An apt quote

What could I ever give in return that would equal the gift the LDS people have given me? The gift of the second chance. These people have lived under the fire of "theological legalism" all their life. That makes them an expert panel. I would be a no-good evangelical today if they had not put up with me and taught me about the resounding gong residing in my own mouth.

This guy is not going to be happy for me making such a fuss, but I don't care what he thinks (see how well they've taught me? ;0)

Barry had an excellent quote on his blog the other day. I wanted to share it.

Another Way: Respect

Here is a good definition of relational evangelism.

Here is a great article on maintaining the message of salvation in Christ while reaching and changing the minds of others.

Wouldn't it be great if everybody just listened to what we have to say? If you're one of those bible teachers who people just listen to everywhere he goes, that's something pretty neat. For the rest of us, reaching the point where a message can be carefully considered by its audience, requires that familiarity be established.

Maybe you once held the captive audience of others and have lost it. Maybe the reason why it was lost was your fault, or maybe it was a misunderstanding, or maybe it was their fault. Regardless, the trust can be, and must be, reestablished.

Jimi Pitts, a friend of mine who loves to present the gospel to Mormon people, has gone for several years to a big, famous annual pageant presented by the LDS church in the small Utah town of Manti. They would traditionally hand out tracts and talk to people gathered in the town for the event. The townsfolk did not take kindly to their presence, and one year they were not only harrassed and persecuted (as they'd been for several years running), but the police even handcuffed and arrested Jimi. It was plain the community felt threatened and outraged as these traditional Christians stuck to their practices and kept handing out the tracts--quite admirably, I must say. Of course, very few gave them a serious hearing.

The next year after these incidents, they tried something very different. The group was made aware of a poor single mother living in town, a Mormon lady with five children, who needed her house painted. In the group came with their brushes, rollers, tarps and paint that she got to pick out herself but the group paid for, as well as lots of hands and feet to do the job for her as a simple gift of love. Soon the word got out across the small Mormon community about what they'd done, and suddenly they were practically hailed as people who walked on water! Now it was as if they could do no wrong! Even though they continued to hand out tracts and talk to LDS passersby, they were now not only tolerated but in some cases even admired.

In the years to follow... the single mother became their friend, began to trust her kids to them for tending, and one of her daughters even, as Jimi reported, "got saved!" More than one county law enforcement officer later told Jimi with heartfelt apology, "We were wrong to do what we did to your group," and a good, open friendship has been formed with one of those officials in particular who is now open to their message.

[1]

This is an amazing example. This group has earned the right to carry around a persecution complex, because they truly were being treated unjustly by sharing their beliefs.... But they didn't do that. Instead, they were amazingly lowly and humble. They listened and obeyed the obvious requests by the town to stop offending them by that method.

So long as the town was being offended, nobody in it was listening to the message.

When the group changed their method, and respect and care was indeed received by the town, then various townspeople felt the freedom to be honest. Honest with the Word of God. Honest to confess their sins against, or in the presence of, the evangelists.

Which brings up another topic, on the sins belonging to those with whom we are sharing the message.

Is it a big deal when those whom we are sharing with, act poorly?

It shouldn't be, at least in my thinking.

First of all, which way is this ministry going, anyway?? -- Do I really believe they are ministering to me? Do I really believe in their message as true and something for me to receive? If so, then I should definitely care about the way in which they live their life as they hold their beliefs. But, I am afraid that this is merely my own excellent standard, my own conscious devotion to not hinder my message, that I innocently assign to them.

Second, should we be surprised that the deceived or the lost are having trouble treating us kindly? I mean, it would be nice, but....

If I am the one with the true message, then the ministry is from me to them, and, their poor example in my presence... is irrelevant.

Once again, the old Calvinist fruit-introspective tradition, lingers on. I want to nip that thing in the bud. It's like we're trying to prove to others they can't possibly be seen as righteous in Christ by faith, unless they are dragged through an endless assortment of any of 613 commandments.

