Biola University: Blasphemy 101?
Dr. Craig Hazen, Director of the M.A. Program in Christian Apologetics at Biola University is currently a candidate for the Presidency of Biola. If he is appointed, the new President of Biola University will be a man who promotes blasphemy. Biola leadership is apparently aware of this and supports him, since they have done nothing to stop him.
In November, 2004, Dr. Hazen was one of several Christian leaders who participated in a Mormon/Christian worship service held at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City. The standing room only crowd listened as Dr. Richard Mouw (President, Fuller Theological Seminary) apologized to Mormons everywhere for Christians bearing “false witness” against them. He then suggested everyone celebrate Joseph Smith’s birthday.
Dr. Hazen closed this meeting with a public prayer:
“I really don’t want this to end; in fact, I’d like to make this an annual event. In fact, don’t y’all have a bigger place across the street? Would you all kindly stand with me as we close in prayer? Let us pray.
Our Heavenly Father, our Great King, our Sovereign Creator and Merciful Judge, Solomon asked for wisdom and you gave in abundance. Your servant James taught us that God will give wisdom generously to all who ask him for this precious gift. The Mormon Scriptures tell us that Joseph Smith Jr. likewise sought wisdom at a crucial time in his life. No one in this room should ever fear asking you, oh Gracious Father, for wisdom. So, in a common voice, we ask you to give us divine wisdom, wisdom from above, and the truth about you, about your Son, about your Holy Word, and about the path to salvation. You have promised to answer such heartfelt prayers, and I ask that you would not let a single person leave this great hall tonight without the light of truth being kindled in his or her soul. In the name of the Blessed One, in the name of the Risen One, in the name of the Lamb of God Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Go in the peace of Christ.”
Robert Millet (Mormon Leader) hugs Craig Hazen and says, “That was beautiful my friend. Magnificent.”[1]
In addition to this prayer, which embodies faulty logic at best and blasphemy at worst, Craig Hazen also endorsed a Mormon book written by this same Robert Millet, an influential Mormon. The endorsement is as follows:
“Robert L. Millet has done us all a great service with this book. He communicates contemporary Latter-day Saints thinking on Christology with remarkable clarity and charity. His years of open, bold, and authentic dialogue with traditional Protestants of all stripes have certainly given him a special vantage point. This work sets the stage for a whole new level of robust dialogue between the LDS and evangelical Christian communities.” – Craig J. Hazen
This book on the Mormon perversion of Jesus is published by Eerdmans and is now being sold in Christian bookstores, endorsed by Craig Hazen, who recently said, “I actually believe that Mormonism is a tremendous achievement of the devil!”[2]
In one of his many lectures on Mormonism, Dr. Walter Martin reminds the Church that the Mormon Heavenly Father had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus:
“This is not biblical theology . . . . It’s filth—and it bastardizes Jesus of Nazareth! And if that doesn’t do something to Christians, I despair for the future of the Church.
If someone insults my wife and my children, it upsets me. If they insult my country, it upsets me. And if somebody bastardizes my Savior, I’m really upset! Particularly when they have the colossal gall to look me in the face and tell me that’s what GOD says. That is NOT what God says. That is what Lucifer says!”
In his own defense, Dr. Hazen argues he has spent his life telling people that Mormonism is a false religion. His defense makes his position even worse in that he, of all people, should know better. Dr. Hazen told thousands of listeners he would like to worship with Mormons in their Tabernacle every year. Would Elijah join the priests of Baal and worship in their temple? Would Jesus worship His Father at the altar of Antichrist?
The hypocrisy here is this: by worshiping with Mormons and endorsing a book containing Mormon blasphemy, Dr. Hazen endangers the very people he insists he’s protecting: vulnerable young Christians confused on doctrinal truth, and people searching for answers. It is appalling that Dr. Hazen, obstinate in his alliance with Mormons, remains in the position to influence thousands of young Christians at Biola University.
The biblical position on any alliance with Mormons is clear:
“Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
"I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people."
Therefore
"Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you."
I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty." 2 Cor 6:14-18
Mormonism is blasphemy, and the true Church of Jesus Christ must defend against it—not promote it under the guises of academia and evangelism. This is what we have come to in the world of Christian Education: Blasphemy 101.
Your voice counts! Contact Biola:
Stan Jantz
Board of Trustees
Chairman, Presidential Search Team
Email: sjantz@socal.rr.com
Blog: http://christianity101online.com/blog/
Gary Miller
Provost and Senior Vice President
Phone: (562) 903-4703
E-mail: gary.miller@biola.edu
Carol Taylor
Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education
Phone: (562) 903-4713
E-mail: carol.taylor@biola.edu
[1] Emphasis added. Evening of Friendship DVD, Standing Together Ministries, 2004.
