Is There A Place For Pastoral Apologetics In Mormonism?

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Dr. Tim Lane has an interesting take on apologetics. I found the following video quite moving as a concept and objective.

http://www.ccef.org/video/dr-tim-lane-pastoral-apologetics

Over the years, most of the efforts of LDS apologists I've witnessed tend to deal with an active defense of unique LDS claims, including the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon, a disconnect between the KEP and the BofA, literal Priesthood restoration, polygamy, etc.

While these are important issues to consider and perhaps even defend against critics, I'm curious if people connect with the concept of "pastoral apologetics" and to what extent (if at all) such an approach to those questioning LDS claims seems applicable to those actively engaged in the defense of Mormonism.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Also, assuming that there are posters that connect with this concept. How do you imagine this notion of pastoral apologetics would look in terms of online apologetic efforts and how would defenders of the faith apply this theme in interpersonal communication with critics and/or struggling members?

This is not a trick question. I connect with the idea and would like to apply it in my efforts, so I'm interested in what others have to say on the matter.

[mercyngrace]

I haven't watched the video because I just walked in from church but I will shortly.

Seeing this post on my phone in between meetings, I wanted to shout out loud... ABSOLUTELY!!!

Why bother to defend any evangelical faith if the intent doesn't include, at least implicitly, inviting others to share our position of belief?

Edited May 13, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Calm]

I don't have time to watch a video today...got church as soon as I can get moving and then grandkiddies....and they will keep me moving whether I want to or not, lol.

How about at least a definition of what pastoral apologetics is as opposed to traditional apologetics?

[coolrok7]

As a non-Mormon Christian I like the video as it gets to the heart of what pastoral care for the sheep in his care really deals with.

I also highly agree with the distinction between apologetics in the defense of the faith as compared with maintaining the personal faith of the individual within the Christian faith.

We (non-Mormon Christians) of course would not agree with Mormons and their apologetics for Mormonism but the principle could still apply with Mormons within the realm of their belief structure, if only in a temporal way.

[volgadon]

I haven't watched the video yet, but I can't seem to find an actual deifnition of "pastoral apologetics" online.

[Daniel Peterson]

If I'm understanding correctly what you mean by "pastoral apologetics," I would respond that, yes, there absolutely is a place for it in the Church.

And that there's not only a place for it, but it's being done.

Not always -- perhaps not often -- as well and as effectively as I would hope, but it's definitely being done.

I myself am engaged in it on a regular basis, in person, on the telephone, by letter, by email, and etc. The chief limitation, for me -- but it's a severe one -- is time. I'm very busy, and, more dramatically, I'm often on the road. And, to complicate it, I'm terribly disorganized, so that important things all too often get dropped.

The image that some are avidly peddling of people like me, that we love to marginalize and torment sincere doubters, that we lust to drive them from the Church, that we don't care about them as people, that this is nothing more than a cruel adolescent game for us, is simply not true, and quite unjust.

[mercyngrace]

I haven't watched the video yet, but I can't seem to find an actual deifnition of "pastoral apologetics" online.

Still haven't gotten to the video but I will in the next few minutes...

My definition would be using apologetics as a means of assisting others through doubt or faith crises, rather than just defending attacks from those who consider themselves ideological enemies -apologetics as shepherding rather than just shooting at wolves.

edit:

Best comment ever: You may win the argument and lose the person...

Edited May 13, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Daniel Peterson]

Sigh. I've just read, elsewhere, that when people struggling with honest doubts come to folks like me, they're "attacked, bullied, brutalized, and kicked to the curb."

This is, to put the most charitable possible reading on it, insane fantasy.

[Calm]

My definition would be using apologetics as a means of assisting others through doubt or faith crises, rather than just defending attacks from those who consider themselves ideological enemies -apologetics as shepherding rather than just shooting at wolves.

If so, then this is the majority of work that FAIR does, at least through the Ask the Apologist service. I don't know how we can keep track of if it is someone having a faith crisis or a critic who just visits the site.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I don't have time to watch a video today...got church as soon as I can get moving and then grandkiddies....and they will keep me moving whether I want to or not, lol.

How about at least a definition of what pastoral apologetics is as opposed to traditional apologetics?