In conclusion, unless you remain unconvinced that your ministry is true, I don't want to hear anything more about what the other guys are acting like. This is your ministry, not theirs.

I understand that it is truly unpleasant. And unfair. And a bad indication. And gross because at this point you and I are emotionally involved. I too went through a phase where I tried to get the other guy to clean up his act. I'll tell you: Perhaps I could get a man to clean up his act, but I might lose his soul. Which is more important? That he stop sinning, or that he believe the message? What will come out of my mouth?

With time I learned to pick up that cross, and bear it with the joy set before me in trusting God that He will help them to see. There is no freedom for them to confess and reconcile, if there is no grace being extended by me. In the relationship with our Heavenly Father, we can come boldly into the throneroom and stand and confess before the King. By that same Means we can do this with each other, too.

Sorry for the blatant condescending attitude on my part, above... That's not Christ-like of me. I feel like a mom who has been trying to keep her two kids from fighting over nonsense all day long... oh wait, I am and I did.... :)

These "sins" of the others oftentimes have a lot more to do with the culture of religion, which will be the next topic.


[1] I Love Mormons, by David L. Rowe, pp. 156-157. 2005, Baker Books.

The Traditional Method

I don't want to speak poorly of the traditional method of evangelism. I do think it is profitable. I think some of us are fortunate to have it work. When it works, those who listen to us submit to the teachings we share.

However there is, in my opinion, a growing need for evangelicals to utilize a new method (I will post on next) of evangelism, especially in a scripture-soaked society as America is.

I apologize, many of my sources and ideas are borrowed from LDS-specific issues; that's simply a reflection of where I have put in more effort to revolutionize the method. I think the ideas below are fully applicable as principles for all kinds of evangelism, though. It shouldn't be too difficult to draw them out as you read, I think.

I hope you notice, as you read below, that the author utilizes a less common methodology in how he is about to introduce a new perspective to you, as he shares the content of that message:

A Traditional Way: The Doctrinal "Warrior Saint"

By now I was getting familiar with this pattern of contact, "discussion," recoil, and shutdown, having been at it for about three years. And by this point, that stabbing feeling I got, joined like a Siamese twin to a feeling of despair, had started to intensify beyond what I considered tolerable. Frankly, though, I just did not know what else to do but shake it off, suit up with my spiritual armor, and ready myself for yet another spin at the same jousting game.

So, like most other Utah ministers with whom I compared notes, I took some refuge in putting the best face on it while proceeding full steam ahead, staying the course, making another charge. The best face we put on turned out to be some form of makeover that left us traditional Christian "warrior saints" loking pretty noble at the end of the day. After all, we were just faithfully and honestly "preaching the truth," right? We were simply called to proclaim the gospel and leave the results to God, amen? We were powerless to keep our Mormon friends from thinking we were somehow attacking them instead of their doctrine, weren't we? (Uh, by the way, we were their friends, right?) We couldn't help it if "the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers" (2 Cor 4:4), could we? Ours was not to reason why but simply to keep on keeping on and suffering those battle wounds for the Lord. Wasn't all this the plain and simple truth of the matter?

Well, a lot was plain and simple back then, but not much of it was truthful. That one could enjoy friendship with Mormons and enjoy the title "Mormon Slayer" at the same time was patently disingenuous. Proceeding as if one could "bible bash" without raising defenses and coming across as attacking amounted to gross silliness as well as flat-out cluelessness about human communication. Acting like we who evangelized by trafficking in "what's wrong with Mormonism" and "evidence against Mormonism" were really "just preaching the truth" or "simply proclaiming the gospel" bordered on self-congratulatory delusionalism. To believe our proclamation style truly created no offense but "the offense of the cross" was an offense to the truth! Even if many we met were "blinded" by "the god of this world," it now seems to me that in order to help them we had to deal with a blindness of our own, a peculiar blindness to the sinewy, pulsating, dust-and-dreams, soulful reality of the Mormon people as first and most of all, people.

