Communio Sanctorum: Our Witness to the Mormons
At Communio Sanctorum: Our Witness to the Mormons Paul Owen defends Eerdmans for publishing a Mormon apology by BYU prof Bob Millet. Paul Owen is an editor of The New Mormon Challenge, which is an excellent critique of the more academic, sophisticated defenses of Mormonism. Owen claims Eerdmans is not poisoning the well from which dumb Christian sheep buy their latest version of The 40 days of purposeful praying with power like Jabez but countering some awful anti-Mormon books that are collecting dust on the bookshelves. I guess the slippery slope isn't that steep to lside from carrying books by Benny Hinn to putting a Mormon book there too, in the name of an "open-minded approach." Although it looks like Eerdman's does not print the health and wealth flavor of books they do print Catholic books. Is that so bad? No, but there is plenty to disagree about with Catholics too. Can i fellowship with Catholics, sure, can i fellowship with Mormons? NO. Apparently, Owen agrees with me "Such dialogues of course, are not themselves truly ecumenical in nature (as is Roman Catholic/Protestant dialogue); rather they are evangelistic and inter-religious in nature (along the lines of Acts 17:16ff.)" but his defense of the book seems to contradict this sentence. It seems he wants to throw the big tent over the Mormons and let them get saved by osmosis, AKA fellowshipping with believers. His appeal to Paul's sermon at Athens is a common appeal of the post-modern/emergent/liberal 2.0 church. And the same results that Paul saw should be expected to follow, some sneer, some want to keep talking, and some repent. This is heading to a much larger blog entry on the missiological church.
To sum it up. I think Eerdmans is wrong to provide a Mormon apologist an unanswered/ unaccountable forum and Owen demonstrates the liberal churches' error of generosity to a fault. He writes, "1) I have no doubt that people within the Mormon Church (even professors of religion) are capable of having a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Mormons confess Jesus to be God the Son, whom they worship and serve. The Bible is read, taught and regarded as God’s word within the Mormon Church." That's a nice sentiment but if Jesus is redefined, as in Islam, and his only-begotteness is altered, and the Father is diminished, and Bible is subservient to Joseph Smith's doctrines, then I'm not sure how a Mormon can confess Jesus is Lord when both titles mean something other than the Biblical intention. James White, not the most irenic of anti-cult apologists has some more thoughts on this 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
So how are we to be a missiological church in our polytheistic society? I have few thoughts i can throw against the wall. We can see what sticks.
To sum it up. I think Eerdmans is wrong to provide a Mormon apologist an unanswered/ unaccountable forum and Owen demonstrates the liberal churches' error of generosity to a fault. He writes, "1) I have no doubt that people within the Mormon Church (even professors of religion) are capable of having a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The Mormons confess Jesus to be God the Son, whom they worship and serve. The Bible is read, taught and regarded as God’s word within the Mormon Church." That's a nice sentiment but if Jesus is redefined, as in Islam, and his only-begotteness is altered, and the Father is diminished, and Bible is subservient to Joseph Smith's doctrines, then I'm not sure how a Mormon can confess Jesus is Lord when both titles mean something other than the Biblical intention. James White, not the most irenic of anti-cult apologists has some more thoughts on this 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.
So how are we to be a missiological church in our polytheistic society? I have few thoughts i can throw against the wall. We can see what sticks.
Comments