When it comes to critics, I have found that oftentimes sarcastic attacks on Mormonism frequently derive from the fact that believing members and/or the Church have somehow hurt the critic and that the person is therefore seeking revenge.

I believe that “pastoral apologetics” is the solution to this issue.

I’m not trying to be critical because I think it's good organization, but FAIR, for example, engages in what Dr. Lane would define as “classical apologetics” meaning defending the faith claims against a critic through historical, philosophical, epistemological, or scientific data.

This effort certainly has its place, and I’m not trying to speak ill of FAIR or the apologetic side of the Maxwell Institute. But pastoral apologetics is an effort to win over a person who has come to espouse a view the apologist deems unorthodox to the position that the amazing grace of Christ and his goodness (insert Mormonism if you will) is something that the individual desperately needs in his or her life.

Lane defines those who may act out in anger and criticism against “the Church” as “fearful.” He maintains that it is tempting for defenders of the faith to confront such persons with classical apologetics, vigorously attacking the false beliefs that this “fearful” person has adopted. So the apologist engages in arguing against their knowledge of the KEP, the nature of Joseph’s polygamous relationships, DNA and the Book of Mormon, etc.

In so doing, we may, as Dr. Lane states, win the argument, but still lose the person because we haven’t engaged in pastoral apologetics.

Pastoral apologetics means that the apologist does not allow the critic’s arguments against the Church’s truth claims (no matter how offensive they may prove to the believer) to become the focus of the discussion. Instead, pastoral apologetics suggests that the defender of the faith keeps the non-believer or struggling member as the focus of his or her effort rather than countering the person’s heterodoxy.

The apologist continues to work with the critic with patience and love.

According to Lane, this approach may eventually at some point open doors of opportunity for the believer to “correct” the person’s orthodoxy, but that the first step towards helping others must be “pastoral” in nature. It’s easy for the apologist to get side tracked in trying to counter the critic's arguments without first loving the person.

This approach would mean, however, that the apologist would have to ignore in a sense questions regarding priesthood restoration, the KEP, the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon, etc. and instead focus upon love and the joy the person may experience in the Church in spite of the possibility that the historical claims of Mormonism may or may not be “true.”

So my question is “do you believe that this approach would work in Mormonism,” and if so, how might if affect the way apologists interact with critics and other Church members the apologist deems unorthodox?

[DBMormon]

Mr. Peterson,

While I have only heard good things about your assistance to some in faith crisis, there are many on here, who when faced with resistance to their help, assume the poster is a troll critic and begin to do just that... attacked, bullied and brutalized. for an example lookat the following thread http://www.mormondia...crisis__st__160

beginning with my comment at #165 and then shortly after due to my sarcasm, due to frustration in not feeling validated in my feelings, others begin to pile on me and team up to make assumptions of what I am and am not.

Not that perhaps I didn't deserve a little and had it coming, but it is up to us as saints to apply balm of gilead and not nails to a cross

Edited May 14, 2012 by reelmormon

[Aminadab]

This approach looks very promising to me. Although many ex-Mormons deny it, I think there is an element of estrangement from the community that goes hand in hand with a loss of faith. If the person first feels like the community is there for them, and able to help, then in time they may be ready to be guided back on the tough issues that classical apologetics has always excelled at.

Thanks for posting this, Cushan. I was so excited about this that I stopped lurking and registered.

[Calm]

When it comes to critics, I have found that oftentimes sarcastic attacks on Mormonism frequently derive from the fact that believing members and/or the Church have somehow hurt the critic and that the person is therefore seeking revenge.

I believe that “pastoral apologetics” is the solution to this issue.

I’m not trying to be critical because I think it's good organization, but FAIR, for example, engages in what Dr. Lane would define as “classical apologetics” meaning defending the faith claims against a critic through historical, philosophical, epistemological, or scientific data.

This effort certainly has its place, and I’m not trying to speak ill of FAIR or the apologetic side of the Maxwell Institute. But pastoral apologetics is an effort to win over a person who has come to espouse a view the apologist deems unorthodox to the position that the amazing grace of Christ and his goodness (insert Mormonism if you will) is something that the individual desperately needs in his or her life.