In those days I was just not ready to recognize, let alone deal with, the blindness in my home court--what Jesus would call "the beam" in my own eye, which was steadily growing from telephone pole to sequoia proportions. I was not ready to face its implications. Why did I do this confrontational, warrior-mode evangelism with LDS people? Yes, for one thing it was all I knew, all I'd seen by way of modeling, and the way I'd been trained by both formal and informal mentors. But it seems to me there was something else lurking in the depths and driving this approach, something we traditional Christians didn't like to think about, something called fear. Mormons and other religious groups threaten us, in part simply because they are "other" and perhaps odd--"not us." I'm not sure why this should scare us, but sometimes it does. We revert to fight-or-flight reflexes, quite unlike Jesus, who was secure in the love of the Father for all people so that he was able to embrace with uncanny comfort the whole range of humanity, including Romans, Samaritans, Pharisees, prostitutes, and lepers. We would do well to cultivate that kind of security in the love of God for all people.

[1]

Oh, I could tell stories of the sad things I have done with the Word of God to the LDS. The people at the forum I hang out at, could tell them to you for me. I was all about apologetics and I just assumed that if I had enough scripture and research, the results would come about. I was disappointed. It took more than just the written answers, to achieve change. I, like the author of this book, started to sense the need for something more. I remember standing there in the bookstore, the dilemma over method happening right as I looked over which book about the LDS I would purchase next. I wrote about this crisis of methodology here. Somewhere at the LDS forum I confessed to them "this tender new perspective" was taking root in me and I devoted myself to nurturing it, shutting out voices from the "traditional method" camp, for a time in my life.

Here is an example of the "traditional method" I too started out with. In this specific case I published this blog entry out of frustration because our discussion in a thread was getting overheated, and I pushed them beyond their limit. The moderator broke in and deleted my post from the discussion. It was gone! I was angry about it (though I did feel guilty), so I "published" it elsewhere out of defiance. My pride got in the way. But they worked with me to work the issue out.

The next post will be Rowe's explanation of a new method.


[1] I Love Mormons, by David L. Rowe, pp. 17-18. 2005, Baker Books.

Persecution Complex

Ongoing, unresolved strife between two groups can develop a persecution complex.

The most extreme version of the phenomena goes a little like this, in my observation: It is thought of as validation of your mission (persecution for the sake of truth/Jesus Christ) when anything is done or said at any time to be critical or to slow the achievement of that mission... no matter how appropriate those goals may or may not truly be.

The problem with an explanation of "persecution" when strife occurs, is that it does not make good provision for reason. Perspectives by those outside the group is outlawed; only insiders are privileged to have their reasonings received by its members for general contemplation.

The theological discourse of Christian persecution has a long and paradoxical legacy: indeed, Christianity itself is founded upon an archetype of religio-political persecution, the execution of Jesus by the Romans. Certainly, the earliest Christians routinely equated Christian identity with suffering persecution, as the gospels and letters in the New Testament amply attest: "Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake," Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account" (Matthew 5.10-11). Meanwhile, in the Gospel of John, Jesus warns his students with these words: "Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15.20). Decades before these gospels were written, the itinerant preacher and missionary Paul wrote to the fledgling Christian community in Corinth: "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Corinthians 12.10).

By the end of the second century, the north African church father Tertullian would link the Christian experience of persecution to the expansion of the church in what has over the centuries become a near-slogan of the Christian movement: "The blood of Christians is the seed [of the church]" (semen est sanguis Christianorum) (226-27). By the early fourth century, the tables had turned, and a writer like Lactantius could create a work like his On the Deaths of the Persecutors, in which he offers an almost gleeful portrait of the grotesque fates to which the persecutors had eventually succumbed. And by the post-Constantinian era of the fourth and fifth centuries, after Christianity had mastered the language of empire (Cameron), Christian imperial legislation effectively deployed the familiar image of formerly dominant pagans as the persecutors of Christians as a rationale for outlawing their religious practices (see Codex Theodosianus 16.10 [Pharr trans. 472-76]) while exuberant Christian monks justified anti-pagan acts of violence, such as breaking into the homes of prominent pagans and destroying the religious objects found therein, by recourse to the claim that they (the monks) were by definition without guilt since they acted as martyrs (witnesses) for Christ (Shenoute of Atripe; Gaddis).

