A Mormon & An Evangelical in Conversation

I went to an event at Mariners Church in Newport Beach last night called Conversation: A Mormon/Evangelical Dialogue, and need to mention it here.

Rev. Greg Johnson, evangelical pastor in Utah, and Dr. Bob Millet, BYU professor of Ancient Scriptures, were very clear that this was NOT a debate, but a dialog for the purpose of getting to know each other -- they called it "convicted civility," which is people with convictions being civil and compassionate with each other. These two have developed a friendship over the past 10 years and this was the 50th time they'd done one of these dialogs together before a group.

At the beginning they stressed that before telling someone they're wrong, it is imperative you know exactly what that person believes -- this means studying the publications of your "opponent," really listening and trying to understand them when they talk so that you don't misrepresent them in any way.

All of this is meant to fall under the rubric of loving your neighbor and loving your enemy -- no matter who you're talking with you have to love them. The idea behind the event is that evangelicals and mormons can talk about the similarities and differences between their respective systems without getting belligerent.

First, let me relay the positive. I agree with all of their goals.

For over a year, I used to talk to unbelievers every Friday night at Santa Monica's 3rd Street Promenade, and my goal was to be communicate the gospel clearly AND compassionately. Now, this was my goal, but I did not always accomplish it. I messed up many times, either being unclear or being too harsh.

However, more often than not I had Christians and unbelievers tell me that I was both clear and kind, with many unbelievers coming every week to talk to me, and one even calling me and asking me if I could come out.

I don't say this to "toot my own horn" but to say this, while I was friends with these unbelievers and we always left shaking each other's hands, I did not water down sin and hell and that they'd be there if they rejected Christ.

This leads me to my difficulty with last night. I purposely didn't write about this last night because I wanted to sit on it for 24 hours. After doing so, I have to say I do not believe Johnson or Millet when both of them says their goal is friendship and not evangelism.

If love is the goal than keeping the gospel from a person for the sake of friendship is not friendly, but an unloving sin called the fear of man. The most unfriendly, unloving thing I can do is not try to evangelize unbelievers.

I have no problem with dialog or even dialog with a purpose, but when the purpose is friendship or "love" and not evangelism than I'm really not being friendly or loving am I?

Next, after listening to Dr. Millet it seems to me that mainstream Mormonism, at least publicly, is drifting farther from their founders and closer to evangelicalism. I may be wrong about this, but it seemed that way to me when I was listening to him.

Finally, Millet went on an extended diatribe where he berated evangelicals for calling Mormons a cult and telling them they're going to hell and that they don't believe in Jesus, and objects to this tactic because it offends Mormons and stops all dialog.

The response of the crowd is what I want to mention. When he was finished, the crowd cheered. Now, I know a lot of Mormons were in the crowd, but I sat in front of Christians and they were clapping too.

I got to thinking about this, and I think there is a masochistic strain within evangelicalism. We like it when non-evangelicals tell us we and/or other evangelicals have sinned against them, and we like agreeing with them so that we can distance ourselves from the ones who did sin.

If you've told a Mormon they're wrong, mistaken, following a false prophet, believing another gospel about another Jesus, inspired by another spirit just like Paul did (Gal 1:6-9; 2 Cor 11:4) than you're wrong, and our clapping shows our disapproval of your evangelism.

In the end, I think there is a lot of good that can be done as a result of these dialogs. The idea of befriending unbelievers must happen if we're to fulfill the Great Commission (Matt 28:19-20). However, I don't think being mean to Mormons or other non-Christians is the problem with most evangelicals.

We've imbibed so much of the postmodern, ecumenical, sloppy and sappy mindset that being belligerent is not our problem. Our problem is silence, equivocation, and just plain being ashamed of the gospel.

I like what Johnson and Millet are modeling in their friendship, but I cannot believe evangelism is really not at the heart of why they're doing what they're doing. However, I'm afraid THAT will be the legacy of these conversations, Christians befriending unbelievers who never hear the gospel because it would ruin the friendship, further perpetuating the fear of man, which so characterizes evangelicalism today.

I guess what I'm saying is that there can ultimately be no love unless there is confrontation with falsehood. The moderator, Dr. Craig Hazen, said we must be "speaking the truth in love" (Eph 4:15), but truth confronts and contradicts and combats everything that is false.

Now, that confrontation must be gentle, loving and kind, with wisdom, grace and love, but if there is no confrontation there is no evangelism, and in the end, there is no friendship or love either.