2008 Sunstone West Symposium: Mormonism and the Christian Tradition, Theology as Interfaith Dialogue, Creativity and Novelty in Mormon Studies
In my last post I mentioned my participation on the “Mormonism and Christian Theology” panel in the Sunstone West Symposium, held here at Claremont CA, March 15, 2008. I here include my remarks from that panel discussion.
I’m going to outline three interrelated concepts that come from my rough reflections and observations as a student in this class on Mormonism and Christian Theology at Claremont Graduate University: 1) Mormonism as a part of the Christian tradition and Mormonism as its own unique tradition; 2) The concept and use of Theology in interfaith dialogue; and 3) The role of creativity and novelty in shaping Mormon Studies. As I mentioned, these are rough, probably too short reflections and I won’t be able to cover a lot of ground. Nevertheless, they are, to me, pressing issues and questions, the nature and force of which have been highlighted and emphasized in the class. Of course, these reflections come out of a particular socio-cultural context: I am a white male born and raised (though not exclusively) in Utah Mormonism, a tradition (Mormonism in general, not necessarily the Utah version) which I love and to which I have always tried to be loyal. Consequently, what I say will not necessarily resonate with those not found in my particular socio-cultural context. Nevertheless, I am also a human being, capable of both emotional and intellectual novel creativity and dynamic relationships with those both inside and outside my situated location. Therefore I like to believe that who and what I am, though intimately connected to my environment, is still more than my environment (i.e., I am not wholly determined by my environment). Perhaps because of this, some of what I say can indeed resonate with those most unlike me.
First, if this class shines a spotlight on anything for me, it shines it on the complicated, love-hate relationship Mormonism has with the Christian tradition. At issue are two opposite poles: Mormonism as a member of the “Authentically Christian” club and Mormonism as its own unique and independent tradition. There has been a strong concern in Mormon leadership on being accurately understood by those outside the Mormon tradition, so that non-Mormons clearly understand where we stand. President Boyd K. Packer has said the following: “As I grow older in age and experience, I grow ever less concerned over whether others agree with us. I grow ever more concerned that they understand us
.” He also said, “otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down.” However, it seems legitimate to ask two questions in regard to these statements: 1) How well do we really understand our position in relation to mainstream Christianity, 2) is this is really a put-down? As a Mormon, do I consider myself a Christian, or am I happy to simply say I am a Mormon? Jan Shipps has famously argued that the Mormon church developed in ways that now distinguish its tradition from the Christian tradition in a similar fashion as early Christianity was distinguished from its Hebraic context. In other words, that Mormonism is a genuinely new and separate religious tradition. But for how long did early Christians (particularly Jewish-Christians) insist that their new movement was a rightful heir to and part of the Jewish tradition? When was it considered acceptable to sever all ties from Judaism and proudly proclaim Christianity qua Christianity? Is there a potential future for this type of move in Mormonism, to simply proclaim Mormonism qua Mormonism?Still, the issue is more complex than this. Mormons agree with the oft-quoted Book of Mormon verse, “we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ.” But the notion of Jesus Christ being the center of Mormon doctrine and worship is not usually the central issue. The central issue is the extent to which Mormonism is connected to everything that came after Christ, the tradition itself. Mormons, at least in my view, sometimes seem to want it both ways: to be separate from the Tradition, which is derivative of the Great Apostasy from the True, original Church of Christ, and at the same time to claim ownership of the term “Christianity.” But who “owns” Christianity? It is a normative, politically loaded, term, not a merely descriptive term signifying those who believe Jesus Christ to be God.
At the same time, I can understand Elder Packer’s concern. As Mormons, we arrived late on the Christian scene. There were already Christians before we came along. Christians were already those who believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ. If we shunned the designation, sought status as the 4th Abrahamic religion, as it were, we lose the self-identification of being considered part of the accepted label linked to those who believe in Christ. If we are not Christians but we believe in Christ, what do we call ourselves? To whom do we appeal? As we learned in class, the Catholic Church, regarding the question of accepting the baptism of a new applicant to the church, decided in the Council of Trent and reaffirmed in the more recent documents of the Code of Canon Law, that any baptism performed in any heretical Christian denomination (I.e, any denomination other than Catholicism) was acceptable and valid for admittance as a member of the Catholic Church. However, in 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared one exception to this rule: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon church was not simply heretical. Even Protestant churches could “safely” be regarded as heretical. No, the Mormon church was described as “beyond heresy.” Given the complexities regarding how much we wish to be considered as part of the Christian tradition, and whether we are a completely new religious movement, do we smile and nod at the thought of being beyond heresy, or is there a sincere concern and anxiety that we are regarded by a large portion of the Christian tradition in this way? The question is still a live one for me.
