There are 8 thoughts on “Evangelical Controversy: A Deeply Fragmented Movement”.

  1. One scholar who I shared the paper with wrote “A pity they had someone review the book who was (1) unqualified to deal with theology at this level and (2) disingenuous about his own church’s history. It is simply the case that LDS people distinguished between themselves and those they called “Christians” until well into the 1990s. (I supervised a master’s thesis written by a Mormon missionary that won an award from the Mormon Historical Association and that did exactly that—in the mid-1990s.) And, having lectured at Brigham Young University at the invitation of their Religious Studies department on the differences between, yes, Christians and Mormons in the 2000s, I dare to think I know what I’m talking about in that respect.”

    • Mister Hausler,

      If you are going to pass on accusations of dishonesty (that’s what “disingenuous” means, just so you know) then you need to include the name of the accuser. If the accuser is unwilling to own the accusation then you need to withdraw it. Anonymous accusations are just gossip, and as such, are worthless.

  2. I’m having an autism attack again! I can’t help myself! I’m out of control…the laughter and hooting, twitching and jumping from my chair is embarrassing.

    Sorry 🙂

    • I need to clarify something before someone jumps down my throat for my previous comment. I’m not laughing at Bro. Midgley. I’m just laughing. I have, in the past, dealt with Christians of other denominations, and had a heck of a time convincing them that Mormons are Christian (I, for the most part, failed miserably). After reading Midgley’s reviews (for the past few hours), I’m guessing that, if most of the folks I had talked to, in the past, had read some of the books Midgley is reviewing, and were really honest with themselves, they wouldn’t have been so condemning of Mormonism. On the other hand, some whom I’ve spoken with in the past, would just condemn the authors for leaving the simple true faith of the Bible. Problem is, my fiends have done that too! Once they start dictating Trinitarianism, etc., I believe they contradict themselves.

  3. These different factions of Evangelicals and the various other denominations have such confusing and varied doctrines that I wonder if they really know what they believe. No wonder they can talk in circles and not really say anything.

  4. In my conversation with a Christian pastor of a non-denominational “Biblical Christian” congregation, I asked how it was determined “who was in” and “who was out” among acceptable Christian denominations. I cited several other Christian congregations around the corner or just down the street and wondered why the members of these churches were not all meeting together if they essentially agreed on the same salvation doctrine. He stammered something about how some placed more emphasis on some aspects of Christian practice than they did on others. Although this might account for the different churches, his demeanor indicated he knew this was inadequate for explaining WHY this was acceptable.
    I have been fascinated by this idea of diversity within Protestantism yet the notion of acceptability of a certain portion of these denominations or groups as being “in” or “saved.” When I hear them explain the criteria for salvation, the low bar of belief on Christ and confession of Christ as Savior is usually all that is given. Yet withing the broader Christian tent, it is clear that these groups have an unspoken and more definitive doctrine of salvation — one defined by who one is NOT, ie. one must believe in Christ but NOT be Catholic, one must believe in Christ but NOT be Mormon, etc.

    • Excellent, Central Texan.

      It is an interesting notion that I, as a Latter-day Saint, should be condemned to eternity of hell because my exact understanding of how the atonement applies to my life doesn’t exactly correlate with an arbitrary reading of scripture that was written 2,000 years ago and older. Of course it would be wrong for the LDS community to fall into the same philosophically errant trap, as I sometimes see. What I would like to figure out is how a deeper communication can take place without such high-strung emotionalism. Unfortunately, religion is worse than politics when it comes to the passions of opinion.

  5. My own experience with both Orthodox and Roman Catholic worship and dogmatic theology indicates that, despite the large differences from my own beliefs and mode of worship, they are both at their best clearly Christ-centered and hence Christian.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

All comments are moderated to ensure respectful discourse. It is assumed that it is possible to disagree agreeably and intelligently and comments that intend to increase overall understanding are particularly encouraged. Individual authors are given the option to disallow commenting or end commenting after a certain period at their discretion.

Close this window

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This