Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
CHRIST’S ATONEMENT AND THE GOSPEL OF RECONCILIATION: A DISCUSSION OF RELATIONAL IMPLICATIOSN FOR EVANGELICALS AND LATTER-DAY SAINTS Melody J. Wachsmuth
I remember how I was taught to feel about Mormons, growing up in a conservative Baptist Church. As popular lore of Mormon culture often focuses on seemingly bizarre temple rituals, sacred undergarments, and polygamous sects, so my perception was mired in a fluid foundation of fact and fiction. It is by virtue of this kind of framework that many Evangelicals feel appalled at the audacity of a Mormon to call him or herself a Christian. Dialoguing with Latter-day Saints over the past few years has challenged many of my past prejudices and assumptions regarding them and the nature of their beliefs. In the context of these academic and student dialogues, nothing so surprised me as the Latter-day Saints’ committed love for Christ and their priority on his atoning work necessary for salvation. If we share the salvific significance of Christ’s atoning work as being the critical core of our faith, how is one to think about the differences that create a vast chasm between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints? If we are both serving the same Lord and Savior, can we not participate in full Christian fellowship as a natural outcome of the gospel? Since Christ’s atonement renders us adopted children in the family of God, it therefore acts as a grand “leveler” of all ethnic, social, cultural, and gender barriers—a force of peace and reconciliation eclipsing all such obstacles. A cultural or religious practice that challenges this particular outcome of the gospel undermines the transformative power of the gospel itself, for the gospel is not just a message, but rather the “power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”1 These queries lead to the central question which provides the thrust for this discussion: Given the social implications arising from Christ’s atonement, what attitudes and practices from both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals are contextualized expressions of the gospel and
53
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
which are serious barriers which undermine the socially transformative effects of the gospel? With the assumption (and brief exposition) of the centrality of Christ’s atonement for both Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, this paper will explore the relationship between culture and the gospel using the Jew/Gentile circumcision conflict in the early church as a prototype. Although the social context is different, there are similar issues of culture and religious identity that provide an interesting comparison to the barriers between Later-day Saints and Evangelicals. Using this narrative as a framework, the discussion will explore the significance of the Mormon temple and the rituals connected with it to Latter-day Saints as well as resulting relational obstacles, erected by both Evangelicals and Latterday Saints. Finally, this paper will discuss implications, further questions, and points of further research and discussion for both Evangelicals and Latter-Day Saints.
Centrality of Christ and the Meaning of His Atonement
LDS Interpretation According to Mormon literature, scriptural books, and religious professors and scholars, LDS teachings have a profound emphasis on Christ.2 In fact, according to a statistical analysis conducted by Susan Easton Black, Jesus and/or his ministry is mentioned every 1.7 verses in the Book of Mormon.3 Although not all of said verses would be in accordance with an Evangelical understanding of Christ’s historical ministry, it is still significant to note the overwhelming Christocentric focus in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants both have numerous verses attesting to the significance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice and the necessity of faith in Him for salvation. 2 Nephi 2:6-8 testifies that “redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah…he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law…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…”.4 Doctrine and Covenants 76:40-42 is one example which highlights the prominence of Christ: “And this is the gospel, the glad tidings…That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness…that through him all might be saved…”.5 Robert Millet, a prominent LDS religious scholar, seeks to expand an outsiders’ understanding of LDS beliefs regarding Christ and salvation in some of his writings. In A Different Jesus, he asserts that the gospel is the good news of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, so that
54
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
anyone who believes and obeys him might be rescued from sin and death. Through God’s all-encompassing love exercised through Christ’s mediation and the Holy Spirit, the saints “are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.”6 How does one access this salvation available through the grace of Christ in LDS understanding? Millet states “faith, repentance, and baptism, will bring remission of sins through Jesus Christ.” This forgiveness of sins, and consequential sanctification and reception of the Holy Ghost is believed to be an act of grace alone; however, Millet emphasizes that authentic faith will be exhibited by faithfulness—to “do all in our power to put off the natural man and deny ourselves ungodliness.7 Ordinances and/or sacraments of salvation, a kind of conduit between heaven and earth, allow for an activation of this grace in order for a gradual purification to take place: baptism, confirmation of the Holy Ghost, the Lord’s supper, celestial marriage, and ordination to the priesthood. Bruce R. McConkie states that such “ordinance-rites” are necessary for salvation and exaltation.8 Apostle Dallin H. Oaks adds that LDS are “saved in the sense of being exalted through the receipt of temple ordinances.”9 Millet emphasizes that LDS believe that it is necessary to obey these ordinances to receive the full power of God.10 In conclusion, the atonement of Christ in LDS teachings is central; through Christ’s sacrifice, humans are saved from physical and spiritual death, sin, ignorance, and born again unto righteousness, and throughout their lives grow spiritually, through various means, in order to fully partake of God’s fullness.
