Nitsav over at Faith Promoting Rumor introduces Heiser in his discussion with LDS on the divine council of gods. Sometime in the future, I would like to interact with the material within the latest FARMS volume.
In another sphere, evidently, Bill and Eric over at Mormon Research Ministries are breaking rules again over what is proper dialogue in the intermountain West, and John Morehead is defending the philosophy of Standing Together Ministries with LDS friends. Obviously, there is a whole new evangelical coalition out there who thinks MRM is archaic and unproductive.
But yesterday, I empathized with Eric’s provocative post on the Trinity. And Aaron S.’s article recently downright blessed my heart.
Here is my question to John Morehead and others. Is the evangelistic philosophy of MRM and their associations disconnected from the inspired directives for ministry outreach in John 4?
As I head to the Standing Together Conference this fall to blog what I observe, I will admit now that I have strong convictions about what constitutes historical, uncompromising, evangelical interaction with others.
Thank you for referencing and linking to my post on the McKeever and Johnson article. As to your question, in my view, as I tried to articulate in my post, the ministry philosophy and specific evangelism philosophy and theology of the counter-cult movement, including MRM, reflects a heresy refutation paradigm that does not reflect a holistic engagement with other relevant biblical or theological considerations, nor does it consider other relevant disciplines such as sociology of religion, religious studies, or intercultural studies. Thus, it fails to provide a holistic or broad theology of religious engagement.
To more specifically answer your question, as I noted in my post, a reference to John 4 and Jesus’s dialogue with the Samaritan woman is absent in the McKeever and Johnson article, which would seem to be a better text to cite as an example of interreligious and cross-cultural engagement than the heresy refutation texts often cited by evangelicals in engagement with Mormons.
My two cents.
I love the story in John 4, but I’m not sure how it promotes the passive paradigm of interfaith dialog that shuns publicly asking the tough, challenging questions (something that seems to be the problem with Millet and Johnson, but not so much the living room dialogs with Biola students and BYU students–I like those).
Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well looks like it might have lasted 5 to 10 minutes. He met a stranger, used something “natural” to connect with her, lovingly (but firmly) confronted her over her sin, and pointed her to the living water that satisfies. Awesome. Beautiful. Then he spent a few days with the community. Every evangelist’s dream.
These kind of “Jesus stories” encourage me not to feel like I first need a long-established relationship of trust with someone in order to introduce challenging truths. Jesus spurs me on to talk to strangers—even strangers with whom I have no future certain relational context—and lovingly, purposefully, and intentionally turn the conversation to the topic of eternally important things.
Aaron, thanks for sharing your thoughts. John 4 is indeed very relevant since he is speaking with a Samaritan woman and Jesus is a Jew. A number of articles in the International Journal of Frontier Missions have been written on how this provides a wonderful example of cross-cultural dialogue and contexutalization of Jesus’s message which provides models for dialogue and missions which has been applied to Islamic contexts. In addition, Scott McKinney, long-time pastor of one of the larger churches in Utah has also written on how this can and should serve as a paradigm for evangelicals in their engagement with Mormons. He argued this in a paper that is included as part of the Christian Institute for Mormon Studies: Proceedings and Papers Vol. 1 (UIBS, 1992). You and MRM might want to secure a copy of this paper, and the IJFM articles for further reflection biblically, theologically, culturally, dialogically, and missiologically. These resources might provide additional considerations for critical reflection on your perceptions of some forms of evangelical-Mormon dialogue, or perhaps even critical reflection on your the prism of heresy refutation through which you filter such dialogue.
Mr. Morehead, are you capable of writing a comment without bloviating? A lot of what you write just seems like an endless hot flow of pompous air.
I’m always suspect of a position that a person can’t reasonably summarize.
You didn’t adequately deal with the obvious in the passage. Jesus pointed out the woman’s sin, and didn’t have a prerequisite long-established relationship of trust before he did so. This very passage seems to support the endeavor of sin-challenging stranger-evangelism, which you and your ilk seem to painstakingly avoid.