Lane defines those who may act out in anger and criticism against “the Church” as “fearful.” He maintains that it is tempting for defenders of the faith to confront such persons with classical apologetics, vigorously attacking the false beliefs that this “fearful” person has adopted. So the apologist engages in arguing against their knowledge of the KEP, the nature of Joseph’s polygamous relationships, DNA and the Book of Mormon, etc.

In so doing, we may, as Dr. Lane states, win the argument, but still lose the person because we haven’t engaged in pastoral apologetics.

Pastoral apologetics means that the apologist does not allow the critic’s arguments against the Church’s truth claims (no matter how offensive they may prove to the believer) to become the focus of the discussion. Instead, pastoral apologetics suggests that the defender of the faith keeps the non-believer or struggling member as the focus of his or her effort rather than countering the person’s heterodoxy.

The apologist continues to work with the critic with patience and love.

According to Lane, this approach may eventually at some point open doors of opportunity for the believer to “correct” the person’s orthodoxy, but that the first step towards helping others must be “pastoral” in nature. It’s easy for the apologist to get side tracked in trying to counter the critic's arguments without first loving the person.

This approach would mean, however, that the apologist would have to ignore in a sense questions regarding priesthood restoration, the KEP, the ancient authenticity of the Book of Mormon, etc. and instead focus upon love and the joy the person may experience in the Church in spite of the possibility that the historical claims of Mormonism may or may not be “true.”

So my question is “do you believe that this approach would work in Mormonism,” and if so, how might if affect the way apologists interact with critics and other Church members the apologist deems unorthodox?

I am not so sure how well it works online. If one ignores the questions being asked, generally one gets called on avoiding the questions and then communication gets cut off. Certainly it is often the best approach in my view in real life where the relationship should always be first and foremost in everyone's mind.

[Aminadab]

Yeah, I don't know how well it could work online. It seems to me that if it were, one would have to know up front the kind of place one was going for help. Obviously if someone showed up looking for a fight over Joseph Smith's polygamy, the pastoral apologetic environment would be confusing for them. But maybe that would be a good thing, eh?

One of the great things about this is that there seems to be a refusal up front to have a fight. But calmoriah has a point. If everyone were out there attempting this, it would probably look like everyone was just dodging. That's why there might have to be experimental efforts to get this off the ground. If people knew up front that they had landed at a place, or a dedicated forum, where the point would not be to prove Joseph really said or did "X," then some interesting and positive things may come out of it.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

This approach looks very promising to me. Although many ex-Mormons deny it, I think there is an element of estrangement from the community that goes hand in hand with a loss of faith. If the person first feels like the community is there for them, and able to help, then in time they may be ready to be guided back on the tough issues that classical apologetics has always excelled at.

Thanks for posting this, Cushan. I was so excited about this that I stopped lurking and registered.

Thank you. I too think it's an exciting concept. These are not original thoughts. This was also the term used by Richard Bushman to define the approach he believes is most effective.

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2008/07/preliminary-thoughts-on-2008-bushman.html

[CASteinman]

My comment does not get exactly at what OP was wanting to describe but I want to make it anyway because I notice a bit of imprecision in Dr. Lane's video.

He says "[in] Classical Apologetics you are trying to win the unbeliever, Pastoral Apologetics is [when] you are trying to win the believer". He amplifies this, saying that Pastoral Apologetics is where you are trying to convince the Christian that "the amazing grace of the gospel really is exactly what they need for growth and grace".

Up to there, I was with him -- and thinking "Pastoral Apologetics is heard constantly in the LDS Church -- Sunday School and General Conference being two prime examples".

But .. then he changed the focus and left his original definitions.

Now he introduces a new person -- not a believer, not an unbeliever, but a "fearful" person who he describes as being heterodox, with "loose" theology that is "poorly communicated" and that includes a lot of "bad theology". to the point where they "question God's character".

He then discusses "Pastoral Apologetics" as it relates to this person -- not an unbeliever, not a believer, but a fearful doubter full of negativity but not quite an enemy.

He says that correcting their technical errors is the method of Classical Apologetics -- and that it does not work with such people.

He then describes "Pastoral Apologetics" as building "relationship capital" with the person -- I would say he is simply saying to accept them and love them and deal with their emotional feelings first.

