What is an evangelical? The label has been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last few decades-with the word becoming more and more elastic. Those who have argued for a tight, theological definition (primarily those evangelicals with Reformed sympathies) have found themselves in the minority. Oxford theologian Alister McGrath, although sympathetic with these concerns, admits that this approach is unacceptable. Why? "It is a simple matter of fact that any theologically rigorous definition of evangelicalism tends to end up excluding an embarrassingly large number of people who regard themselves, and are regarded by others, as Evangelicals." Instead, as argued by such evangelicals as Donald Dayton (who writes out of an Arminian tradition), the term should be defined in other ways (with the not-so-subtle suggestion that the Reformed folks should now be perceived as being on the periphery given the way Evangelicalism is presently constituted). The term, we are repeatedly told, must be defined in such a way as to gain wide acceptance across the evangelical landscape. Following the lead of the British historian David Bebbington, Wesley scholar Kenneth Collins recently attempted to describe the major features of Evangelicalism in terms of four key characteristics. Taken together, these four things constitute what it means to be an evangelical: The normative value of Scripture, the necessity of conversion, the cruciality of the atoning work of Christ, and the imperative of evangelism. Well now, is everybody happy? We finally have a definition that everyone across the broad spectrum of Evangelicalism can agree on-or can we?
Which brings me Robert L. Millet, who writes a book, published by an evangelical publisher, carrying glowing endorsements from high-profile evangelicals, including a foreword and an afterword by Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary. Millet is a Mormon and a professor in the Religious Studies Department at Brigham Young University. He is described by the evangelicals associated with this book as a gracious, honest, sincere, and passionate man of faith. Mouw portrays him not only as a close friend but as a person of great integrity. Mouw, who admits a certain degree of nervousness in his appreciation for what Millet has written (182) nonetheless, with true evangelical ethos, finds Millet's personal testimony very compelling. What would move an evangelical Calvinist like Mouw to embrace Millet, a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon, not only as a good friend, but as a fellow Christian (evangelical)? He says in his afterword that he personally is convinced "that Bob Millet is in fact trusting in the Jesus of the Bible for his salvation" (183).
Millet uses very "evangelical"-sounding words and phrases to convey his convictions, all of which Mouw says he takes at face value. He speaks of "trusting" only in Jesus for his acceptance with God, or "I love the Lord," and "how completely I trust him," and of his "heartfelt acceptance of Jesus." He also sounds a lot like your typical garden-variety evangelical when it comes to accenting the love of God. He says,
Our God is the God of all creation, an infinite, eternal, and omni-loving Being who will do all that He can to lead and direct, to bring greater light into the lives of His children, to save as many as will be saved. He is the only true God and thus the only Deity who can hear and respond to the earnest petitions of His children. He is the God of the Catholics, the Protestants, the Buddhists, the Hindus, and all those who seek to know and love and offer praise and adoration to the true and living God. I have been a Latter-day Saint all my life, but I do not in any way believe the Almighty loves Latter-day Saints any more than He loves Anglicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Jews, or Muslims. He loves us all, and is pleased with any and every halting effort on our part to learn of Him, serve Him, and be true to the light within us. (63, 95)
Except for that last remark, what more could you ask from any professing evangelical?
Well, Millet's book deals with more than just his personal testimony about how much Jesus means to him (and I don't doubt his sincerity). He is unapologetic in his defense of Mormon theology. To begin with, he explicitly rejects the cardinal doctrine of the Trinity, candidly admitting that Mormonism believes in "Three distinct Gods" who are "three distinct personages, three Beings, three separate Gods." In layman's language this is polytheism pure and simple. He acknowledges that if an acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity is essential to being a Christian, then of course Latter-day Saints are not Christian, for they believe the doctrine of the Trinity, as expressed in modern Protestant and Catholic theology, is the product of the reconciliation of Christian theology and Greek philosophy (171). This is a rather incredible claim coming from someone who should know better. He demonstrates throughout the book that he is widely read in evangelical literature, and does not hesitate to tell us so.