[1]

What happens if the only ones allowed to reason over the propriety of a mission are the ones within the group? Any group has a customary pattern of thought, by definition. Therefore, it is blind to its own prejudices. That is why a group needs someone from the outside, someone who opposes them, to show them those prejudices (whatever those might be). In the case of an extreme persecution complex, that opportunity is never granted, and the group keeps making the same error after error until the damage done becomes so obvious that there is revolution from within the group itself. Or, the mission is abandoned out of disillusion and frustration from an apparent lack of progress.

And of course, the rift between the two groups grows larger.

Early on in the forming of new factions, it is important to deal swiftly to resolve bad emotions and language from the two sides.

For the sake of seeing the universal nature of the complex, here is a description of another group's pesecution complex... the LDS's:

As noted, the Mormons' identity as a "persecuted people" from early on in their history is very deeply felt. Its imprint leaves Mormons today thin-skinned, hypersensitive, and virtually expecting to be attacked. And let's be plain: the major body of attackers then and now has been perceived as Protestant Americans. So as we saw, we may typically expect a defensiveness that quickly throws walls up at even the slightest critical questioning of any aspect of their religion and culture. One classic manifestation of this complex is the insulated, fixed Mormon aversion to any form of what gets labeled "anti-Mormon literature"--books and pamphlets critical of their history or teachings or personal-journey stories of people who leave the LDS Church. Do any of this, or any joking or ridiculing, as you relate to a believing Mormon, and you can plan to lose an audience for the gospel right then and there. It will be seen as "one more attack."

[2]

They weren't the only ones, I had it too. I can testify of how blind I was to my errors, through believing I was suffering persecution. I still haven't delivered my mind from automatically assuming that every bad experience I have, means I am being persecuted for the sake of the truth. But you should have seen me when I first started hanging out with the LDS. As the extreme descriptions above illuminate, it was impossible for me to let the LDS who I was evangelizing, tell me how I was doing in evangelizing them. How I came across. How I was treating them. I feared the thought of listening and considering their reaction to the way I shared my message. I still don't understand what that fear was all about. But I'm glad I gave it up after a year or two... and I am even more glad that they gave me enough grace to stay long enough to have all those second chances. I eventually came around. Their goodness to me helped me wake from the trance of the persecution complex.



[1] Persecution Complexes, by Elizabeth A. Castelli, April 2008.

[2] I Love Mormons, by David L. Rowe, pg. 49. 2005, Baker Books.

Encounters

It's always amazing to think how God can enable a housewife to share his love. There isn't a lot of wiggle-room. I'm a woman and I've got three young kids so the momentum to even get out of the house is rare... and still I pray for opportunities.

It's funny how you get going and forget about your prayers until you're in the midst of realizing them.

My daughter Liz had an appointment last Tuesday and as my children and I were doing a follow up drop-in for lab work an elderly man and his wife waited patiently for me so that they could get into their pickup. The man came by and smiled at the baby, and said while admiring his baby-feet "Aren't these little ones so amazing? It's a tragedy we live in an age where it's become so easy to get an abortion." I acknowledged his sentiments, and he said "It is apparent to me that the return of the LORD is very near. I think you know what I am talking about." He was wearing a baseball cap that said "Are you going to heaven?" with a fish and "Jesus" written in it. I told him how much I appreciated his discussion and especially his example of sharing the good news. I mentioned that I had nearly run out of tracts, and he said, "Here, you can have some of mine."

He opened up the driver side and in the pocket of the door was a whole variety of tracts he kept on hand. "Wow!" I said, "That's such a good idea. And I can see you've got tracts in your shirt pocket. I recently was told by a man at my church that to get serving God in sharing the gospel I needed to get a 'tract rack,' meaning a pocket-protector device for holding them in a shirt pocket. But since I don't wear those kinds of shirts, I don't have a spot for a 'tract rack.' That's such a great substitution!"