Evangelical Perspective Like the LDS perspective, Evangelicals attest the power of Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection to atone for the sins of humanity and as the only way for salvation.11 Essentially, Evangelicals view sin as a breach of relationship caused by humanity’s rebellion against God, which therefore has affected the entire cosmos. Consequently, Christ’s atonement results in relational restoration: between God and humanity, humanity with each other, and humanity with the cosmos.12 In Romans 1:18-3:31, Paul moves his audience to a picture of God’s wrath against sinful humanity to the divine mercy exercised in Christ’s sacrifice, which, compelled by the immense love of God, repairs the breached relationship between God and humans.13
55
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
Joel Greene details four prominent themes in regards to the atonement. First, the human condition, as a result of the fall, is one of lostness and blindness, severed from relationship with God. Second, the atonement is essentially about God’s great love towards us; it was completely His initiative to move towards restoring the relationship. Third, we are saved not only from death, but also for life; thus, lifetransformation for the present is possible.14 Finally, according to Greene, the atonement has universal implications, involving not just an individual’s relationship with God, but human relationships with each other and with the cosmos itself.15 In conclusion, Evangelicals view Christ’s death and resurrection as a powerful victory both over death and in life. The atonement, a demonstration of God’s mercy and love towards lost humanity, results in justification, transformation, and renewal through the Holy Spirit, moving our status to adopted sons, daughters, and heirs of eternal life. This grace-induced identity transformation, the first-fruits of the kingdom to come, affects all areas of individual and community life, illustrating that reconciliation is inextricably intertwined with the power and effects of the gospel.
LDS and Evangelicals: the ripple effects of the gospel My views of LDS began to change as I engaged in the academic and student dialogues mentioned earlier. After my astonishment upon hearing their personal testimony regarding Christ’s atonement, the lens through which I was evaluating and processing began to shift. The shift continued through budding friendships, opportunities for “table fellowship,” and many conversations regarding life and beliefs. A mutual belief in Christ’s ability to reconcile humanity and God becomes the necessary foundation for a myriad of transformed relationships between two cultures. In fact, Christ’s very life demonstrates a precursor of this barrier eradication through His table fellowship with “taxgatherers and sinners,” interactions with social outcasts that included women, Samaritans, lepers, and Gentiles.16 Paul’s writings and the Acts narrative rarely speak directly of this concept of a horizontal reconciliation. Rather, through stories and teachings by Paul, one can see how New Testament writers understood that “in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.” 17 For example, 2 Corinthians 5 references the horizontal implications of Christ’s reconciling God and humanity. As we become a “new creation” in Christ, and as God has therefore entrusted us with this “ministry of reconciliation,” love compels us to cross barriers, no longer regarding anyone from a “human point of view” in order that all might be reconciled to God (5:16-21).