Second, on the notion of theology as a form of interfaith dialogue. As Brian pointed out at the beginning of the semester, Mormon theological studies is the most underdeveloped field in Mormon Studies. I have heard more than one Mormon scholar, in one way or another, describe theology as being something to which they are vehemently allergic. I recall discussing the pursuit of a degree in Religious Studies with my Institute instructor at Purdue University. His only advice to me was to avoid the formal study of theology, as I would lose my testimony of the truth of the Gospel. Indeed, one of the current hot topics of debate among Mormon scholars (particularly scholars in the Humanities) is the role of theology in Mormonism. Some argue that we don’t do theology in the LDS church; others have been busy constructing uniquely LDS theological systems. The contours of the debate are too complex and detailed to describe here (though Brian presented a paper on this topic earlier this morning) but what I want to focus on is the use of theology in trying to communicate with other faiths. If what we do as scholars of the Mormon tradition, and scholars of Mormon intellectual thought in particular is atheological, distinct and separate from traditional theological reflection, how is it that we expect to have a progressive, informed conversation with other scholars of other faiths? Stephen Robinson has observed that “an obstacle to mutual understanding is terminology–our respective theological vocabularies. Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals [and also other Christian groups] generally employ the same theological terms, but we usually define them differently.” Of course, it is true that Mormonism employs novel theological terminology (eternal progression being one example), but I believe that what Professor Robinson is saying has some merit. We cannot speak to one another in two different languages. If we care to speak to scholars of other faiths at all, it would seem that a knowledge of theological concepts and terminology is a minimum prerequisite.
Nevertheless, knowing about and understanding traditional Christian theology is different than engaging in theological reflection and construction ourselves. In some ways I sympathize with Professor James Faulconer’s reflections on this topic. He points out that because Latter-day Saints have prophets and continuing revelation, are more explicitly concerned with ortho-praxis than orthodoxy per se, and do not have an official theology or appeal to creeds to shape our beliefs, then theology is not only antithetical to how Mormons engage their religion, it is actually opposed to it. While I do not agree that we do not appeal to creeds to inform our thinking on theological issues (I think we have our own creeds that we appeal to regularly, though not exclusively to help us decide what we believe) I do share his concern that, because of the above reasons, theology may not be the heart of what makes Mormonism tick for Mormons. However, not to do some sort of theology is not to engage in “God-talk” at all. Perhaps we do not always do systematic theology (though I think sometimes we do) and perhaps we do not engage theology in the same way traditional Christianity does. But to say we do not do theology at all, and indeed cannot engage in it, is to say that we don’t speak in particular ways about God, which we clearly do. And, as this class has illustrated for me, we most often use traditional Christian theological terminology to do so (though as Professor Robinson pointed out, we often mean different things when we do so). More importantly, not to admit this makes it more difficult to converse in any substantive way with members of the Christian tradition. But again, addressing my first topic, perhaps at times, (those times we really want to be a separate religious tradition) we want to be distinguished and set apart in this way. Insisting that we don’t do theology and are allergic to it certainly goes a long way in this direction. But it seems to me that we must accept the consequences in regards to our ability to speak to scholars and laypersons of other faiths. Furthermore, Mormonism is not only being tested and weighed in the global market of religious institutions, but also in the global market of religious ideas. Certainly, we bring, in my opinion, many novel, original, and highly important religious ideas to the table, but our perspectives on the place of theology in our own tradition will not only influence how we present these unique ideas to the world, but also how they will be received.
Finally, some thoughts on novelty and creativity in Mormon Studies, a nod to the important place of Process theology here at Claremont. Process metaphysics envisions a limit to determinism that makes room for creative spontaneity and novelty in the world at every level (be it by way of random mutations with naturalistic processes or purposeful innovation with those who incline to a theologically teleological position). One popular dictum, coined by Alfred North Whitehead in describing God’s relationship to the world, is that “it is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the world creates God.” Along this vein, concerning love of humankind for God, Elizabeth Kraus writes that: “the love of creature for Creator is manifest in attunement to beauty, in openness to creative ideals realizable in the present, and in concern for the future as implicated in every creative decision in the present…this love is a constant endeavor to actualize the greatest value in each occasion of existence, and an unshakeable confidence that all one’s failures and inadequacies will be recreated in beauty.” In other words, again quoting Whitehead, “either of them [human being or God] is the instrument of novelty for the other.”