In my opinion, and based ONLY on this video, he is misusing the word "Apologetics" and describing something that goes on all the time under other names.

I don't mean that he has a bad point. And maybe his way of describing it is helpful to some people who counsel others. But I still think he is misuing the term "Apologetics".

I also think it is entirely possible to use this talk as an inappropriate and incorrect attack on what is called "classical apologetics" here.

Its ironic in a way, that a poor use of the word apologetics might get some traction to attack actual apologetics.

[CASteinman]

Mr. Peterson,

While I have only heard good things about your assistance to some in faith crisis, there are many on here, who when faced with resistance to their help, assume the poster is a troll critic and begin to do just that... attacked, bullied and brutalized. for an example lookat the following thread http://www.mormondia...crisis__st__160

beginning with my comment at #165 and then shortly after due to my sarcasm, due to frustration in not feeling validated in my feelings, others begin to pile on me and team up to make assumptions of what I am and am not.

Not that perhaps I didn't deserve a little and had it coming, but it is up to us as saints to apply balm of gilead and not nails to a cross

I am not sure I have seen your post #165, but I have seen nothing from you that indicates you had anything coming. But never mind that. I love this post of yours. Balm of Gilead is a good phrase for what is sometimes needed.

I am not the least bit sympathetic to the enemies of the Church or the Lord or the Gospel. I believe in firm, stout resistance against those who would damage the faith and hope of the Saints --- and I am perfectly happy to stand up to them.

But I am not quick to believe someone is trying to hurt the faith of the Saints merely because they have questions. Good grief! If that were true, then I would be guilty of hurting the Faith of the Saints -- and I never want to do that.

I am sorry that sometimes people who would style themselves "apologists" would be harsh to someone who is simply struggling and asking for help. I hope and pray I have not erred in that way.

On the other hand, some people are emotional and mental basket cases and it is hard to deal with them -- whether it relates to the Gospel or something else. I am not sure whether I deal with emotional problems people have in the way the Lord would say is right -- or not. I could certainly consider and reflect on it more than I have.

[Aminadab]

Thank you. I too think it's an exciting concept. These are not original thoughts. This was also the term used by Richard Bushman to define the approach he believes is most effective.

http://www.lifeongol...08-bushman.html

Yes, I vaguely recall that seminar and was intrigued by it. It sounds to me, though, that Bushman's concept differs a little in that his would almost be a "kinder and gentler" version of classical apologetics, whereas it seems to me that Lane is discussing something almost more like a form of counseling that addresses the hurt before it really gets into hashing out issues.

I can see why CASteinman may suspect a backdoor attack on classical apologetics by raising this, but I don't think Lane's intention is to denigrate that form of apologetics at all. It seems to me, rather, that he is trying to distinguish between how one approaches answering challenges from an outsider from answering the struggles of a member of the family of God.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I don't mean that he has a bad point. And maybe his way of describing it is helpful to some people who counsel others. But I still think he is misuing the term "Apologetics".

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The way I believe he is using the term "apologetics" is an effort to "defend the faith." This can even constitute a systematic effort. As I see it, it would simply be a matter of apologetic focus. In other words, can Mormonism be defended apologetically as a spiritual life style to which one should devote one's efforts independent of the issues that often cause people to leave the Church, such as Book of Abraham problems, polygamy, etc.?

Can Mormonism be defended apologetically from this angle? If so, then according to the "pastoral" paradigm, this should be the primary or at least initial stage of any apologetic work to "defend the faith."

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Yes, I vaguely recall that seminar and was intrigued by it. It sounds to me, though, that Bushman's concept differs a little in that his would almost be a "kinder and gentler" version of classical apologetics, whereas it seems to me that Lane is discussing something almost more like a form of counseling that addresses the hurt before it really gets into hashing out issues.

That is an astute observation and certainly reflects his "apologetic" efforts of the Joseph Smith story via Rough Stone Rolling. He seems to want to adopt not only a kinder gentler version of classical apologetics, but one that takes seriously challenges to traditional orthodox assumptions that prove incongruent with historical and/or scientific observations.

I think that honesty in this sense is also very important.