56
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
Ephesians 2 speaks to the deep religious and cultural divide between Jews and Gentiles, declaring Christ himself as the peace between the two groups: “in His flesh He has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us” (v. 14). Philemon, a brief letter from Paul to a slave owner, illustrates a radical new perspective on social barriers as he exhorts Philemon to welcome back Onesimus as a “beloved brother” rather than a slave (v. 16). This concept of unity on the basis of faith in Christ is by no means foreign to Latter-day Saints. In Mosiah 18 in the Book of Mormon, Alma, descendant of Nephi, was instructing his converts to preach only repentance and faith in the Lord. Thus, he commanded them that “there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another…thus they became children of God” (18:20, 21). Mosiah 27 proclaims the concept of being new creatures: “And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindred’s, tongues and people must be born again…being redeemed of God, becoming His sons and daughters” (27:25, 26). Bob Millet, in Claiming Christ, attests that one of the vital functions of the Church is to establish “unity in the faith” among its members and quotes Ephesians 4:5 which declares for people to hold to “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”18 With this focus on Christ’s atonement and our identity change as sons and daughters across all nations and cultures, what constitutes as a relational barrier and what is merely a cultural difference? When does culture become a hindrance to this implication of the gospel? Perhaps one of the first times the early church had to grapple with such questions was the deep division between Jew and Gentile Christ-followers caused by the question of circumcision. The barriers between the Jew and Gentile and LDS and Evangelicals have a common foundation: both groups were trusting Christ for their salvation.
Circumcision: Social Barrier or Religious Necessity?
Old Testament: Religious and Social Significance Circumcision was a rite that held deep religious and social meaning for the Jews. In Genesis 17, God first introduced it as a covenantal
57
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
rite, signifying God’s promises to Abram.19 Tet-Lim Yee attests that it is not only the “covenant sealer” but became “the sign that Israel belonged to the covenant with God and the guarantee of the blessing promised in the covenant.”20 Significantly, Romans 4 points out that although circumcision was the sign of the covenant, it did not render saving faith; rather, it was Abraham’s faith before circumcision that “was reckoned to him as righteousness” (vv. 9-12). Likewise, the many metaphorical references to circumcision in the Old Testament hint towards the deep symbolic nature of circumcision in relation to the communities’ ethics and relationship with God.21 For example, Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4 both command the Israelites to “circumcise the foreskin of your hearts” indicating that it is possible to have the physical mark of circumcision and yet disregard the symbolic meaning behind it. Because of such metaphorical references, biblical scholars have postulated that it must have been an “act of bodily purification and dedication,” a mandate to “live whole before God.”22 Circumcision’s social meaning appeared to have deepened over the years, particularly during the Greco-Roman time period. Greeks and Romans declared the practice barbaric and Antiochus Epiphanes declared it a capital offense in the second century BCE.23 Marion Sands attests that the outcome of this was “that circumcision became an indispensable manifestation of the Jewish religion, for which it was worth dying.”24 Although this might be a dramatic statement, certainly circumcision was a kind of “confessional sign” during this time of persecution and reinforced both its social and religious significance, as a protective boundary from foreign influence and as a marker of the Jewish community.25
New Testament: Conflict and New Identity Markers With this historical background, it is understandable that circumcision was such a significant issue in the early church. Regardless of its actual intended meaning ordained by God, by the time of the early church, circumcision had a profound vertical and horizontal meaning; it both depicted God’s covenant with a particular people and served as a ethno-religious boundary marker to the rest of the world. Interestingly enough, the New Testament does not condemn circumcision as a rite for the Jews; in fact, Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul were all circumcised. Rather, the problem seems to be a physical rite taking precedence over the new creation. In Galatians, Paul emphasizes this point through his unadulterated focus on Christ: “For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything!” (6:14, 15). Acts 15 portrays one of the first clashes between culture and the gospel, challenging the deep, historic identity markers regarding belongingness to God. Significantly, at the council, Paul argues on the basis of
58
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