True to standard Mormon claims, Millet vigorously contends that after the first century-the authority and power to act in God's name "was lost" (40), until it was recovered in the early nineteenth century by Joseph Smith. This refrain is played over and over again. Only Mormons possess the fullness of the gospel, and of course, Joseph Smith is given exalted status as The Prophet and Apostle of God, and his chosen instrument for restoration of the gospel and the true Church of Christ (58, 158). Which brings us to the crux of the matter, who is the Christ of Mormonism? Despite Millet's insistence that his Jesus is the same one that we met in the pages of the New Testament, it is the other scriptures of Mormonism that define him. This Jesus was born, "as we all were, the spirit children of the Father" (20). This Jesus is a spirit brother of Lucifer (21). This Jesus is the Christ of Joseph Smith and is considered absolutely foundational to Mormonism (39). It is conceded that the Christ of "traditional" Christianity and the Christ of Mormonism are very different, and in substantial ways. Why? Because the Christ of orthodox Christianity is rooted in theological creeds, while the Christ of Mormonism "comes from the witness of a prophet-Joseph Smith" (174). Contrary to Millet's claim that Christ is the central figure in the doctrine and practice of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, by his later admission, holds that place of honor. In fact, without Joseph Smith, there is no Mormonism. The Jesus of Mormonism is distinctively the Christ of Joseph Smith. The two cannot be separated.
Likewise, the gospel of Mormonism is radically different from the gospel that evangelicals have embraced. Sola Fide, the material principle of the Reformation and the doctrine Luther rightly called "the article by which the church stands and falls" is outrightly rejected. In its place is erected an elaborate system of "principles" (24), which are described in Millet's words as, "obedience to Laws essential to salvation" (22).
Millet has no hesitancy in declaring that Mormonism rejects any concept of total depravity (84), as well as the critically important doctrine of original sin (86). In fact, Millet presents what only can be called a full-blown Pelagian concept of grace (this is woven through the book). Like Pelagius, Millet (quoting from Mormon texts 2 Nephi 31:19 and Moroni 6:4) says, "We must work to our limit, and then rely upon the merits, mercy, and grace of the Holy One of Israel …(69, my emphasis). Like Pelagius, Millet underscores Mormon belief that children are born innocent. Like Pelagius, Millet teaches the Mormon doctrine that all human beings have "the (innate) capacity" to be saved, and to "strive to do what we can (his emphasis) do" to secure salvation. The effects of the Fall, in his words, only "tend to entice humankind away from God" (103, my emphasis). Like Pelagius, Joseph Smith, the central figure in Mormonism, taught that there is no transfer, or imputation, of Adam's sin and guilt to his posterity. This is so central to Mormonism that it is listed as one of the thirteen Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The critically important Creator/creature distinction is likewise discarded. The distance between God and man, he says, "is still tremendous, almost infinite" (144, my emphasis). Millet graciously allows for some sort of salvation for non-Mormons, but only Mormons who have been baptized by the "proper authority," will gain entrance into "the highest heaven" (49).
Not surprisingly, Sola Scriptura is likewise rejected while the absolute truthfulness and trustworthiness of The Book of Mormon is wholeheartedly affirmed. (151). However, Millet says, "We do not believe in prophetic or apostolic infallibility" (XIV). Does this mean that Millet is willing to admit that the Mormon Scriptures contain theological errors? Hardly. Millet is concerned here with the kind of embarrassing statements that Mormon prophets Joseph Smith and Brigham Young made off the record, so to speak. Things like Smith's claim that the moon was populated by people who dressed like Quakers, or Young's equally absurd declaration that the Sun was inhabited-or even more embarrassing, Brigham Young's doctrine of "Adam-God." Millet labels these kinds of things "extraneous" and as such, have no bearing on Mormon doctrine, which is restricted to the official standards of the LDS Church. But Millet finds himself in a bit of a bind with this kind of distinction. In a genuine attempt to be irenic and sensitive to Christians outside the camp, Millet feels constrained to put the best spin possible on Joseph Smith's claims that God personally told him, in reference to all other churches that "all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt"-a very harsh indictment and something Millet tries mightily to soften.