Your favorite crusty countercult neanderthal,
Aaron
“Hot air?” “Bloviating?” Me and my “ilk?” Please, Mr. Shafovaloff, your most recent comments are rude, offensive, and out of bounds in respectful dialogue. If you engage in such tactics with evangelicals and offend them (and on a public LDS blog!), what do you think the reaction is when you interact with Latter-day Saints?
I clearly stated my position and referred you to further resources to explore the implications. I’m sorry that your views of those with whom you disagree leads you to such skepticism. But I must admit I am skeptical of rude countercult spokespersons who claim to be effective in communicating with those in new religions and yet seem blindly unaware of their shortcomings in interpersonal communication, let alone those in cross-cultural contexts. Perhaps our friction here is less about my alleged lack of brevity and directness and more about your continued inability and unwillingness to consider alternative perspectives on Scripture that don’t fit neatly into the heresy refutation paradigm of the countercult.
At the risk of accusations of futher bloviation, see the following link for an article in IJFM (referenced above) that demonstrates the applicability of this passage for cross-cultural church planting among Muslims (which includes dialogue):
http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/17_1_PDFs/Jesus_in_Samaria.pdf
You’ll have to track down the Christian Insitute for Mormon Studies booklet on your own for a look at McKinney’s application of John 4 to interactions with Latter-day Saints, but since Sandra Tanner was a contributor perhaps she can make a copy available to you.
As you read these resources please note the similarities in the relationships and concerns between the Jews and Samaritans and how this is paralled in the evangelical-Mormon context. Therefore, this passage and the contextual approach advocated in thes articles are applicable to the evangelical-Mormon context in general, and to dialogue as well.
Your favorite countercult gadfly,
John
Dear Erasmus,
Given your public, bombastic rhetoric, I’m quite comfortable in giving an appropriately snarky response. There is a time and a place for just about everything biblically precedented, even (gasp!) well-placed insults. But don’t fear, I have been known to help old ladies across the street, play Nintendo Wii with religious outcasts, work effectively alongside those far unlike me, return a soft answer to a harsh word, patiently participate in long-term relational evangelism with family members and neighbors, and engage in peaceful dialog with enemies. One time I even brought peanut butter cookies to a doorstep.
But I digress.
I’ve read enough material on John 4 to know that people often zero in on it like it’s the only defining interaction Jesus ever had for evangelism. Of course there are amazing cross cultural implications from it, and of course it should inform the tenets of evangelical/Mormon interaction. But where does it give us a license to give up short gospel presentations to strangers, refuting error, providing compelling apologetic information, asking the tough questions, and probing beyond words at face value? I know quite a few ex-Mormon Christians who are deeply grateful at having been approached in a variety of ways with compelling information. It seems that if Jesus was in Provo he would get in trouble from the passive-quasi-ecumenical-interfaith-dialog-is-gospel crowd for religiously engaging strangers so forthrightly—and yes, even angering some of them with hard truths.
With a holistic picture of New Testament evangelism one sees that Jesus interacts with people in all sorts of ways according to their kind. Not everyone is a humble Samaritan woman, not everyone is an arrogant Pharisee, not everyone is a Nicodemus, and not everyone is like the rich young ruler. One thing we don’t have a license for is to give up on a passionate overflow for the glory of God and a compassionate, prayerful concern for the eternal destiny of our neighbors. Playing it safe for the sake of friendship and cultural tranquility isn’t loving when there are almost 2.3 million people in Utah, most of whom don’t know the real Jesus.
You still need to deal with the fact that Jesus approached a stranger in John 4, and didn’t wait for a well-established relationship of trust before he challenged her over sin and talked of matters with eternal significance. People today seem to want to put evangelism in exactly that sort of box, as though it was some major cross-cultural disaster to hand out a tract, engage in authoritative, public proclamation, or initiate a religious conversation with a stranger. But Jesus doesn’t seem merely interested in making friends with sinners, he also is profoundly centered on the urgent need for all men to repent.