This philosophy that emphasizes not just the importance of creativity and novelty in the world and in the divine, but their absolute necessity, is one that has resonated with me since I began my own studies in religion at the School of Theology. Before the advent of this class but after I began my graduate degree, I began to be awaked to the creative possibilities inherent in Mormon philosophy and theology. Perhaps Claremont, and other campuses that are initiating their own experiments in Mormon studies outside a predominantly Mormon university, are and will be unique locations for encouraging and creating the most novel reconceptualizations and formulations of Mormon studies ever produced. Joseph Smith once said, “It is my meditation all the day, and more than my meat and drink, to know how I shall make the Saints of God comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind. Oh! How I would delight to bring before you things which you never thought of! But poverty and the cares of the world prevent…” Though poverty might be a problem for those LDS students who come to study here, a vision of the possibilities and potentialities of Mormon Studies surely will not be. Though I cannot claim, like Joseph, multiple visions from God, his description of the overflowing surge is evocative of what I have seen that can be done. For example, in my short time here I have written (and in some cases presented) papers on LDS thought intersecting with philosophy and theology on such topics as Mormonism at the intersection of sociology and theological methodology, Mormonism, wealth, and New Testament Christian Ethics, Mormonism and Islamic Theology, the Book of Mormon and the Problem of Evil, Mormonism and Panentheism in the God-world relationship, Mormonism and ecotheology, and Mormonism and the problem of religious diversity. I am currently completing a Master’s thesis on a comparative analysis of Mormonism and Christian ideas of Atonement in contemporary theological discourse. There are few places in the world that not only allow such topics to be written on, but even encourage it. Claremont is unique in this sense and this class in particular has been a major catalyst in uncovering my own creative theological capacities and realizing the importance of creativity and novelty in pursuing religious studies in general and Mormon Studies in particular.
Tags: Christian theology, creativity, Interfaith Dialogue, Mormon Studies, novelty, theology
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
April 14, 2008 at 2:58 am
Hi Jacob, I appreciate your post and I look forward to learning more about developments in Mormon studies at Claremont. You might be interested in my blog where I focus directly on interfaith dialogue.
I feel that theology can serve as a form of interreligious communication. Therefore, some Evangelicals for example, lament that there is no systematic theology in the Church and wish that there were a systematic theology, almost to suggest that true dialogue cannot happen unless Mormonism forms a systematic theology. There is a tension between the goals of a systematic theology which appeals to the rational mind and a dynamic revelatory religion which allows for possibilities. I also agree with the observation that there are different ways of ‘doing theology’ and that a ’systematic theology’ is but one way, but not the only way. I think this should be explored and I think our understanding could be enhanced with a more historically grounded study of systematic theology along with a comparative study of the extent of systematic theologies in other faiths such as Judaism and Islam. In fact, the Mormon way of ‘doing theology’ is a area which I think should be explored and may in fact offer a contribution in terms of religious understanding.
April 14, 2008 at 5:13 pm
aquinas:
I obviously agree with you: an understanding of systematic theology could, in my opinion, have extremely beneficial consequences insofar as we increase our capacity to engage in dialogue with the Tradition. I will write more on this in a separate post, but Mormons are already viewed suspiciously, whether in terms of theology or practice. When we start saying that we don’t “do” theology, or our tradition is explicitly atheological, that move combines to set us even further back in trying to dialogue with other faiths. Further, in embracing an atheological view, there is a certain sense that we are in effect asserting that other theologies or ways of reflecting on religious concepts are not valuable to LDS people, that there are no insights derived from formal systematic theology that can enrich me intellecually or religiously. And I think that that is both untrue and and dangerous.
However, those that reject systematic theologies are saying important things about the ways that Mormons view, practice, and talk about religion. However, that will have to be for another post.
April 15, 2008 at 4:59 am
I appreciate the response. One of the difficult things about discussing Mormon theology is that the term ‘theology’ has often been hijacked by parties engaged in apologetics. ‘Theology’ then becomes a loaded term or a short-hand for describing the religion by advocates and critics in a polemical context. Critics of Mormonism may claim that Mormonism or Mormons are largely atheological. This is not a complement, but rather an attempt to show how Mormon teachings are elusive, irrational, hard to pin down, or that Mormons behave differently from regular Christians. Likewise, some Latter-day Saints who believe that revelation is infinitely superior to theology or speculation take pride in not getting involved with the ‘philosophies of men’ and take pride in being atheological and point out at the early apostles were not trained theologians. It is hard to tease apart whether these statements are made for the purpose of better describing the tradition proper, or whether they have their impetus in apologetics. In many cases, it is the latter. This apologetic orientation isn’t necessarily interested in engaging other faith traditions in dialogue.
