Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate by Robert L. Millet

Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate Reviews

• 
  Greg Diehl

  Having grown up with an extended family that is predominantly evangelical and then served a mission for the LDS church in the southern bible belt, I must admit that I found this theological exchange particularly engaging (my wife teased me that more pages were dog-eared than not, thereby defeating the purpose of dog-earing in the first place . . . ).
  
  I love the open posture of Professor Millet and couldn't agree more with his observation that, "One simply cannot engage persons of another faith in a sincere and serious way without coming to view one's own tradition with new eyes and heart." I also appreciate the insightful perspective of several of the evangelical scholars quoted in this work who over and over again reconfirmed that "the quest for empathy (and I would add truth in general) can be helped along by a good dose of curiosity."
  
  At the end of the day, Christianity is fundamentally about relationships, particularly with Christ, much more than it is about developing certainty in a set of beliefs or precision in our theology. It's a message that confirms for each of us that: "God cares about people more than he cares about "truth" in the abstract. Jesus didn't die on the cross to make a (theological) point. He died on the cross to save people whom he loves." And Christ loves (and is perfectly curious about) everyone - so too should we. Any book that leaves me with a deepened sense of that "truth" is one well worth 5 stars.
• 
  J.D. Camorlinga

  In Claiming Christ: A Mormon-Evangelical Debate, authors Dr. Robert Millet and Dr. Gerald McDermott engage in interfaith dialogue about the common misconceptions and differing beliefs of orthodox Christianity (OC) and Mormonism. Millet, who presents the Latter-day Saint (LDS) perspective, contends that civil disagreement is possible but that one must ensure that the disagreements are about the “the right stuff.” (12) Claiming Christ aims to clearly delineate what the “right stuff” is.
  
  On the Fall
  
  Millet explains that the LDS understanding of the fall is different from OC. He states that the fall of Adam was a necessary step forward for humanity, and that the act of eating the forbidden fruit was not self-serving rebellion (93). Instead, the fall allowed humanity to move forward, to make its own choices. Without the fall, there could be no atonement, no joy, and no progression (94).
  Since Adam and Eve could not procreate prior to the fall, LDS teach that they could not fulfill God’s command to fill and subdue the earth. In a very real sense, the LDS church views eating the forbidden fruit as the will of God. McDermott responds to this version of the fall by asking some important questions. First, he points out that in Genesis 3:5, God explicitly forbids Adam and Eve to eat of the tree. Given this clear instruction, why would God command them to do something opposite of His will (105)? Second, he asks why there would be any punishment at all if it was a step of maturity or the will of God (104). Third, if the fall was not a real choice, how could it make possible real future choices (104)? The LDS view of the fall is ultimately internally incoherent and has further implications as it relates to humanity’s need for redemption. If humans are good by nature and it is in their power to keep the law without sin, there seems to be no actual need for redemption. If that is the case, why did Jesus have to die (106)?
  
  On Jesus
  
  McDermott clearly presents some key areas in which the Christian and Mormon view of Jesus differ (64). First, Mormons reject OC views of the Trinity and view Jesus as a distinct God (65-79). As a separate God, he is one of at least three Gods who are one in purpose but not in nature. LDS believe that Jesus and humans share the same nature, meaning that humans can all individually attain godhood (71-72). Furthermore, they believe that human spirits were never created, but have always existed (59). Lastly, since Jesus is subject to the rules of the universe, he does not transcend it (75-77).
  McDermott asks how it can be that LDS call Jesus “eternal God” but simultaneously claim that He grew into his godhood (54, 58, 70-71). Millet is unable to give a valid response to this question and instead states that it is “a blessed mystery (85).” This is not an intellectually honest answer since he rejects the Trinity on the grounds that it does not make any sense. If he can accept an actual contradiction as a blessed mystery, it should not be a difficult thing for him to accept the Trinity, which poses no such contradiction.
  