I’ll read McKinney’s article and the Jesus_in_Samaria.pdf sometime soon.
Counting the syllables and maintaining the borders,
Aaron
I’m glad that people are looking into John 4 in relation to Mormonism. I’ve had this in the back of my head for quite some time. We need to recognize that Samaritanism was a cult of Judaism as Mormonism is a cult of Christianity.
Jesus didn’t focus on her heresies. He didn’t even take the bait when she tried to get him to. He went past her false doctrine right at her heart and showed her that she was in need of living water. That didn’t mean that her heresy was unimportant, it just wasn’t of ultimate importance.
I think there definitely is a place for MRM and Utah Lighthouse. I have no doubt that they both lead people out of Mormonism and into authentic Christianity. But just looking at the numbers, the vast majority of people who we convince to leave Mormonism leave Christ as well (something like 80%). Similar to Lewis’ description of those that followed the false-Aslan in “The Last Battle”.
I think Standing Together is in a unique position to possibly convert Mormonism rather than just Mormons. I’m rooting for them. It would be a huge success for the Kingdom. That being said, I think that Standing Together needs the pressure traditional counter-cult ministries provide on a different front. It’s not likely Greg will get very far with his “Hey I’d like to help” if someone isn’t on the other side making the LDS church say “uh oh, we may need some help.”
Tim, thanks for joining in the fray. I especially appreciate this last sentence of yours, as I agree that the heart-issues are really what Jesus centers in on. But I can’t help but feel you’ve overstated the case when saying that Jesus “went right past her false doctrine”. Jesus seems to have dealt with the doctrinal issue head-on:
I am flabbergasted that anyone would use this passage to support the position that we should avoid refuting error. Jesus patently corrects the woman’s doctrine and theology. Of course, it’s not the only thing he does, but it is undeniable: Jesus didn’t see this as irrelevant to his interaction with the stranger he just met. In fact, he didn’t see it as inappropriate to call her out on her sin and correct her doctrine even though he didn’t have a well-established relationship of trust.
I love relationships of trust, and I think we should work hard to build them, especially in contexts with family and neighbors and coworkers, etc.. But to put evangelism in a box so as to exclude talking about tough sin issues and doctrine issues with strangers with whom we have no future certain relational context is not loving to the 2.3 million people of Utah.
This latest post points out the need for a broader hermeneutic of Scripture beyond the counter-cult’s heresy refutation interpretive lens.
A fresh reading of John 4 and the dialogue with the Samaritan woman reveals that Jesus was concerned about interacting with the woman’s beliefs, and about providing a corrective to her mistaken views, but the text hardly provides a “proof” that it was primarily about refuting error.
The text is a wonderful example of Jesus entering into cross-cultural dialogue and in so doing drawing upon the use of contextualizing language and concepts from Samaritan wisdom literature that spoke of “living water” and their expectations of a religious Teacher to come who would restore true worship. Jesus draws upon these elements to point the woman toward himself and relationship with him, and secondarily provides a careful corrective to her mistaken notions that impede this understanding. Thus, when considered holistically, the Bible includes a concern for correct doctrine and praxis as well as an emphasis on relationships. However, the relational aspect is primary. As George Hunter has written in his book on reaching secular people:
“the Bible deals primarily with relationships and only indirectly with doctrine…. Reading the Bible convinces me that the real test of ‘orthodoxy’ has to do with the quality of relationships far more than with doctrinal stands. Life’s real problems are obviously relational; they are only indirectly doctrinal….Certainly [doctrine] may explain to a degree what sin is, and what grace is, but doctrine per se is not the very stuff of life. It merely describes life without enabling it….We are not trying to make people believe ‘the right things’ so much as enabling them to experience a relationship with God and with one another.” (Hunter, 140)
As to the issue of the context of sharing the faith, whether one of relationship or with strangers, of course this woman was a stranger to Jesus, and I did not argue that this provided an example of evangelism in relationship, but rather an appropriate contextualized form of cross-cultural communication. This is strengthened when it is done in the context of relationships, but this does not have to be so. In any case, John 4 provides a good example of cross-cultural contextualization of the gospel message, which is lacking in counter-cult approaches where Christian orthodoxy is the overriding concern, and the relational issues are often always lacking as well.