faith in the grace of Jesus that no further religious mandate was necessary for full fellowship: “And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us” (15:8, 9). The council’s consequential agreement to Paul’s case illustrates the early church’s wrestling with the gospel’s implications on culture and relationships.26 In fact, the matter is not clear cut, as the instructions Paul and Barnabas carried back to the Gentiles in Antioch included abstaining from blood and things strangled.27 Strong makes an interesting point that this compromise is an illustration of cultures rubbing up against each other under the umbrella of the gospel. Luke’s narrative was not mandating that Jews cease becoming Jews or that Gentiles cease becoming Gentiles. Rather, as faith in Christ was the only thing necessary for salvation, as a result, scripture, love, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit became the catalysts by which to address cultural practices that would interfere with the gospel implications. The Gentile concessions seem to indicate that freedom, love, and self-sacrifice for the sake of fellowship are inextricably interwoven together and closely tied to the implications of the gospel’s horizontal scope. The Gentiles were not forced to adopt a Jewish ritual in order to be saved, but neither were they absolved from social interaction, thereby prioritizing “harmonious fellowship over individual freedom” that would exclude, even if cultural practices were specific to a certain groups’ ethno-religious identity.28 The circumcision issue, in the New Testament, then, seems to be an important issue by which to understand the interaction between culture and the gospel. Although faith in Christ is the only prerequisite to becoming adopted into the family of God, one’s culture can stand as a barrier to enjoying full fellowship within this newly created family. Although rites and rituals according to culture are not negated, love and unity seem to take precedence over freedom. Gentiles do not become Jews, and Jews do not become Gentiles; rather, everyone’s primary identity is changed. It is these contextual implications that challenge both Evangelical attitudes toward LDS and some of LDS ordinances and rituals, such as the role of the temple, which stand as a barrier between the two groups.
59
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
The Temple: Historical and Present Meanings Growing up evangelical near a large LDS temple in Oregon, its significance presented an intriguing mystery. What actually transpired behind the doors where I was not allowed? Undoubtedly, if I would have asked a LDS, it would have been explained to me, but instead my conceptions lay somewhere between fanciful conjecture and ignorant speculation.
The temple: its historical meaning and progression What meaning does the temple and its rituals have in both the doctrinal and the everyday life of a LDS? Does it distort or contribute meaning to the gospel or is it merely cultural practices that differ from Evangelical expressions of Christianity? Before one can understand its doctrinal significance in the lives of Saints today, it is necessary to understand how temple ordinances unfolded through the revelations of Joseph Smith. This brief historical perusal is hardly comprehensive of the temple’s meanings and rituals, but it will focus on the development of endowment ceremonies and rites as well as the priesthood. Joseph Smith’s understanding of the temple’s function expanded markedly over a decade of revelations. It metamorphosed from a place for the Lord to return in Independence, to an administrative office, school, meeting house, and first rituals in Kirtland, and finally, to a much more elaborate ceremonial focus including baptism for the dead, endowments, and priesthood marriages in Nauvoo.29 Richard Bushman, a historian who has written an extensive biography of Joseph Smith, refers to Joseph’s revelations in 1832 as the “exaltation” revelations, and relates how Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith received instruction regarding levels of heaven and who could be saved. Although Bushman mentions that priesthood was already a part of Joseph’s theology, this revelation cemented its importance, particularly the importance of the Melchizdek priesthood. Bushman argues that in every age priesthood has the distinct function of bringing people into the presence of God, and it was this concept that was so revolutionary during this time period because of its contrast to the perception of the rather “distant” God that was characteristic of certain Evangelical circles.30 During the next four years, Joseph introduced the rituals, as given by revelation, necessary to develop this channel between the Divine and the mortal. The concept of “fullness” became an accepted part of the Saints’ vocabulary, highlighting an emphasis on exaltation. In other words, instead of a focus on “making peace with God,” it moved to becoming like God.31 The first washings and anointings took place in the Kirtland temple in 1836, and endowment32 ceremonies included: solemn
60
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