We parted ways and when I got home I Iooked through all the stuff he gave me. There was a decent tract that shared the gospel, a tract on warfare prayer, on lust, another something in Spanish and two others in Chinese, a gospel tract for satan worshipers, and most interestingly two tracts on the hidden alliance between newer versions of the bible and the New Age movement.

"New Age Bible Versions," by Gail Riplinger

According to these, only the King James Version has not been tainted by error. One tract was a verse-by-verse comparison of the King James to the New King James. I found that some of the quotes of the NKJV in the chart were not even accurately presented because they were cut short. All the rest were changes because those passages were quotes in parables and therefore the deity or holiness of God does not apply. I thought the NKJV came out on top, instead of falling short, as these tracts were claiming.

That's okay. I don't need to prove this man wrong or change his mind about anything. He gave me his card with his number and address and invited my husband and I to come to his house for dinner anytime. I would love, the LORD willing, to confirm his good faith toward me when he put his own opinions secondary to what is truly important.

On Friday that same child of mine turned out to have a UTI. It was a holiday as you know so our usual pharmacy was closed and I went to another. There was a young man who took about twenty minutes to do the data entry at the register. I noticed he wore a "CTR" ring, which stands for "Choose The Right." I don't know a whole lot about those who wear it but I knew he was LDS (Mormon) and guessed he probably recently went on a mission.

I asked, "Did you go on a mission?"
"Yeah," he was a bit surprised.
"Where did you go to?"
He smiled, and admitted, "Utah." I smiled too.

I ran out of things to say, and of course with my newly walking baby boy I had plenty of reasons for my thoughts to be elsewhere. I sat for awhile. I thought to myself how frustrated I was. Here I am, so interested in getting to know LDS and have a meaningful, productive encounter with them and now... I don't even know what to say to this person? Come on! I prayed for a minute.

He was nice and said, "Boy, that little guy just wants to get up and go." I said yeah. Sat for a couple more minutes and thought. I stood up again and said "You know some people are natural missionaries. They just have a gift. You seem like you're one of those kinds, I bet you gave as much into it as you got back out of it."

He didn't know what to say to that except to acknowledge it. He seemed a little confused but interested and started again asking, "So... where are you from, have you been to Utah?"

"I lived there," I answered, "I grew up there. My mom became LDS and then later on she became inactive." I didn't say anything for another minute or two, building my courage, and then said, "Actually, I'm evangelical, but, I don't want to scare you by mentioning it. I've learned the hard way how horrible it can be to 'bible bash.'"

"Ohh, yeah!" he said, "That just makes everything worse."

"I agree. I mean, people from my kind of church travel down to Utah to picket during Hinkley's funeral. There's a better way to express yourself than that. I regret that sort of stuff."

My order was done and I was almost afraid of looking at him again because I had taken him into this sticky conversation but I thought I'd try to catch an expression in the last moment before I left. He looked directly at me with appreciation, like he was touched. It would have been great if I could have left him a tract saying that it briefly explains what I believe, admitting to him that I am sure he has studied how salvation happens but he could review for himself what I believe and see if it is very different after all. Maybe leave a phone number on it for follow up. But, I didn't get that far.

I love meeting new people and seeing God at work. I just take awe in God that my life has gone forth in procession before, and met by my own personal passion of, what some call "the cults."

Is this important?

I have been critical of the current methodology in proselytizing among those who are like me -- evangelicals. Is the criticism overdone? I don't know. I can admit that I have tended to label it as everyone's problem, but I am sure there are many who do it right. I myself am most known for doing it wrong. I've made a lot of mistakes. From those experiences, I want to do what I can to help those who are most like me in avoiding the same.

Let me ask you: how do you proselytize groups such as the LDS or Jehovah's Witnesses?