Those advocating a cross-cultural missional approach that includes interreligious dialogue are being holistic. It is those associated with the counter-cult that are not, as I noted in my critique of the McKeever and Johnson article.
Aaron,
Hopefully I can undo your flabbergasted state.
As a Jew, the correct answer for Jesus to give the Samaritan was “at the temple in Jerusalem”. She was expressing a heresy of Judaism and EVERY Jew of the time knew the right answer was Jerusalem. Jesus’ answer went past that doctrinal issue of where sacrifice could be performed and focused on the heart of worship.
In our own context it would be like if a Mormon asked Jesus if baptism could be performed here in life or if it could also be practiced in the afterlife. His answer would be something along the lines of “the only place a man can truly be baptized is in his heart”.
Can I ask: How effective are Richard Dawkins’ attacks on Christianity on you? Do you listen to what he has to say? Are you concerned about what he thinks of your faith? Would you give serious contemplation to a pamphlet written by Dawkins or watch a DVD produced by him?
Aaron,
I also feel I need to add, I’ve seen you around the LDS-internet world for several years. You preach that salvation is by grace alone (I agree!). But your expression of that truth indicates that you may not really have any idea what the word “grace” means.
You love grace, but can’t seem to find a single gracious way to tell anyone about it. Your treatment of John in comment #4 is not the way I think any believer should treat anyone, much less a fellow brother in Christ. I think you should prayerfully consider an apology.
John, no one here claimed the text was primarily about refuting error. My point has never been that heresy-refutation is primary or even the sum-total substance of evangelism. My position is that heresy-refutation is an indispensable element of the larger package of elements in evangelism, and that to abandon it is impractical, unloving, and has no basis or biblical precedent. If someone is going to have a paradigm of evangelistic interaction, he or she better not wholly preclude heresy-refutation, even to strangers met 5 minutes ago.
I’ve met Mormons who are in need of no major heresy-refutation in my interaction with them. In fact, I have been personally talking with one this week. She is at a part in her faith-journey where, having researched at length some serious issues with Mormonism, now is in a tender stage of needing “pure Jesus.” Beliefs that once served as “defeaters” before (presuppositional beliefs that make a belief in another worldview mentally impossible) are no longer there. She is evidently at a time in her life where she only needs some simple, genuine kindness, prayer, and supporting community.
I’ve also met Mormons who have huge issues with “defeaters” and are immensely benefited by heresy-refutation. One example I’ll use is with a Mormon woman who was hung up over the evangelical view of grace and works. I spent some time with her going over the “impossible gospel” presentation—a view of some of the more traditional, harsh teachings of Mormonism on the prerequisites for forgiveness—and compared it with the New Testament. The clear contrast for her was overwhelming and it played a big role in her conversion. Shortly after she was sitting in her ward and realized that it was totally against the New Testament gospel to think someone had to prove moral worthiness to take the Lord’s supper or receive a temple recommend. The hard truths we had discussed (in an intense context!) stuck with her and—in a good way—bothered her until she came to some further realizations and took another step in her journey into a relationship with Christ. We talked over the weeks about a variety of things. She had addictions in her life and needed relational support and practical gospel-encouragement for coping with guilt and defeating sin. We’ve been dialoguing as friends and as a brother in Christ I get the opportunity to participate in incarnational ministry with her by relationally showing what it means to be a Christian who is already accepted by God, who needs not fret about self-guilt as before, who has a new freedom (based on justification before God by faith) to focus on loving other people.