assemblies for receiving instruction, washing and anointing, a sealing ritual, sharing the sacrament, use of ritual gestures and language, washing of feet, and spiritual power encounters.33 The development of these ceremonies and rituals to accomplish gospel ordinances, Bushman argues, really displays a more liturgical approach to holiness. Rather than attempting to verbally convict of sin, as was the case in Evangelical circles, he “relied upon the power of ritual to arouse their spirits.”34 During this time, the function of the priesthood also became established. In 1835, the concept of the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthood was expanded upon (Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] Section 107). Significantly, those who belonged to the Melchizedek priesthood held “the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church, to have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them…and to enjoy the communion and presence of God…” (vv.18, 19). Also during 1836, according to one of Joseph’s visions, the Lord descended on the Kirtland temple accompanied by different prophets in order to offer over their keys of authority and dispensations. Significant in this vision was the prophet Elias who proffered the dispensation of Abraham, saying, “that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed” (D&C 110:12). It was partially this promise through which the concept of celestial marriage was introduced, as Bruce McConkie states: “[in temples] faithful couples enter into the ordinance of celestial marriage through which they become parties to the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of eternal increase, the covenant that in them and in their seed all generations shall be blessed.”35
Purpose of Temple Ordinances In view of this historical progression, according to Latter-day Saints, what is the purpose of the temple and its ordinances? Bob Millet attests that the temple, priesthood, and ordinances are essential, but not for reasons that most Evangelicals assume. First, he defines an ordinance, naming it as a “law, statute or commandment, a means of ordering things.” Basically, he depicts the temple ordinances as tools that maintain order. He describes their purpose as a medium of divine grace between heaven and earth, whereby God can bestow knowledge, understanding, and power.36 In A Different Jesus, he uses more poignant language to describe the temple and its ordinances as “the highest channel of grace, indeed, the culminating channel, the means by which men and women are endowed with power from on high.”37 These ordinances serve as extensions and reminders of the Lord’s infinite and eternal
61
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
atonement, and, in fact, Millet states that each ordinance is focused on Christ. While emphasizing their indispensability, he also asserts that it is not the practice themselves which renders an individual the “highest form of salvation or exaltation” but they represent and symbolize the covenants with Christ, a covenant of salvation wrought by Christ.38 In Claiming Christ he says it this way: “Ordinances are not essential because they supplement in any way what our Redeemer did for us on the cross, but rather they manifest, complement, complete, and round out my faith.”39 Millet holds, then, that his salvation is in Christ alone, and yet the temple ordinances are a necessary component of his faith as a representation and a way of ordering his commitment to the covenant and are necessary for the fullest exaltation in the celestial realm. Although he states that the LDS Church is a custodian of the fullness of the gospel of God, thereby rendering these ordinances authoritative, he also asserts that the LDS Church believes that anyone who believes in Jesus and strives to live in accordance with his teachings is a Christian. If this is the case, opportunity for full exaltation will be given to every such person in the afterlife. Millet’s distinctions seem to portray a salvation through Christ alone, but the fullest exaltation in the hereafter is at least partially dependent on temple practices. This doctrine of rites necessary to salvation and exaltation is echoed from other Latter-day Saints. Bruce McConkie differentiates between ordinance-commandments and ordinance-rites, describing that the smaller circle of ordinance-rites are formed within the larger sphere of commandments. In this description, he asserts that most, but not all, rites are necessary to salvation and exaltation in the celestial kingdom.40 It is in the fullness of the temple ordinances, McConkie relates, that “we receive the fullness of the priesthood and are ordained kings and priests.41 Despite the significance of temple ordinances, they are not divorced from an obedience and inner submission to God’s commandments. Elder Charles W. Penrose describes the “something more” that extends beyond mere acquiescence to temple practices: “It is the Spirit that comes from our Father to dictate us in every act, to make us righteous and holy unto the Lord, and to sanctify us and bring us into complete subjection to, and harmony with, the laws that govern the celestial kingdom.” President Joseph Fielding Smith specifies that temples are for the pure in heart “who have proved themselves by faithful service worthy of the blessings of exaltation.”42 In conclusion, temple practices and rituals are not intended to be merely physical acts that obtain the fullest expression of salvation. Although the practice of temple ordinances and priesthood cannot be separated from faith in Christ and sanctification, it does seem to create an expanded methodology for becoming a son and daughter of God. The
62
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
temple practices and rituals vitally deepen and expand a Latter-day Saint’s experience with God in faith and practice. However, does it also create a circumcision-like barrier preventing the transformative social implications of the gospel? Temple: A Circumcision Barrier?