Although Millet is forthright in admitting that he has "no desire whatsoever to compromise, or concede one whit on doctrine in order to minimize differences, or court favor in anyway" (166), he is nonetheless anxious that evangelicals come to view Mormons simply as Christians with their own particular "tradition."
Millet briefly addresses issues that in the last few years have cast serious doubts about the credibility of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. Two of these require special mention: First, modern advances in the study of human DNA have conclusively shown that Native Americans are of Asiatic ancestry and not, as the Book of Mormon teaches, of Jewish ancestry. Second, the recent discovery of the "Joseph Smith papyri" demonstrated that Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham (which is part of Mormon scripture) was a hoax (the document was an excerpt from an Egyptian book of the dead). Press reports of this proved extremely embarrassing to Mormons, but evidently not to Millet. Both of these legitimate concerns are summarily dismissed as having no merit (153-157).
Millet closes by once again seeking to establish his Christian credentials by means of his personal testimony. He relates a conversation he had with "two prominent" evangelical theologians. After discussing their differences, one of the two evangelicals asked,
"Okay Bob, here's the question of questions, the one thing I would like to ask in order to determine what you really believe." I indicated that I thought I was ready for his query, though I readily admit that his preface to the question was a bit unnerving. He continues, "You are standing before the judgment bar of the Almighty, and God turns to you and asks, 'Robert Millet, what right do you have to enter heaven? Why should I let you in?'" I looked my friend in the eye and replied, "I would say to God: 'I claim the right to enter heaven because of my complete trust in reliance upon the merits and mercy and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.'" My questioner stared at me for about ten seconds, smiled gently, and said: "Bob, that's the correct answer to the question." (178)
The impression Millet wishes to leave is that this totally satisfied the two evangelicals about the genuineness of his profession. But it didn't. David F. Wells was one of the two men. The other was fellow faculty member at Gordon-Conwell theological seminary, Haddon Robinson (who asked Millet that question). They did not drop the matter, nor were they completely satisfied with Millet's answer. They both continued to press him about his distinctive Mormon beliefs, particularly those centered around his Mormon Christology and soteriology. Unlike Mouw, Wells and Robinson were not convinced that Millet's beliefs were distinctively "Christian," despite his sincere testimony.
Our postmodern makeup demands tolerance (which has taken on an entirely different meaning than it once did), especially when it comes to distinctively religious matters. Senior evangelical statesman Donald Bloesch, in The Future of Evangelical Christianity: A Call For Unity Amid Diversity, warned, "In our striving for church unity, we must not lose sight of our mandate to counter doctrinal error, for nothing subverts the cause of unity more than a latitudinarianism which signifies giving up on real church unity in favor of mutual tolerance" (152).
Millet and evangelicals like Mouw want very much to engage in "civil discourse," or in Mouw's words, "We feel we can differ theologically with people without being disagreeable in any sense" (173). I agree-unless that implies that any criticism of Mormon claims to be Christian are automatically ruled out of bounds and labeled "anti-Mormon propaganda." Mouw rightly recognizes that these disagreements have "profound implications." One of us-either evangelical or Mormon) is preaching a false gospel. They are not the same gospel. However, Mouw does not consider Millet's Jesus "another Jesus" (2 Cor. 11:4), and his Mormon gospel "another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). I do.
Richard Mouw has over the years shown himself to be a confessional Calvinist who conscientiously identifies with the likes of Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, G. C. Berkouwer, and Anthony Hoekema. This makes it all the more surprising that he would, even with guarded qualifications here and there, leave his fellow Christians the mistaken impression that Millet's gospel (which is defined by his Mormonism) is a legitimate form of Christianity. Did he bother to consider the impact this could have on those Christians that would best be described as God's little ones and subject to being tossed to and fro by false doctrine (Eph. 4:4)? Mouw expressed concern about violating the ninth commandment by not giving Millet a fair hearing. After a careful reading of Millet's book, I am more than ever convinced that Millet's Mormonism is not Christianity, and that Mouw would think otherwise is inexplicable. In addition to his concerns about the ninth commandment, he should ponder seriously our Lord's words in Matthew 18:5,6.