Regarding the purpose of life, I agree with the primacy of relationships as long as the primacy of our relationship with God is ultimately in view. Love frequently demands that one communicate a gospel-truth that goes toward benefiting another’s relationship with God. But that doesn’t always mean the communication is necessarily done in a pre-existing, well-established relationship of trust between fallen humans. Ultimately, God is saving a people for himself, a body, a community of fellowship that in a creaturely way participates in intra-Trinitarian love. But this people is nonetheless made up of individuals whose primary concern ought to be personal, passionate worship of God. And to be individually right with God, one needs to be justified by faith in his promises. And those personal promises are primarily communicated with words. Sometimes we even read these words or hear them without the context of an interpersonal relationship like a friendship or Bible study. Heck, an American Fork, UT pastor I know was converted by reading a gospel tract in a phone booth.
That said, I would disagree that relationships are primary over the word of God in evangelism (even if this isn’t what you meant, hear me out). This can be supported alone by the fact that the word of God can and sometimes does convert without the context of a human relationship. The personal word of God isn’t bound by the constraints of human relationships, and isn’t rendered incompetent to save apart from any sort of supporting role relationships play. I do not say this to minimize the value of relationships or to abandon them. Rather we should embrace them not only as opportunities to flesh-out the beauty of the gospel and communicate the word of God, but also as the ultimate context in which we will enjoy the triune God and his people.
Paul spoke in Colossians 1:24 of “filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”, not because merit was lacking in the atonement but because incarnational presentation was lacking before the people. Paul rejoiced in his own sufferings because they provided such a beautiful opportunity to vicariously present the love of the sufferings of Christ. But keep this in mind: Paul’s sufferings primarily came from the hostility that arose from publicly preaching the word of God. Paul’s incarnational sufferings came with an accompanying message, a message that often angered people.
Allow me to quote something relevant to this topic. In the context of a sermon on signs and wonders, John Piper writes about the supporting role “deeds” play to the word:
In my view this is misrepresentative of the position of traditional countercult ministries and the position of McKeever and Johnson. To generalize them as being against “interreligious dialog” misses the point. The kind of “interreligious dialog” in John 4 is wonderful and I would even argue is something the passive-quasi-ecumenical-interfaith-dialog-is-gospel folks seem to avoid. The real issue isn’t “interreligious dialog”, rather it is the terms, goal, effect, scope, function, and content of that dialog. Not all dialog (gasp!) is good, and some is downright unedifying and destructive to the cause of Christ. Johnson’s particular way of doing it seems to play well into the Mormon effort to “neutralize” Christians. If Craig Hazen was the one doing the interfaith dialogs with Millet, the CRI article probably would have never been written. Again, including “interreligious dialog” in a missional approach isn’t the watershed issue.
—
This seems like a false dichotomy. Jesus dealt with the doctrinal issue head-on by correcting it with a truth that itself was a heart-issue of worship. The two can’t be divorced. Jesus refuted her error, promoted good doctrine, and addressed the heart-issue in the same breath. I would say the same hypothetically with your baptism analogy (which I like).
I have watched and read some of his material and have taken some time to consider him. But like other secular critics of his material I think it is “fast-food atheism.” That doesn’t mean I take his campaign without seriousness, however. Many in our culture are sitting ducks for the material by people like him and Sam Harris, and the worst thing we can do is simply pretend that the popular apologia of atheism has no effect on people and reject the Christian apologetic endeavor altogether. We’ve simply got to stay serious about apologetics and heresy-refutation as part of the larger package of ways to reach the world. Rejecting Christian apologetics usually makes people vulnerable to accepting non-Christian apologetics.
Another example is Bart Ehrman. His book has come up numerous times in my evangelistic interactions. These are real issues that a lot of people want real answers for, or else they don’t feel like Christianity has enough basic plausibility to seriously consider.