Is your answer "Oh; the LDS? Well, they have a unique set of difficulties and we really shouldn't get involved."

That's one answer I hear often. The other? To go and tell them what we know is the truth. A good description of the problems arising from usual methodologies can be found at Jeff Lindsay's blogsite in the post titled "How Can Anyone be so Stupid?", which was the recent topic of a thread at a LDS forum.

Feel free to read along if you're interested.

Comments on Community

Last Sunday was the second of four Sunday morning service sermons given by an interim pastor, Dr. Stratos. This is come about, you might find it big news to learn, because our pastor of seven years was called to shepherd another congregation in Phoenix, Arizona and left us mid-August.

Dr. Stratos made a comment on how the rise of fundamentalist Christianity, and its culture of pointing to the Word of God for conduct in life, while good, has unfortunately created arbitrary lines in the sand between us and everyone else who doesn't live like we do. It's a discomfort which he said needed to be abolished in our hearts before God could use us to love on others not only within our church but especially outside of it, and win people to Christ. And I firmly agree.

Bonhoeffer describes in the previous post's excerpts that Christian fellowship is fashioned by God and held together by the authority of the Word. But I also think there is equal value to apply his writings to community of any kind where we evangelicals are bound with those that (may or) may not be saved.

As I can hear at this moment in my mind Stratos reminding us in his sermon, were not the homeless and criminals and more, created in the image of God? Just like anyone, they are waiting for someone to come and be Jesus to them. To love on them, and show them Jesus, in us. That is how they will come to know and believe in Him.

Here is what Bonhoeffer said:

A community which cannot bear and cannot survive such a crisis, which insists upon keeping its illusion when it should be shattererd, permanently loses in that moment the promise of Christian community. He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intentions may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial.

And the same is true for communities in the general manner. If we cannot bear the people who are markedly different than us, then how believable is it that Jesus does?

I've spent four and a half years being in community with a group of LDS people. Unfortunately, I have to report that when I began I was the kind of Christian who could not tolerate differences, as Bonhoeffer says I was one who brought "with him a very definite idea of what Christian life together should be and to try to realize it." I had a specific way of reading and believing upon the scriptures and history which they would be best to adhere no matter how inconsequential the matter. I experienced great disillusionment as well, when despite all my careful efforts and explanations, no one ever chose to believe as I had taught was necessary. I was proud and one would think that I could not have made any friends.

But the exact opposite took place. They were patient, forgiving, caring, and always listening even if rarely budging. This really amazed me, and revolutionized my approach as I was convicted of how judgmental of them, of God, and therefore of myself I had been. I learned what community should be, what it is as God intended, what it is under grace, what it is as one of God's fellow children, from them. I experienced the very grace I preached, from those I imposed upon.

I do not know how it came that I was blessed to be caught up with them. I do know, though, that it is all to someone else's credit and not mine.

I am all the more strengthened in gladness of our gospel of grace. If they and I cannot bear the weaknesses in one another, how are we to believe that Jesus does??

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for the brethren to dwell together in unity."

Some interesting connections??

Connection One:
This may seem silly, but it possibly might be true....

David L. Rowe wrote a book called "I Love Mormons" which I have been quoting frequently from lately. I suppose the hangups of us evangelizing the LDS are the same no matter if it is in the realm of cyberspace or in real life like Happy Valley. So then maybe it is small of me to think this way, but, when Rowe writes characteristically about the interactions between LDS and evangelicals, it feels like he is speaking directly for the specific events and threads that have taken place at the LDS forum. What's to think he hasn't been there anyway, I asked myself? How many LDS forums are there, after all? He does mention the official LDS website, so he has looked around on the internet for at least some kinds of information. Maybe he sees the need for his message to reach the online evangelicals more than anyone else, because we don't have flesh and blood and tones of voice, and things get so much more ugly than if we were able to see one another in a conversation.