  On Revelation
  
  Millet explains that LDS do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Furthermore, Mormons believe that there have been “lost truths” over the years that leave room for texts (i.e., Book of Mormon) that confirm and supplement the Bible (34). Millet states that there is no special need to claim biblical inerrancy (35).
  McDermott does not respond to the inerrancy issue because he previously stated that he holds a similar view (9). Instead, he focuses his attention on the Book of Mormon (BoM) and gives four main reasons he rejects it as false. First, he observes that there are four gospel accounts of the Palestinian Jesus and only one of the American Jesus (120). Second, the gospels date back to the 1st century while the BoM arrives on the scene some eighteen centuries later. While there are extra-biblical accounts supporting the New Testament, there are no extant records of Christ’s appearance in the New World; something that seems unlikely if the account were true (121). Third, McDermott states that there are inconsistencies between the teachings of the Palestinian Jesus and the American Jesus (121-122). Finally, there are intra-textual inconsistencies between the BoM and later writings by Joseph Smith (122-123).
  Millet is not overly concerned about these issues. He quotes a former Mormon prophet who stated that the test of the truthfulness of the BoM lies in reading the book (132). This line of thinking – so similar to the Muslim claim about the Qur’an – is invalid and commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
  
  On the Church
  
  Millet describes the Mormon view of “church” as fulfilling a number of roles, such as assisting in the perfection of the saints, involving the congregation in the work of the ministry, edifying the body of Christ, and working toward unity in the faith (138-139).
  LDS teach about apostolic succession (147), the authority of administering the ordinances (sacraments), which is passed down. These ordinances are unchanging (148) and include baptism, confirmation, the Lord’s Supper, and ordination to the priesthood (143-144). These ordinances, with the addition of faith, must be followed in order for a Mormon to reach heaven. While there seem to be additional steps to the LDS view of salvation, they have an almost universalist view of heaven. Mormons do not believe in predetermined election (192-193) and teach that nearly everyone will be saved (202-203).
  McDermott, who takes a reformed view, compares the LDS view of grace as an opportunity to choose God, (171) to that of the Arminians of mainstream Christianity. Predestination aside, he challenges Millet’s view of the unchanging ordinances by pointing out that there is no evidence of baptism in the Old Testament (160). Instead, baptism takes the place of circumcision as the outward sign of obedience to God’s commands. McDermott misses an opportunity here to address the LDS practice of Lord’s Supper. Since they proclaim that the ordinances do not change, it would be a good point to inquire why Mormons drink water in place of wine, an apparent deviation from the biblical portrayals of the Lord’s Supper. LDS teaching and practice do not seem to line up in application.
  Overall, both authors tend to be gracious in their treatment of each other’s beliefs. Millet challenges readers to stretch beyond their spiritual comfort zone (11). At the onset, McDermott spent time explaining that Christians should not condemn Mormons for relying on extra-biblical revelation when Catholics and Protestants do the same (17, 26). Conversely, he explains, Mormons should not cast aspersions about Christian reliance on creeds when LDS hold to similar statements of faith (19). Throughout the book, he makes a concerted effort to highlight the similarities between the two faiths, in an attempt to heal the rift between the two.
  My main concern about Millet’s arguments throughout the debate is that he consistently relies on personal testimony and rhetorical questions to support his views (81, 125, 131, 141). For example, rather than defend the LDS view of Christ’s divinity, Millet asks why it even matters if Jesus was always God or became God at some point in time (61). Instead of offering sound logic for the LDS view of the fall, Millet asks why God put the tree in the Garden of Eden if He did not want Adam and Eve to eat from it (93). Lastly, he rejects the Trinity based on finding it illogical and states that he has “a great difficulty” imagining that a person ignorant of the Trinity would come to a Trinitarian understanding from reading the Bible (79-80). This reliance on subjective personal experience undermines the validity of his claims. His “burning conviction” offers no substantive proof; an issue that tends to plague LDS as a whole.
  I was not completely comfortable with McDermott’s view of biblical inerrancy (9). His position left him unable to respond appropriately to Millet’s statements on the matter. Since McDermott is supposed to be defending the orthodox view of Christianity, I found this to be of no small account. Furthermore, at times McDermott did not fully develop some key criticisms of Mormon doctrine. For example, while he touches on the plurality of gods which extend before the Father; he could have discussed the absurdity of infinite regression in greater detail (69). Likewise, he did not properly address Millet’s subjective “proof” that you can know the Book of Mormon is true by reading it and having the conviction that it is true.
  Weaknesses aside, I found this book to be a valuable asset for learning about the distinct belief system of the LDS church, as well as some surprising similarities to OC. It was written in accessible language for lay Christians and Mormons, and gives straightforward accounts of major doctrines. I would recommend this to believers of both faiths as they endeavor to better understand each other and seek ways to have constructive conversations.
  