My affront to John was not a knee-jerk. I meant what I said and I think there is a Biblically precedented time and place for rebukes and even insults. I would love nothing more than the body of Christ in Utah to be fully united in its outreach to Mormons, and for there to be constructive dialog between those of different philosophies of ministry. But I have been reading his material for awhile and normally he seems to write flatulently (although I do appreciate his efforts to be more direct). If John would like to more constructively and concretely and directly describe ways that traditional countercult ministries can be more cross-cultural, great. I’d even love to hear some illustrative stories from him on how he has practically implemented his philosophy of ministry in real-life interaction with strangers.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
Three brief responses to Aaron’s recent post.
In terms of the focus of relationships, of course the primary referent is God and Christ and human relationships in this context. But intimately related to this is the important of human relationships with each other. The counter-cult approach seems to emphasize abstract ideas and doctrine at the expense of the importance of a variety of relationships.
Second, Aaron refers to “the passive-quasi-ecumenical-interfaith-dialog-is-gospel folks” in connect with interfaith dialogue. He’s not referring to me since I’m the one who brought up the lack of interaction on the part of McKeever and Johnson with texts like John 4 in their CRJ article, and from what I’ve seen this does not refer to Johnson in his dialogues with Millet, so I’m not sure who he’s lableing with this pejorative term.
Third, Aar menions his interest in my “more constructively and concretely and directly describ[ing] ways that traditional countercult ministries can be more cross-cultural.” This has been done in two forms, the first is Irving Hexham, Stephen Rost & John W. Morehead II, Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach (Kregel Academic & Professional, 2004) where the entire third section of the book provides examples of cross-cultural contextualization to new religions and my concluding chapter relates such considerations to the counter-cult. You might also consider the Lausanne issue group paper on this topic that can be downloaded here:
http://community.gospelcom.net/lcwe/assets/LOP45_IG16.pdf
I continue to utilize many of the ideas in these two resources in my own interactions with adherents of various spiritual pathways in new religions, and these resources should provide plenty by way content for illustrative stories.
John, I’ll give the PDF a read.
If you ever post a real-life illustrative story online about how you interacted with a Mormon stranger and implemented the missiological principles found in John 4, where you make a connection of common ground, where you utilize cross-cultural communication, where you lovingly but firmly challenge sin, where you refute doctrinal error but also point to spiritual heart-issues (and ultimately to Christ), I’d love to read it. Stories like these can do wonders in communicating your thoughts in a way that all your high-rhetoric abstraction can’t. It would also show that you’re not a mere armchair critic with empty rhetoric but rather a doer of the missiological principles you in writing affirm.
Thanks for the chat. If you’d ever like to have lunch in Salt Lake City, that’d be great. I find a Wendy’s meal always helps after an intense dialog. In the interest of getting back to normal things in life, I won’t be checking back at this thread as often as I have been.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
Aaron,
I don’t think anyone is saying we should wholly abandon the correction of heresy where ever we see it. I LOVE Christian apologetics. The point is that they are not a good place to start. If you have no credibility with people, they aren’t going to care what you claim is sin in their life. I’ve never found it effective to tell some one “You’re a sinner, now be warm and be filled.”
Your lack of credibility with your audience might explain the immediate wholesale destruction of unwatched Jesus/Joseph Smith DVDs.
This is why I mention Richard Dawkins. He has some things to say which are important to consider. But the average Christian isn’t interested because he presents himself as a donkeys’ behind. Even if he had an airtight presentation, nobody wants to be like him. Jesus, likewise had some incredibly controversial things to say. But the example of his life and his compassion for all won him an audience. I’d suggest we both do our own bible studies on Jesus’ interaction with strangers. I think we’re going to find that he always led with kindness and saved his harshest rebukes for those he already knew.
