Religious disagreement done right

It can be difficult for people with different religious beliefs to have rational discussions about their faith. For one, it is natural and human to get emotional when deeply-held beliefs are challenged. Additionally, we may feel that holding true beliefs is a prerequisite for salvation. When the stakes of our rhetoric seem this high, it may be tempting to take shortcuts in our efforts at persuasion. But if we argue from false premises we are not following the example of Christ, and if we argue from an incomplete understanding our efforts will likely backfire. 

Previously, I wrote about a very bad example of faith-related disagreement in which an Evangelical pastor grossly mischaracterized the beliefs of my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter "the Church"), in a video titled “How to Talk to a Mormon.” Today I want to highlight a very good example of inter-faith dialogue. Well, actually both of these cases are Evangelicals writing about the Church for a target audience consisting of other Evangelicals - something I call “Category 2 rhetoric” about the Church (Category 1 consists of arguments intended to directly dissuade Church members themselves). But whereas “How to Talk to a Mormon” was *unhinged* Category 2 rhetoric, the case I want to highlight now is very grounded in a solid understanding of my faith and its history, what we actually believe, and how we think. While there is disagreement, it is good faith disagreement with integrity. 

Kyle Beshears is a pastor in Mobile, Alabama. He has a PhD from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and teaches religion at the University of Mobile. His first book was called Apatheism: How We Share When They Don’t Care. I haven’t read it but it sounds like a worthwhile topic for our time regardless of denomination. His current project is a book called 40 Questions About Mormonism, from Kregel Academic. I haven’t heard about Kregel before, but I am impressed by their mission statement, from the website:

Though our academic books cover a range of theological disciplines, our focus is primarily on biblical studies, biblical languages, theology, and ministry/pastoral books.

Our goal is to provide worthy textbooks and scholarly monographs. The resources display not only top-quality content, but also a charitable tone, uniqueness, and creativity. That is, they are irenic, avoiding polemical, triumphalistic, or condescending language. Our books interact with the best current literature, seeking to advance the discussion in an engaging, creative, and academically responsible way.

We are a theologically conservative evangelical publisher, holding to the essentials of Christian faith.

Dr. Beshears is putting out preliminary copies of his chapters on his website and on his Substack. I found it by poking around Substack the other day, and so far I am very impressed with his respectful tone and with how well he understands the beliefs and practice and history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The posts are written in question and answer format, in a very accessible style. The format pushes the book more toward breadth of inquiry, like an introduction, rather than depth of scholarship, but nonetheless demonstrates great understanding and insight on the topic  

Let’s start with a hard one - faith and works. There is a tendency among evangelicals to say that members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe in works rather than grace, which isn’t the case. Beshears properly includes this topic in a post about common misunderstandings¹:

We will explore this thought [Protestant and LDS views of works] in a subsequent post, but for now it is sufficient to say that Mormonism is not entirely graceless and that Latter-day Saints rely heavily on the mercy of Jesus Christ. The disagreement is not whether grace plays a critical role in our salvation but how grace empowers our justification, fuels our sanctification, and secures our glorification.

I will be interested in what he has to say in the full post/chapter on this topic, but this snippet demonstrates that Dr. Beshears has a good grasp of the Church and it’s doctrine. It also shows that he is interested in correcting the misconceptions of Evangelicals about the Church in order to foster real understanding. 

Let’s take another topic - Joseph Smith, first prophet of the Restoration. Pasting together a couple of snippets from his post, after a good summary of the historical background:

As latter day prophet, seer, and revelator, Smith invited people to follow him and receive more spiritual fulness than traditional forms of Christianity would offer. Indeed, more is what Smith claimed Mormonism—from the root “more good”—offered to non-members. “We don’t ask any people to throw away any good they have got,” he explained; “we only ask them to come and get more.”

… In general, traditional Christianity has rejected Smith’s invitation for “more” by framing him in terms similar to the rival apostles in competition with Paul. The concerned apostle wrote to the Corinthian church after learning about their encounter with disciples of “another Jesus,” the bearers of “another spirit” and the harbingers of “another gospel” (2 Cor. 11:4). 

The focus on “more” shows a good understanding of how members of the Church of Jesus Christ see the relationship between the Restoration and mainstream Christianity. While Beshears doesn’t accept the more, and describes the rationale by which most evangelicals reject the “more,” he shows integrity through his willingness to seek to understand how people of my faith view the question. 

Let’s take a look at the First Vision, the key experience in Joseph Smith’s life that ushered in the Restoration. I’ll jump to his commentary on the multiple accounts:

Critics of the LDS Church frequently question Smith’s reliability based on these apparent contradictions. In response, Latter-day Saint apologists and scholars have offered explanations that synthesize and harmonize his memories. This conversation is important, but by focusing on the minutiae, we risk missing a significant development in Smith’s self-identity during the earliest years of Mormonism.

I don’t think Smith intentionally revised his first vision primarily to match his new ideas about God or to secure power, as some critics have suggested. I’m more inclined to the LDS Church’s explanation;that differences between the accounts could be “read as evidence of [Smith’s] increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience.”

This is truly startling, in a good way. A common argument against the church (almost to the point of cliche) suggests that the different details given in four versions of the First Vision written at different times cast doubt on its authenticity. The faithful perspective recognizes that just as eye-witness accounts from different perspectives at the scene of a crime can describe a single event in different ways, it shouldn’t be surprising that as Joseph Smith’s perspective and audience changed, so would his point of emphasis and the choice of details. Though I choose to accept this explanation, I will acknowledge that there are less favorable ways to interpret the accounts, especially for those who don’t already have reason to believe the Church is true. Beshears is making a deliberate choice to steelman the First Vision rather than use the multiple accounts for a cheap attack. In this, he demonstrates a sincere dedication to principles of decency and rationality.

There is very little for me to quibble over in the posts written to date, other than several posts with a picture and description of the coffee being enjoyed by the author as he composes his work. (Doesn’t he want to run and not be weary or find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge?) The historical background given in the posts is unobjectionable, accurate, and fair. Where doctrinal differences are discussed, the approach is mostly to give an accurate description of the Church’s beliefs along with a description of evangelical beliefs for contrast. The evangelical narratives are often given more warmth and Beshears even waxes poetic in describing his own faith, as is his right - but he is fair in his descriptions of points of view other than his own.

This screenshot from Dr. Beshears’s post on Joseph Smith shows a shocking lack of concern for the health of his navel and the marrow of his bones. 

The 40 questions are just getting started - 6 question posts are out so far - and I can’t say where it is all heading, but so far I am impressed. To my evangelical friends who want to learn about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - just ask me about it. But if you also want a good understanding of the Church from an Evangelical perspective, read Kyle Beshears. And even if Dr. Beshears turns to more pointed criticism in future posts/chapters, I will grant that he has earned the right to it because he first sought to understand. Hats off to Kregel Academic for supporting this kind of good faith discussion of a contentious issue. I will seek to be just as charitable, and I wish all inter-faith scholarship would follow this pattern. 

---

1 When I went back to copy the link to the post on common misconceptions, I couldn't find the original post. Not sure what’s going on there. Maybe it was taken down, but I'm leaving this quote in to illustrates a good understanding of the nuances of our doctrine. ^↩