Edited May 14, 2012 by Cushan Rishathaim

[CASteinman]

Yes, I vaguely recall that seminar and was intrigued by it. It sounds to me, though, that Bushman's concept differs a little in that his would almost be a "kinder and gentler" version of classical apologetics, whereas it seems to me that Lane is discussing something almost more like a form of counseling that addresses the hurt before it really gets into hashing out issues.

Maybe I need to read more modern works, but the work that I am familiar with -- a book that is both profound and yet somewhat incomplete -- is Stephen Covey's book "Spiritual Roots of Human Relations". I believe his concepts of "Diagnose before you Prescribe" and showing love in a way that is accepted before you correct others is, despite his partial coverage of the concepts, a good practical guide to what Lane is calling "Pastoral Apologetics". I do not know what Lane has produced in this area but I can recommend Covey.

I can see why CASteinman may suspect a backdoor attack on classical apologetics

I do not think it would be Lane's intent to do a backdoor attack. Rather, I think it is the nature of the enemies of the Gospel to use any brick that they can to throw at us -- including Lane's interesting observations. They would be doing it illegitimately, but if it could get traction, I am sure we would see it all over the internet about how cruel Mormons are or some sort of booshwash like that.

[Daniel Peterson]

reelmormon:

I agree that things here can and often do get unduly rough. (That's one of many reasons why I've severely cut back on my participation here, and ended it altogether elsewhere.)

Just for the record, though, which is not aimed at you, but is a general-purpose explanation for some others who routinely generalize from this place to FAIR, and from FAIR to a mythical entity that they call FARMS/FAIR or MI/FAIR:

This board is not responsible for everything said by every poster on it.

This board was once sponsored by FAIR. That hasn't been the case, though, for several years now. Consequently, FAIR is not responsible for this board.

FAIR is not, and has never been, formally affiliated with FARMS or, more properly, the Maxwell Institute at BYU. (See the more detailed explanation below.) Accordingly, the Maxwell Institute is not responsible for FAIR.

It's more than a bit misguided, therefore, to blame "FARMS/FAIR" for anything and everything said by anonymous posters on this board.

**

Several people who are involved to some degree or another with the Maxwell Institute are also involved, to some degree or another, with FAIR. I, for example, am an officer of the Maxwell Institute and a member of the board of directors for FAIR. However, I'm the only person who holds office in both organizations. Beyond this, some Maxwell Institute employees (e.g., John Gee and Matt Roper) sometimes speak at the annual FAIR symposium. And some people who have published with the Maxwell Institute but who no longer hold any office with it (e.g., John Sorenson and Stephen Ricks) or who have never held any office with it (e.g., Royal Skousen and Richard Bushman) have spoken at the FAIR symposium, too.

Most of the academic employees and editors of the Maxwell Institute have never spoken at the FAIR symposium, indeed may not even have ever attended it, and hold no office in FAIR.

On a separate but related matter: Something on the order of five hundred different authors have published with the Maxwell Institute -- including such luminaries as Terryl Givens, Kevin Barney, David Bokovoy, Richard Bushman, and Grant Hardy, and such execrable moral black holes as Daniel Peterson -- and there is no single "FARMS" or "Maxwell Institute' approach or tone. It should be obvious, too, that Richard Bushman is not accountable for everything said here on this board by every anonymous poster.

There is no "mopologetic" monolith, no vicious FARMS-led apologists' central command.

[Aminadab]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. The way I believe he is using the term "apologetics" is an effort to "defend the faith." This can even constitute a systematic effort. As I see it, it would simply be a matter of apologetic focus. In other words, can Mormonism be defended apologetically as a spiritual life style to which one should devote one's efforts independent of the issues that often cause people to leave the Church, such as Book of Abraham problems, polygamy, etc.?

Can Mormonism be defended apologetically from this angle? If so, then according to the "pastoral" paradigm, this should be the primary or at least initial stage of any apologetic work to "defend the faith."

This brings to mind that great paper by Professor Bitton on not having a testimony of the Church. It is a concept that does not get nearly enough exploration but is, to my thinking, completely valid. The construction of history is subject to the whims of changing methodological fashions and the changing body of evidence; this is not necessarily the stuff upon which to base one's faith.

[Aminadab]

Oops! I meant Bitton spoke about not having a testimony of the history of the Church. LOL.