From recent discussions, it seems as if they are selling the Jesus of Christianity. JS Jr. is brought up as a secondary issue. The Jesus of Mormonism is also a secondary issue. What is clearly not sold is that Jesus died for our sins once and for all, and as Paul writes in Phil 3:7-9:
“7 But whatever were gains to me I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them garbage, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in[a] Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith”
What is not taught is that we have no righteousness of our own or from the law, but our righteousness comes through Christ, and only from God only on the basis of faith.
It is important to remember that this is the message of Christ: believe in him, and you will be saved, no questions asked. Its also easy to get bogged down in further discussion. I do it all the time. But we ought to always remember it is Christ who pulls them near, not us. All we can do is water the plant, but it is Christ who makes it grow.
Eric,
you cited this quote by Dr. Scorgie : ” The great challenge before Christians apologists is to
speak and live in ways that combine uncompromising faithfulness to revealed truth with a
generous spirit of loving service and civility . Grace filled persuasion always trumps smash
mouth apologetics . ”
I agree with that particular statement . I have to say that if by “smash mouth ” apologetics this
means an overbearing , holier than thou type attitude where there is no indication that you care
about the Mormon you’re speaking to then there is no place for that type of lifestyle on the part
a apologist , in my opinion .
Many Mormons , especially, do suffer from a persecution type mind set so any type of
organized effort to warn them that they have been misled by their prophets is seen as
just another effort to attack or bash them . I have chosen to be involved with MRM because I
found that those who run this ministry are the kind of apologists I can support . They do
not bash Mormons , they are not “anti ‘s ” . The Mormon people deserve to hear the truth
about the danger of following latter days prophets who have come but were not sent by
Jesus —Matt 24:11.
There is some controversy surrounding Charles Finney, the 19th century evangelist, and the methods he implemented to save souls. Finney was of course a contemporary of Joseph Smith and in fact it appears Smith lifted Finney’s experience with the Lord and melded it into one of his many first vision stories. I suppose that those critical of Finney in his time might have used the term “smash mouth evangelism” but they were called “new measures”.
“The most prominent “new measures” were (1) basing sermons on sound oratorical and psychological principles, (2) protracted meetings, (3) securing decisions by the use of the “anxious seat,” (4) using music to give the audience a sense of participation and to put them in the proper frame of mind, (5) advertising the time and the place of the meetings, (6) allowing women to pray in public in the presence of men, and (7) praying for people by name in open meetings.”
“To be practical, said Finney, revival preaching had to attract attention. To do this it had to be exciting. It had to suit the tastes of the age, to reach the under standing of common people, and to produce an active response on the part of the auditor.”
One of my favorite new measures was the “anxious seat”.
The Anxious Seat
“Finney described the anxious seat as “the appointment of some particular seat in the place of meeting (usually the front benches or pews) where the anxious may come and be addressed particularly and be made the subject of prayers and some times conversed with individually.” He was convinced from experience that the use of anxious seats and anxious meetings was “undoubtedly philosophical and according to the laws of mind.” They not only helped to break the “chains of pride” but they forced a definite commitment “to be on the Lord’s side” from per sons who might otherwise hold back.16 This, too, was a comparatively new measure that went back no farther than the use of the “mourners’ bench” at the Methodist camp meetings. The practice of requiring awakened sinners to come forward publicly at the close of a sermon and express their desire or purpose to be saved became part of all revivals after Finney’s day.”
Finally,
“………he carefully “trained” the members of his church in New York to “go out in the highways and hedges to bring people to hear preaching. When we wished to give notice of any extra meetings, little slips of paper, on which was printed an invitation to at tend the services, would be carried from house to house in every direction” by both men and women of the congregation. By this method of advertising “the house could be filled any evening in the week.” 17
Brewed:
“I want as many people to come to Jesus as possible and some times that eagerness turns into frustration and I pummel people with information. […] I just want the message to come through minus my prideful must-be-right flesh.”
I can identify with this struggle. I often switch into “I’m going to win this argument no matter what” mode when discussing my faith, especially with Latter-day Saints. I am frequently more interested in demonstrating intellectual prowess than lovingly inviting people to consider the truth. I pray frequently for God to remove that nonsense from my heart. I’ll ask Him to do the same for you!