What I think needs to happen is that term and surrounding discourse needs to be lifted out of, and taken away from the apologetic environment, and it needs to be reflected on historically, functionally and in engagement with the broader dialogue about theology proper. Others have pointed out that early Latter-day Saints often spoke of a Theology and made attempts to systematize or organize the doctrines. James E. Talmage in his Articles of Faith, begins his introduction with definition of theology and writes on the importance of theological study, “The value of theological knowledge, therefore, ought not to be underrated; it is doubtful if its importance can be overestimated.” (1984 ed., p.4). I’m sure other examples could be offered.
I agree with you that in these discussions, even in apologetic discourse, Latter-day Saint statements about theology do say something important about how they view the faith. Hopefully we will be able to navigate the various arguments to come to a better understanding of the Mormon tradition, and a move away from apologetic may provide more openness to reflecting on these issues.
April 15, 2008 at 6:30 pm
aquinas:
You made some excellent points. I would further add that, for the most part, it is not mainstream Christians that attack Mormons for being “atheological” as much as many Mormons themselves proudly self-designate Mormonism as such. This is why I said that in describing our own tradition as atheological we do potential damage to our ability to engage in serious dialogue with the Tradition. I don’t care very much what critics say about Mormonism, as much as I care that I still have the capacity and the tools to dialogue with them, a capacity that I believe is undermined if I must consider my tradition to be strictly atheological.
I agree with you that the Apologists often do not engage in real dialogue and instead often resort to the same polemical attacks as critics of Mormonism. However, I do think that every tradition needs Apologetics, if for nothing else than to combat the tyranny of onesidedness that exists when critics go unanswered. However, apologetics, when properly employed, should be a tool of those engaged in dialogue in order to correct misinformation or misrepresentation, not a movement unto itself that monolithically seeks to defend the tradition purely for the sake of defense. If a group becomes defined solely as Apologist then by definition true dialogue is not possible.
This question of the place of theology in Mormonism is one that will be treated in a book I am editing (see the About the Author link on this site’s homepage). It’s a fascinating and difficult question that deserves more attention. You are right that early Mormonisms had no problem employing the term ‘theology’ in their rhetoric, but I wonder if they also did not mean something somewhat different than what theology means in the Christian Tradition. Now, as a professor of mine, Brian Birch, has pointed out, the word “theology” is often used in Mormon theological discourse as a rhetorical device for pointing to or discussing “doctrine,” but not in the same way it is traditionally used. I am sympathetic with the view that the way Mormons talk about their religion fits well with post-liberal narrative theologies rather than systematic theology. However, we systematize our doctrine all the time in order to understand it (usually informally). I see nothing wrong with this activity in order to clarify doctrinal issues, but I would also point out that there are many different kinds of systems. I would follow A.N. Whitehead’s “event-based” system as a viable way of “doing” Mormon theology because it is an open system, able to receive novel issues and ideas, rather than a closed and complete system. This would seem to fit more in line with the revelatory theology that Mormons embrace. I should do another post on this later to clarigy.
April 16, 2008 at 11:28 pm
I appreciate the feedback. Apologetics does have value so I don’t mean to suggest apologetics as an enterprise has no place. However, generally speaking, I find apologetics to be inherently in-house communication, rather than directed towards one’s out-group. Though it may even seem to be directed towards those outside of one’s faith tradition, it rarely has any effect on that group. One may point to the various debates often engaged in by apologists. However, these debates are spectacle and serve to strengthen the convictions of adherents whose beliefs are being attacked. The rebuttal however is often unconvincing and unpersuasive to those on the outside. In other words, critics may be answered for the sake of adherents but not for the sake of winning over someone outside the tradition, or in helping others to more accurately understand the faith. There are exceptions to this general characterization, but I find they are few and far between. One of the challenges of dialogue is that groups have been locked in an apologetic mode for so long that they lack the tools and a proper paradigm to effectively engage with other faith traditions, should they choose to do so. It really requires a new paradigm.
I look forward to the book you mention. You are quite right to point out that while early Latter-day Saints may employ the term ‘theology’ they may do so in ways different from how it is historically used in the Christian tradition. This is why I believe including a functional analysis would be useful. In other words, one should look beyond the terms employed and look at the function of the writings or the reasoning behind it. Indeed, this may be a good example where Latter-day Saints interested these issues would benefit from a larger discussion about theology and systematic theology proper, especially if they have had little exposure to historical treatments of Christian theology, and the critiques of these approaches by Christians themselves, so that we might be on the same page when discussing strengths and drawbacks of a particular theological endeavor.
October 22, 2009 at 6:15 pm
I suppose the question might involve how two parties can learn to disagree. I must admit the rigidity sanctioned under the rubric of religion would not be acceptable in other domains. Perhaps this means there is a larger problem…