[2] Emphasis added. Stand to Reason Radio Archives, December 19, 2004, http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Radio_Archives; also posted as airing July 3, 2005, http://www.cephas-library.com/mormon/mormon_interview_with_craig_hazen_is_mormonism_of_the_devil.html (accessed March 21, 2007).
posted by Jill Martin Rische at 10:11 PM
51 Comments:
Talk about putting a spin on something. Is this the temperature of Christian thinking today? No wonder the secularised world doesn't take us seriously. What a poor article. I am disappointed and I'm not impressed that Josh McDowell and Kerby Anderson are linked with you. How do they feel about their names being aligned to this type of response? I bet they don't even have a clue you wrote this.
Last night in the UK the House of Lord's voted in some pretty hefty and scary legislation that will make it even more difficult to continue to hold a biblically faithful position on homosexuality. The Christian campaign failed. We must ask why. I believe it is because we sometimes allow knee jerk reactions before we think carefully about how we will communicate with each other, and those outside the Christian community.
Nothing you have quoted falls under the definitions of blasphemy or pornography that sensible Christian people adhere to. Re-read Acts 17 and really look at the way that Paul used non-Christian information to open attractive and persuasive bridges into the gospel. Hazen's prayer as you quoted it is a very cleverly written example of something we use in evangelism called 'The Atheists Prayer'. It goes along the lines of, 'Dear God, If you are there please speak to me now as I read the Bible.'
The verses you quoted on being yoked with unbelievers are applied without even a mention of their appropriate context. A clear 'blasphemy' of any serious evangelical hermeneutic.
When will you crazy American's learn to communicate without pressing the nuke button?
T
Tom,
From your picture I can see you're a Talbot (and Hazen) fan.
Next time argue from logic instead of emotion and leave off the "crazy Americans" comment. It hurts your credibility.
Thanks for posting,
Jill
It's funny - I was recently in a blog combox exchange w/ two Australian atheists and they played the "crazy American" card several times. I wonder what the deal is.
Is this the same Craig Hazen who's been on Strobel's "Faith Under Fire" several times? I don't guess I can see how it could another.
It's beyond pitiful to see him act like that. Where the heck are the trustees of Biola when they are needed?
Jill,
We Brits have a robust sense of humour, I'm sorry if that doesn't carry well. Please repeat the line doing your best John Cleese (The guy with the moustache from Monty Python) accent.
Let's not sling mud at each other. Ad hominem arguments might affect credibility, but they don't actually affect the truth or falsity of the belief held, even by the most untrustworthy person.
My first point is that you are misapplying the concept of blasphemy. You don't define it properly and you don't apply it correctly.
My second point would be that you are guilty of constructing a straw man position of Hazen, and that you are looking for any statements that sound to you like religious pluralism. None of the quotes that you produced indicate that he holds such a view. That's your third fallacy, faulty premises, from incorrect generalisation.
Ready to read your rebuttal.
Tom
Mrs. Rische,
I know that we both know of each other but we have never communicated with each other nor have we ever met. The reason you know me is because of an historic outreach with Ravi Zacharias at the Mormon Taberancle, the reason I know of you is because you have spoken about me to others and because some of those people have told me some of the things you have said about me. You post against a fine and godly frined of mine, Dr. Craig Hazen, makes this as good a time as any for us to finally communicate directly to each other, although a more biblical model of communication might have been in order before now, don't you think?
Where do we begin? For some reason, I guess you feel the need to wear the mantle of your father's ministry, to take up where you feel he left off. Mrs. Rische, I knew you father, as a young man in ministry, I met him several times during my high school and college days at Westmont College. I had several personal meetings with him and even hosted him at Westmont College in 1987. It was an honor for me to attend his funeral service in 1989. Mrs. Rische, from what I have heard of you, I must share with you that you are no Walter Martin. I can recall fondly, a time with your dad at the Santa Barbara airport. I asked him how he dealt with critics but more importantly how he dealt with professing Christians who attacked him and who never tried to speak directly with him first to resolve a matter of conflict or disagreement. His words were profend then, they remain so to this day, and I will always live by them. He said to me with great focus, "Young man, it is like my old mentor, Dr. Donald Gray Barnhouse, use to say to me, 'be ye so busy with the work of the Lord that you do not have time to throw stones at the barking dogs along the path.'"