In his book, there were not too many times where Rowe mentioned specific examples of *better* ways to share the gospel instead of the bible bash. But here is what he says in one of those few:

"Briefly for now, let's say by way of example it may mean we begin to converse with our LDS friends much more (and more characteristically) by telling them about a recent answer to prayer or a stunning act of God we've experienced or a gospel-like image from a film than by reciting a bible verse or sharing a great doctrinal "insight" we got in last Sunday's sermon." (pg 124)

Okay, for those of you who have been reading my blog from the beginning, can you recognize anything I've done in those examples???

Hahahahahha.

Yes, I know this might be arrogant of me. But when it comes to the internet what permanent easily accessible record can there be of an evangelical sharing a gospel-like image from a film? What are the chances?

Visit 2005 May 28th's blog entry, to see the candidate I am thinking about.

It even has a comment from a friendly LDS associate attached, whereas not many other entires get such attention with comments.

His book was published sometime in 2005.

The chances?? I know, I know, dumb of me; but there you are.

Connection Two:
Before I even understood that I was a Christian, Kathleen Fast was there for me. She was a missionary to my college campus when I moved out of my parent's home. Almost immediately as I got tempted with the diverse choices of campus living, I also had much opportunity to ask all my questions about God. Kathleen was specifically moved to minister to the fifty women living in our university co-op. I learned to confide in her, and she challenged me out of the Word of God to think twice about the decisions before me. Over three years she was there for me, like the sister and the mother that were very much emotionally removed from me. When I told her that I had found someone I wanted to marry, she had known Ben longer than she had known me, and told me that he was a wonderful man to commit my life to.

A few years later, last spring, I looked in my church bulletin and the speaker for the women's retreat was none other than Kathleen. After she gave her talks during the retreat we would hang out and picked up right where we left off. It was neat to reconnect with her.

I also went on that mission trip with Kathleen and our church at the time to Salt Lake City, getting our feet wet evangelizing the LDS.

I recognized the name "Craig L. Blomberg" when I saw it on the cover of the book that came in the mail for me three days ago. He is a professor at Denver Seminary. He was Kathleen's mentor and teacher for her graduate studies, Kathleen having graduated from Denver.

Blomberg co-authored the book "How Wide the Divide: A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation," which I have also been quoting from recently.

Perhaps God sowed a spiritual seed from the tree of Blomberg into my life.

http://kathleenfast.com

Why do we bible-bash?

One of several reasons why traditional Christians "bible-bash" (a LDS term meaning us using the bible to degrade their faith and therefore, themselves), which may or may not apply to any of us on an individual basis:

"Some traditional Christians simply don't have much romance with God going on in their lives, and therefore they have little or nothing to say about their feelings and experience. And they may even, beneath it all, be rather afraid, perhaps even ashamed, to admit there's no real fire in their souls. Instead of rekindling that fire, it may seem a lot safer to stay on the level of memorized verses and intellectualized arguments. In short, it's easier to become a "Bible answer man" than a Bible based man, easier to be correct than contrite, easier to master content than character, easier to be informed about Christ than formed by Christ. ... I've always loved what Thomas a Kempis says in 'The Imitation of Christ:' "I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.""

-- "I Love Mormons" by David L. Rowe

Indeed, I saw that same conflict in me beginning shortly after I joined a LDS forum community! Discussion forum participation sweeps me away, so that by practice if not by premise, I am undividedly honing my skill to talk about what I think I know. If knowledge is comfortable to a man, then forums are a nice place to drift. There was little cause to focus on the more challenging things of being a follower of Christ. The only way I could counterbalance that tendency was through those long periods of being unconnected to the internet, and also my effort at blogging to focus on where I was with God for my own sake.

Rowe seems to perceive that same weakness in the evangelical (traditional Christian) mindset that I identified while at that forum of which I labeled "The Legalism of Belief:"

"A long and practiced legacy of traditional Christian church culture has cultivated an aversion to romantic orientation in dealing with gospel truth. This is our entrenched culture, especially we Western Protestants, tend to be oriented toward tightly rational, verbally textual statements as the normal way of conveying truth about spiritual things. We are more at home with words and linear arguments than with images and experiences.... This is especially true for the part of "we" who are theologically educated in the West, and often it filters down from the church leaders so educated. We've been trained to deal more on the cognitive level than the affected level.