Not all dialog (gasp!) is good, and some is downright unedifying and destructive to the cause of Christ. Johnson’s particular way of doing it seems to play well into the Mormon effort to “neutralize” Christians. If Craig Hazen was the one doing the interfaith dialogs with Millet, the CRI article probably would have never been written.
My understanding of Johnson’s dialog with Millett is a starting place for people who have not been a part of EV/LDS dialog. I don’t think he’s ever claimed that it is as deep as we should ever get or only as deep as he goes in other conversations with Millett (and others).
Brother, if the point is that apologetics usually isn’t usually a good way to start a conversation, then that’s fine. I just moved to Midvale from Orem and have been talking to my neighbors about all sorts of regular things (from soccer to camping to lawn care). And Jesus indeed in John 4 started with something “natural.” But as I have argued elsewhere, Jesus did, among other things, engage in the challenging of sin and refutation of error in a context where there wasn’t a well-established relationship of credibility/trust. Jesus is by many standards awkward for transitioning so quickly from the topic of natural water to living, spiritual water.
I would agree that relational credibility certainly gives huge desired advantages in sharing truth, but it isn’t—lest we put evangelism in a constraining relational box—absolutely necessary for sharing the gospel with strangers. Christians have a duty to reach out with truth both inside and outside well-established relationships of trust. We do ourselves and the 2.3 million people of Utah a great disservice when we limit what evangelism we let God work through.
I’d dive into the whole other topic of the specific problems of Johnson’s dialogs, but I’d rather not keep hashing things out on this blog post. I would definitely recommend McKeever’s recent article on it. If it ever goes online I’ll shoot you an e-mail.
Hi guys, John, Aaron, and Tim, nice of you all to join me on this discussion.
Since my initial post, I have been beyond internet access, enjoying the ocean waves of the Oregon coast.
We had a nice service this morning at a beach house on the Tillamook Bay. Spent some time in John’s Gospel. So btw, love all this talk on John 4.
From a motel tonight, I am quickly popping in and clearing up some of the clutter.
John, I will look at your links.
Though I might be a different personality than Aaron, I can easily sink my teeth into some of the things he is saying.
Need to hit the sack. And will do some swimming with my kids tomorrow.
More later.
Someday, we should all get together at Wendy’s. Just had dinner there tonight.
I was told today by a friend that an article that I wrote 15 years ago was mentioned in a blog by John Morehead. I am flattered that someone actually read what I had to say. The article was based on the interaction between Jesus and the Samaritan woman in John 4. We have used this passage to train our people for personal evangelism with Mormons since I arrived at Christ Evangelical Church over 18 years ago. I have no intention of getting drawn into the blogosphere but I do want to make my position clear as to the kind of dialogue that John 4 supports and what it does not support. This was a private conversation that happened in the most natural of settings. The Samaritan woman was not an official representative of her faith but was from the fringes of society. In this conversation Jesus touched all sorts of issues including the hard theological issues that divided Samaritans and Jews. I do not believe that John 4 supports is the kinds of public dialogue that is the subject of this discussion.
Scott McKinney, Pastor Christ Evangelical Church
Scott, I am glad to hear you say this. Thanks for popping in.
I read over this post again and I wish I had more calmly engaged John to begin with instead of coming out with guns blazing. I apologize for that. I think Morehead needed to be soundly taken to task for his liberal missiology, but I probably wasn’t the right guy to do it. I’ve still got a lot of growing up to do.
Aaron: try not to figure out who’s “right” and who’s “wrong” in this back and forth…examining everything and holding fast to that which is good will likely mean part of your approach, part of Mr. Morehead’s, part of Tims’…… By gifting, you will always lean toward straightening someone out, tha’s not a bad thing, but is your audience listening to you, do they WANT to listen to you, and how can you improve that.
random pre-coffee thots from GERMIT
pS: I find it liberating to know that my approach in everything does NOT have to look like Moe, larry, or Curly, in order to be effective.