You behavior since before the days of Ravi's address at the Mormon Tabernacle in SLC, it was not a Rich Mouw meeting by the way but a Ravi Zacharias meeting (you obviously have listened to the DVD or CD and must have noted this) has been most unimpressive. I am confident that you have not honored your father's legacy by your unkind assertions against Christian leaders such as Drs. Mouw and Hazen. To my knowledge you have not spoken against Ravi's message at the Tabernacle, nor have I heard you offer praise for its annointing, boldness, and proclaimation of truth, and this is so very sad. You call The Evening of Friendship a Mormon/evangelical worship service? How so? Do non-believers ever attend your local church? Do they sit in the pews? Might they actually sing along during the praise time? If so, are your local church services acts of blasphamy? Of course they are not! The Tabernacle event was completely in the hands of evangelical leaders who offered the prayers, led the singing, and who preached the Word of God in might and power, just like D.L. Moody did in 1899. I am confident Mrs. Rische that had I been able to extend such an invitation to Walter Martin to preach a gospel message at the Mormon Tablernacle on Temple Square that he would have done it and would have done so to the glory of Jesus Christ! The event at the Tabernacle was a blessing from the Lord and I believe He was honored and pleased by it.
So, because I see the pattern here that I have seen with others who once considered me a young crusader in the anti-mormon cause, I close skeptical that you will hear my heart in these words. I shall though take your father's grand advice to me once again and stay busy in the work that the Lord has called me to do. Will you continue to bark at Dr. Hazen (even after he has sought to meet personally with you and your husband to discuss the matters of your concern?) and other good folks who are serving the Lord in our heart to reach into a community of people we love with the truth of Jesus Christ? I sure hope not.
Rev. Greg Johnson
Standng Together, President
I have to agree with Greg on this one point. After listening to Martin tapes for many years, I too believe that Walter, if he had the opportunity, would have preached at the Tabernacle.
I don't think he would have been as kind as Zacharias - he would have went for the jugular...but he would have rejoiced over the opportunity.
Now, the PR issue and everything else involved, I'm sure he would not have approved of, especially Mouw's apology.
Keep up the great work, Jill! All that matters is what Jesus thinks, and HE IS PLEASED WITH YOU. I must say to Mr. Johnson, that he is certainly no Walter Martin. I have every single sermon that Walter Martin ever preached, and by now I think I know his "methodology" pretty well. I wonder, has Mr. Johnson had any death threats from the Mormons? Your dad did. It just goes to show the vast difference in witnessing based on the Bible AND THE FRUIT OF BIBLICAL EVANGELISM compared to man centered ideologies and methods largely based on humanism.
Today I prayed for Greg Johnson. I feel very sorry for him. He needs our prayers.
Here is a quote for the Craig Hazen and Greg Johnson sycophants and everyone else who desires to rest in the merit of human intellect and persuasive charm rather than the power of the Holy Spirit--through suffering-- which raised Jesus Christ from the dead:
“Matt. 23:13…It is obvious that Christ never took a Dale Carnegie course; He was totally unaware of Madison Avenue techniques of communication, and He couldn’t care less what people thought of His delivery…in fact His approach was abrasive and direct and to the core of the matter, which means there are times when you have to be abrasive and core- oriented in order to communicate truth. You cannot always smile or have the Jesus that is cuddling the babies in His arms and giving you the Sermon on the Mount…you are inevitably going to run into the Christ of condemnation, or the Christ of judgment. And here you find Him dealing with the issues of His day in terms nobody can possibly misunderstand…Where did the rest of this egg-fu-yon come from?’ The minute you say that, of course, you are unspiritual. You are ‘challenging authority.’ And the worst possible thing that can be hurled at you is ‘touch not the anointed of the Lord.’ THE ANNOINTING OF THE LORD IS UPON THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING FAITHFUL TO THE LORD. IF YOU ARE NOT BEING FAITHFUL TO GOD, WHO SAYS YOU ARE ANNOINTED?...They were misinterpreting God’s word, so that they could enrich themselves…they love to be greeted all over the place…Jesus Christ said, '…there is only One truly worthy…and that is the Lord Jesus'…Test everything; hold fast to that which is good.”
----------
Does that make you feel “warm and fuzzy”? Don’t blame me. I am only quoting Walter Martin. ("Modern Day Scribes and Pharisees" sermon)
Baptism of Boldness is another great sermon/lecture. I beleive he preached this right after the debate with Van Hale.
Jill,
Yes you most certainly are a "Walter Martin"!
Stand strong Jill.
Let's bring a little balance to this dicussing.