Comparisons and Contrasts In order to engage with underlying ethics and truths relating to the circumcision debate as applied to temple ordinances, it is necessary to compare and contrast the two in order to understand the strengths and weaknesses of this comparison. Historically speaking, the need to be circumcised was a question arising from past religious and social identity markers confronting a new religio-historical phenomenon. In some ways, one could say the same about the temple rites, albeit applied differently. With the rise of Protestantism in the sixteenth century and the emergence of Evangelicalism in the eighteenth century, the identity marker of a Christian was a professed faith in Christ alone. The new religio-historical phenomenon of Mormonism in the nineteenth century challenged some of those traditional identity markers in its claim to be the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. Interestingly enough, there is a historical and religious link between certain temple rites and circumcision in regards to the Abrahamic covenant. As established earlier, circumcision could be understood as a “covenant sealer” to the Abrahamic covenant. Bruce McConkie also makes a connection to Abraham, whose seed will bless all the nations, and the rite of celestial marriage, performed in the temple. However, there is a distinctive difference in the connection; circumcision is thought to be a covenant marker, where McConkie seems to indicate that celestial marriage is a fulfillment of the promised covenant. There is also a substantial similarity in regards to the hollowness of ritual without an inner purity or intent. The references to an “innercircumcision” in both the Old and New Testaments make it quite clear that there was nothing salvific or purifying in the physical act itself. Likewise, LDS writings make it clear that temple rites and rituals, although necessary for the fullest expression of salvation, are hollow without both faith in Christ and an appropriate internal intent. As stated before, religious proponents for both practices claim[ed] faith in Christ and both practices are linked to salvation in Christ. However, the significance of circumcision and temple rites are
63
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
not the same in their respective contexts. On one hand, circumcision was being argued as necessary for salvation in addition to faith in Christ. On the other hand, temple rites are not necessary for salvation itself, but the fullest expression of salvation. Regardless of this qualitative difference, however, the proposed vertical meaning of both practices inherently challenges the horizontal implications of the gospel. Paul recognized the seriousness of this and therefore took the debate to the heart of the early Christian church: the apostles and elders situated in Jerusalem. The resolution and decision of this conflict significantly shaped the gospel’s relationship to culture, seeming to imply that the full fellowship as sons and daughters in Christ takes precedence over cultural and religious distinctions. In conclusion, although there are differences, one can see similar historical, social, and religious identity-meanings between circumcision and temple practices, therefore rendering principles drawn from the circumcision debate as potentially relevant and poignant to the temple discussion.
Analyses and Questions In light of these comparisons and contrasts, then, it should be noted that the most significant objection to circumcision was not its past or present significance, but its present relationship to the gospel. Even a rite that had held such tremendous social and religious meaning in Jewish history, and, in fact, was inaugurated by God himself, paled in comparison to the startling social implications of faith in Christ. Herein lies a question confronting temple rites: if God, by “cleansing their [Gentiles] hearts by faith” thereby making no distinction between the two groups, why would He then create distinction through the revelations given to Joseph Smith? 43 Three issues could possible confront the validity of this question for a Latter-day Saint. First, it seems to be uncertain when the apostasy actually occurred in the first few centuries of the early church, according to the LDS view. In view of this, would the Latter-day Saints recognize the outcome of the circumcision debate as authoritative in regards to its implications for culture and the gospel? This raises the second question that stands as a recognized point of difference between Evangelicals and LDS: the question of authority. Does the importance of ongoing revelation for Saints negate the importance of this debate? If so, how does the LDS church understand this narrative in Acts as well as the many expositions of it in Paul’s letters? Thirdly, this question may seem moot to a Latter-day Saint because of their belief in the opportunity in the next life to accept the full gospel. In this perspective, the Evangelical inability to attain the highest level of the celestial heaven is not a true barrier to fellowship because