"Now, the real problem here may not be our training so much as our assumption, usually unquestioned and unexamined, that this is indeed "the *normal* way of knowing and conveying truth" for everybody. Perhaps it doesn't even occur to us that our Mormon friends may not find this mode of operating normal at all! For my first several years of living in the Salt Lake City area, it certainly did not occur to me. As a result, I did what many of us do: I treated my LDS friends as two-dimensional information processors. I figured that if I just blathered away at them with enough well-argued Bible verses, they would automatically get enlightened, fall to their knees, and repent. When neither their minds nor their knees seemed to comply, I found myself roundly disillusioned, again and again."

-- "I Love Mormons" by David L. Rowe

We "resounding gongs" described in 1 cor 13 need to admit that it's not enough to just know what is right.

"I Love Mormons"

As I was doing my Christmas shopping at the Bible Book House, I noticed a new book that I very much wanted to purchase, but didn't. I remember it fairly clearly.

Just the picture on the front was enough to make my heart leap and my eyes to do a double take. Here, in the midst of skimming a shelf-full of thick texts published within the last year meant to apologize against the latest LDS stances in order to demolish the strongholds of LDS doctrine and to explain the real truth of the gospel, was a thin book with a simple title and a big color photo.

The photo was of a man sitting with his back to the camera, wearing one of those big white "I [red heart] NY" - style shirts, but it said across his back "I [red heart] Mormons" -- he sat there on a little knoll overlooking the expanse, relaxed, and peacefully confident of purpose.

The solidarity I had with the man in the photo as he captured the subject's passion could have been seared with just as big letters across my own chest.

I don't think I will ever forget that image as long as I live. Nor will I forget how it stood out on the shelf of thick books with scary-fonted, dry titles.

Maybe that cover is just good marketing.



I hope not. I hope there is content that will affirm my own discoveries. One day I hope to buy it and then I can read to be sure I am not the only one who has had a revelation in my heart and mind about how to accomplish by a different or maybe theologically zany road, the Love of Christ displayed to and poured out upon these.

We'll see.

my deleted post

Okay.

Quote:
The Book of Mormon is more important to us than the bible, and here is why.

Thank you.

Quote:
The Book of Mormon, in contrast, was written specifically for our day.

You mean to say human nature has changed in 5000 years? Even the theory of human evolution does not support such a stance. The book of mormon was penned in the times of ancient history. How then can you consider it modern? In fact every other aspect of your church in their scriptures and writings are indeed modern with exception of the BoM. As far as I understand it. Maybe what you *meant* above is, "The Latter Day Saint Church, in contrast, is meant for modern worship of Christ."

Do you mean to say that actual historical/biblical accounts, like, David sinning with Bathsheba, is anything less applicable to believers today? Exactly what about the bible makes it not just as helpful for today's readers as it was when it was written the first time? Can you think of anything--I can't.

Quote:
Mormon, who compiled most of the Book of Mormon, stipulates in Mormon 5:12-15 that these things are written and hid up that they may come forth in the Lords own due time, to convince the Jews and the remnant of the Lamanites that Jesus is the Christ.

Are you trying to say that the bible is not as effective or incapable of convincing the Jews or any other group that Jesus is the Christ? I am not trying to imply that the Book of Mormon is not able to convince the same thing. It may very well be another testament of Jesus as you say. But is it better as you claim above, in terms of converting and revealing Jesus? I'm just asking what you think of the bible's abilities. Just another thought: there are more bibles in the world than BoMs, and more Christians in the world than LDS.

I commend your trust in the BoM. I wonder though, does such a strong stance as you are taking above, make it therefore wrong for you to reach out and investigate a perspective that is solely biblical like Ana's or mine as Ana has asked you? Especially since the bible is indeed the word of God, as you believe and preach to all.