• 
  Danny

  The following review from someone else that has read this book piqued my interest in this debate between Brother Millet and his Evangelical friend.
  It is very high on my list of books to read.
  ______________________________________________
  
  This is the latest entry in the respectful dialogue now taking place between some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("Mormon") and its evangelical neighbors. On the evangelical side of this published back-and-forth is Dr. McDermott, a professor of religion and philosophy at Roanoke College and teaching pastor at St. John Lutheran Church.
  
  While I did not consider this book nearly as engaging as "How Wide the Divide" - a book so terrifically engaging that it is banned from some Christian bookstores (i.e., the Mormon guy won big!) - "Claiming Christ" is a fascinating study in the notorious back-pedaling that always occurs when an honest evangelical comes face-to-face with a real Mormon and real Mormon doctrine. I have no doubt that Drs. Millett and McDermott are dear friends - and that their efforts in writing this book were hardly to create this kind of reaction in someone like me - but I have rarely seen such stark proof that evangelicals have been libeling Mormons in the most egregious ways for nearly two centuries now. They did it without shame, and they did it for money. A lot of them still do it, though a few of them - while unwilling to embrace the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ - are at least repenting somewhat for those past sins.
  
  This book demonstrates that, again and again, in-the-pew Christians have been grossly misled by their leaders on the issues of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and LDS doctrine - and someday there is going to be an accounting. Until then, here are some highlights from the "tipping point" to come (all of the following quotes are concessions made by Dr. McDermott):
  
  pp. 55-56, I'm afraid I am one of those who has misunderstood and misrepresented Mormons. ... I mistreated a distinguished Mormon historian when he came to speak to my class more than a decade ago. Besides treating him rudely, I did not understand how central Jesus Christ was to his faith and to the LDS Church generally. ... I suspected he wasn't telling me the whole truth when he insisted he was trusting in Jesus for his salvation, and I suggested as much to my class by my repeated counter-assertions and questions.
  I have since learned that ... Jesus Christ is indeed at the center of Mormon faith. As I have learned from my own reading of the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ is central to the story .... The Mormon view of Jesus Christ is different from that of evangelicals and other orthodox Christians, but the fact remains that Christ is central to LDS consciousness. I am struck by [one Mormon scholar's] calculation that Christ or his ministry is mentioned on the average of every 1.7 verses in the Book of Mormon.
  ... [V]erses [in the Book of Mormon] that would surprise evangelicals who have been led to believe that all Mormon doctrine is totally wrong on Jesus are 2 Nephi 11:4 and 7. These passages assert plainly that there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ .... They also proclaim that Christ is God .... This and many other passages in the Book of Mormon prove clearly that the Mormon Jesus is not ... less than fully God[], despite the belief of many evangelicals and other Christians.
  
  pp. 63-64, Evangelicals and Mormons agree on lots of things about Jesus. Many evangelicals are surprised to learn, for example, that Mormons believe not only that Jesus is the Son of God but also that he is God the Son. I find that many evangelicals have somewhere picked up the idea that Mormons deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They are often amazed to learn that, unlike Jehovah's Witnesses and other groups they typically classify as "cults," which do indeed deny the deity of Christ, Mormons declare emphatically that Jesus was and is incarnate God. ... I have to say that evangelical agreement with [Mormons] on Jesus is significant and, when compared to a history of evangelical denunciations of Mormonism, remarkable.
  
  p. 102, This chapter by Professor Millet has been, I suspect, another surprise for many evangelical readers. They were amazed to see such emphasis on the suffering and death of Jesus as the events that save you and me. Some might find it hard to believe that the Book of Mormon teaches that "there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah" (2 Nephi 2:8).
  
  pp. 163, 169, 171, In the "fog of theological war" we evangelicals often accuse Mormons of teaching salvation by works, even when they protest they don't and try to prove it with passages from the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenants. ... Many of us have wrongly accused Mormons of teaching salvation by works because they have put some strong emphasis on works. We have become convinced that Mormons do not understand or teach grace ....
  One of the problems with this evangelical view of LDS teaching is that ... Jesus also teaches the necessity of works. ... So let's put some old staples of evangelical anti-Mormon apologetics to rest. Let's stop saying incessantly that Mormons teach unadulterated salvation by works and that they have no conception of grace.
  