64
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
that Evangelical may indeed attain that level after physical death. However, this is a kind of esoteric solution to the problem. Although there are certainly many eschatological passages in the Bible which point to a final fulfillment of Christ’s reign in which peoples from all nations will be gathered to the Holy City, the New Testament narratives and letters certainly seem to grapple with social and religious barriers in the present as well.44 In other words, although the LDS view offers hope for the future, there is no way in this present life to eradicate the barriers erected by certain temple rites like celestial marriage unless one adopts these as necessary for exaltation. In view of Paul’s writings, it would seem that therefore this is an unacceptable barrier. On the Evangelical side, however, Acts 15 also raises some significant questions that should stimulate discussion regarding attitudes toward LDS temple practices. First, it should be noted again that the Gentiles were indeed given some instructions. Although scholars debate the significance of these instructions, it does seem probable that at least part of the instructions were related to fostering social harmony for the sake of the gospel. In other words, Gentiles were asked to adopt some practices that were foreign to their culture for the priority of peace and fellowship. However, this paper is not implying that Evangelicals should adopt some of the temple rituals for the sake of fellowship with LDS. This literal conclusion would not honor Latter-day Saint beliefs or the underling message of the narrative. Rather, the sacrifice, love, and understanding depicted in Gentile obedience to these instructions challenge some Evangelical attitudes toward Latter-day Saint beliefs that border on harsh critique, fear, and deep suspicion. Although the text does not say if the Gentiles themselves would have understood the reason for the stipulations, in reality Gentiles and Jews lived amongst each other and most Gentiles would have been aware of their inability to share table fellowship with committed Jews. This cultural knowledge is something that many Evangelicals lack in regards to LDS temple practices, instead relying on pop culture or media by which to understand the actuality and meaning behind the rituals. The love and sacrifice implied in the Gentile stipulations in regards to Jewish culture challenges these Evangelical assumptions and lack of knowledge. In turn, this leads to a question that can certainly be an imposed barrier by Evangelicals. Is it necessary, in an Evangelical perspective, for a LDS to completely leave the church and all the temple ordinances in order for an Evangelical to regard a LDS as a Christian? If a LDS professes and exhibits a transformative faith in Christ, how should an Evangelical view him/her? If an Evangelical does require completely leaving the LDS Church as a prerequisite for salvation and fellowship, is this not also op-
65
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
posing the implications of the circumcision debate? These questions seem to require further dialogue, of which would take into account both perspectives. Conclusions This discussion establishes serious concerns regarding the rites and ordinances of temple practices, not by virtue of the practices themselves, but by the potential barriers they erect which seem to challenge the reconciliation implications inherent Christ’s atonement. However, this discussion’s weakness must be acknowledged: many assumptions and speculations were made regarding LDS’ understanding of certain New Testament scriptures. In addition, this subject matter also opens another host of questions that need further research. One central question that emerges out of this discussion is how LDS view the relationship between culture and the gospel. Is it possible for a Mormon to engage in temple practices as something that fosters, enriches, and completes their faith without imposing this on Evangelicals as necessary for full salvation? How can an Evangelical understand the LDS culture more extensively in light of their own acknowledged cultural barriers? What criteria should be used, in light of both Evangelical and LDS spiritual claims, in the discussion of the gospel’s relationship to culture? Finally, can Evangelicals learn from this intense dedication and commitment to God’s ordinances although actual ordinances may differ? To the psalmist in Psalm 119, such love and dedication to God’s ordinances is part of his very breathing: “My soul is consumed with longing for your ordinances at all times” (v. 20). Does our Reformation-informed fear of a “works-based” salvation cause us to erect barriers that are both unnecessary and prevent authentic dialogue? In conclusion, although Evangelicals would view a horizontal reconciliation as an inextricable effect of the gospel, we also need to be willing to listen, learn, and understand a faith and its surrounding culture on its own terms.
1
Romans 1:16, New Revised Standard Edition. LDS have four volumes that they consider scripture: the Bible (KJV), Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. 3 Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott, Claiming Christ: A MormonEvangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007), 53. 2
4
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Latter-day Saints, 1981).
5
The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT: The Church of Latter-day Saints, 1981). 6
Robert L. Millet, A Different Jesus?: The Christ of the Latter-day Saints (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), 90, 118. 7 Ibid., 100, 97.
66
Sacred Tribes Journal
Volume 7 Number 1 (2012): 54-69 ISSN: 1941-8167
8
Robert L. Millet and Gerald R. McDermott, Claiming Christ: A MormonEvangelical Debate (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007), 146. 9 Millet, A Different Jesus, 104. 10 11
Millet and McDermott, Claiming Christ, 147. Acts 4:12; John 14:6.
12
Joel B. Greene and Mark D. Baker, Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New Testament and Contemporary Context (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 96. 13 Andrew H. Trotter, Jr., Atonement. In Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, edited by W. A. Elwell. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 45. 14 Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, 112, 113. 15 Joel B. Greene, “Atonement,” in The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1: A-C, edited by Katherine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006), 347. 16 For example, Luke 19:1-10; Mark 5:21-34; Luke 7:1-10; John 4:1-42; Luke 7:36-50. 17 Galatians 3:26. 18 Millet and McDermott, Claiming Christ, 139. 19 Marion L. Sands, “Circumcision,” in The New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1: A-C, 668. 20
Tet-Lim N. Yee, Jews, Gentiles, and Ethnic Reconciliation: Paul's Jewish and identity and Ephesians (Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 79. 21 Sands, “Circumcision,” 668. 22 John Goldingay, “The Significance of Circumcision,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 88 (2000): 3-18. 23 1 Maccabees 1:41-50, NRSV. 24 Sands, “Circumcision,” 669. 25 Yee, Jews, Gentiles, and Ethnic Reconciliation, 80. 26
David K. Strong, “The Jerusalem Council: Some Implications for Contextualization,” in Mission in Acts: Ancient Narratives in Contemporary Context, edited by Robert L. Gallagher and Paul Hertig (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004), 197. 27 David Strong postulates several viewpoints in regards to this. First, he notes that many commentators explain it as instructions concerning Jewish ritual law so that Gentiles could enjoy table fellowship with Jews as well as avoiding ritual defilement that would also prevent close relationship. However, he also notes that the commands to abstain from fornication and idolatry were significant, so he concludes that the mandate also had to do with avoiding pagan wor-
67
Wachsmuth: Christ’s Atonement and the Gospel of Reconciliation
ship, thereby maintaining a witness before the Jewish and Gentile world (203, 204). 28 Strong, “The Jerusalem Council,” 204. 29
Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Vintage Books, 2007), 448. 30 Ibid., 201-203. See also Doctrine and Covenants, 76. 31 Ibid., 210. 32 According to The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “An Endowment generally is a gift, but in a specialized sense it is a course of instruction, ordinances, and covenants given only in dedicated temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Alma P. Burton, “Endowment,” The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Endowment (accessed 8 February 2012). An 1830 revelation of this particular endowment process was long awaited by the Saints, as they did not actually receive this spiritual power until 1836. The Saints believed that this endowment would fuel their work: missionary endeavors, gatherings, and Zion (Bushman, 309). Brigham Young said: “Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the sings and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation.” See Brown, Matthew B., The Gate of Heaven: Insights on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, Inc. 1999), 293. 33 Brown, The Gate of Heaven, 209. 34 Bushman, Joseph Smith, 314. 35 Brown, The Gate of Heaven, 214. 36 Millet, Claiming Christ, 145, 146. 37 Millet, A Different Jesus?, 11. 38 Ibid., 111, 112. 39 Millet, Claiming Christ, 145. 40 Ibid., 146. 41 Brown, The Gate of Heaven, 255. 42 Ibid., 249, 250. 43 See Acts 15:8, 9. 44 See Isaiah 2.
68