  pp. 177, 190-91, What I am about to say may cause all of my evangelical friends to desert me, or think I have lost it. But I think we evangelicals have something to learn from our Mormon friends on th[e] subject [of salvation] that is absolutely integral to faith. ... Perhaps we can learn from the Mormons that we have wrongly separated faith from works, that we have created a false dichotomy between justification and sanctification, and that while we are saved from being justified by the law, nevertheless, the law is still "holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12). ... We evangelicals are often guilty as charged, failing to admit the possibility that we could be wrong in our estimation of what Mormons really believe. ... Evangelicals have most typically dismissed Mormonism as unchristian because it was thought to teach salvation by works. I hope this chapter will show the case to be significantly different.
  
  pp. 218, 220, Early on in my evangelical life I was told that Mormonism is a cult with radically un-Christian beliefs. Chief among these, I was told, were the ideas that we are saved by our works and that Jesus is not God. Their focus, I thought, was on Joseph Smith rather than Jesus Christ.
  Then, a number of years ago, ... I ... discovered that there was more emphasis on grace in the Book of Mormon and other parts of the LDS canon than I had imagined and that Mormons worship Jesus as God. I saw a concentration on Jesus that I had previously thought to be absent. ... [I]t is clear that the LDS Church is related to the family of Christian communities. It is quite different, obviously, from Judaism or Islam, which reject the gospel explicitly. Mormons reject the relativism of some postmodern religions and, unlike many other spin-offs from the orthodox tradition, robustly profess the full deity of Jesus Christ.
• 
  Aaron Shafovaloff

  Substantive, but McDermott is passive to Millet's euphemistic take on Mormon soteriology.
• 
  John

  This is another excellent debate between Mormon and Evangelical Scholars who show genuine respect for one another despite their strong differences. Each chapter refreshingly focuses on various beliefs about Jesus Christ, and for the most part avoids disagreements about exotic LDS cosmology.
  
  I think this book is better than Millet’s previous debate with Greg Johnson, and is in many ways even better than the superb exchange between Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg. The Millet/Johnson book was a good example of respectful engagement, and sincere efforts by both parties to become religiously “bilingual.” But this work has more doctrinal meat,(nearly as much as the Robinson/Blomberg book), while simultaneously highlighting the authors' common faith in often tender and touching ways. Millet was especially good at teaching the spiritual import of LDS doctrine as much as its intellectual respectability. I admire Millet for his clear recognition that his gentle words are more powerful than his keen wit. And I admire McDermott for his humble acknowledgment of several misperceptions - in this he also showed that he is a true disciple and an honest scholar. I commend both these gentlemen for their attempt to use the Lord’s means to do the Lord’s work, for in the end, it can be done in no other way.
  
  I do however, have a couple of criticisms of this fine work. On several occasions Millet defended LDS beliefs by employing non-LDS sources. The fact is that few LDS are even remotely familiar with the marvelous quotations Millet gleaned from these non-LDS authors, and their use is potentially confusing. Even Professor McDermott was under the impression that LDS beliefs were derived principally from speculative interpretation of the Bible. As a consequence he spent precious time refuting these interpretations with nary a mention of the true source of LDS belief.
  
  These peripheral targets unfairly diverted McDermott from aiming at the bulls eye. As the debate wore on, the fundamental issue finally distilled; namely that the LDS do not base their doctrine on thinly stretched interpretations of Peter, or Paul, or the early Church fathers. Rather, the key issue in most disagreements is whether Joseph Smith did or did not in fact receive additional revelation on the doctrine in dispute. It is my suggestion that debate can be much simplified and clarified by first presenting the relevant LDS scripture or prophetic declaration, and only then attempting to use non-LDS sources for “bilingual” conversation.
  
  My other criticism is that on more than one occasion McDermott used a weak argument, only to later recognize that it did not hold much water. This is of course what naturally happens to all sides in a debate as we educate each other and ourselves in the true dimensions of our disagreement. While this may be evidence of debate at its finest, it seems to me that a published work should only employ the best arguments from each side and allow the weaker ones to boil away in the distillation of reason.
  
  These complaints not withstanding, I heartily recommend this book to all those interested in understanding the common belief of Mormons and Evangelicals, as well as their divergent views of our Savior Jesus Christ.
• 
  Brian

  Every Latter Day Saint and Evangelical should be required to read this marvelous book. It was heartening to read of their friendship and willingness to find areas of agreement and finally their conclusion that we have more in common than there are differences and that we can and must work together to make the world a better place.
• 
  SueDella

  Very good material but more like reading a textbook...will keep it on my list of books to finish later.
  
• 
  David

  Christ debate hinges
  On whether Joseph Smith was
  Prophet. I knew that.