I hope Jill is not a Walter Martin. We are not called to be a Walter Martin. While I have high regards for Walter Martin, and early on (when I first became a believer and listen to BAM playing Walter) I to wanted to be a Walter Martin. There is nothing wrong with looking up to certain individuals and perhaps incorporating what they did, into our own ministry...but we don't want to be that person (another Walter Martin, or whoever it is).
Walter certainly had his flaws. We'd want to learn from them, not committing the same errors.
My comments above have no reflection my views of Greg Johnson or John Morehead and their methodology...but the fact remains, we want to be made into the image of Jesus Christ, not Walter Martin.
Second, Jill is a women, so I'd hope she doesn't want to be another Walter Martin. Jill is her own person and while she will reflect some of her father's characteristics (which is what we're really saying), she is her own individual who will make her own decisions...and she too needs to keep the good and throw out the bad.
We have to bring some balance here folks. I am glad that when Jill was being interviewed, she didn't mind John Morehead being on the program. Unlike the host who apologize to Jill for letting him come on, and it sounded like if she knew who it was she wouldn't have let him on the air. This was a very stupid thing to do on the part of the host.
More later I'm sure...
In response to a previous comment posted by user "dwayna litz" (presumably quoting Walter Martin), I thought that John 3:17 and Romans 8:1 taught us that there is no "Christ of condemnation".
I must ask, are all parties involved in the debate here interested in building the Kingdom of God, or in tearing it down?
Jill Martin Rische has obviously neither read nor listened to Craig Hazen very carefully in the piece she quotes and in other matters. I can assure you that Craig is not soft on Mormonism AT ALL, but he also knows how to keep a conversation going. That is one reason I think he would be a good president for Westmont.
As for Hazen's quoted prayer, is there anything inaccurate there? "The Mormon Scriptures tell us that Joseph Smith Jr. likewise sought wisdom at a crucial time in his life." This statement indicates nothing about the legitimacy of the Book of Mormon or of Smith's authority. It is equivalent to saying, "The Lord of the Rings tells us about Frodo's courage and perseverance." However, it establishes some common ground, i.e., "Your scriptures endorse a sincere quest for wisdom as do the Old and New Testaments."
Craig prays for the Holy Spirit to lead everyone in the room to WISDOM, a kindling of the "light of truth" (implying that some are yet without that light) and affirms the risen "Lamb of God" [who takes away the sins of the world]. Now, those words in brackets were not stated, but they were strongly implied by the allusion and are in stark contradiction to Mormon doctrine.
That is Hazen's approach: affirm whatever common ground (e.g., desire for wisdom) may be found to promote conversation but also affirm orthodox doctrine in a nuanced manner. Would an in-your-face denunciation be as effective in getting Mormons into productive dialog with Evangelicals? I think not.
As for the endorsement of Millet's book, what's wrong with that? Hazen is not saying that he agrees with everything Millet affirms. Couldn't one just as well applaud a piece by Richard Dawkins as providing a clear description of the view of Atheistic Naturalism?
Don't we all benefit by understanding LDS thinking on Christology done with "clarity and charity"? I get the feeling that Ms. Rische is desperately searching for enemies of Christ to denounce. I'm sure there are many, but Craig Hazen is not one of them.
In addition to Ravi Zacharias and Michael Card, another man on the platform in Salt Lake City that day was Joseph Tkach Jr., head of the World Wide Church of God. The significance of his presence is that the WWCoG used to be a heretical cult. However, there came a time after group founder, Herbert W. Armstrong, died when their leadership was motivated to study the scriptures and concluded that God was a trinity. They led their church to embrace orthodoxy.
Hazen hopes that the new Mormon-Evangelical dialog will help move Morman leaders to a re-examination of the Bible and their foundational beliefs. After all, Mormon theology is always in a state of flux due to their having a "living prophet".
The following download features an interview with Craig Hazen a few weeks following the Salt Lake City meeting http://www.strcast.org/podcast/weekly/121904.mp3 I suggest that Ms. Rische listen to Hazen's "behind the scenes" perspective on strategic engagement with LDS leadership and not be so eager to skewer an authentic ally for the Kingdom of Christ.
However, it establishes some common ground, i.e., "Your scriptures endorse a sincere quest for wisdom as do the Old and New Testaments."
I would take issue with you here. From my perspective and take on passages such as Rom. 1 and Acts 17, man is not seeking for wisdom, especially godly wisdom. As a matter of fact, Paul tells us that man is suppressing the truth (that they do know) in unrighteousness.
So, if this is the way things are, what should be our approach. Of course, as you indicate and what I know of John Morehead and others...this is not how they approach the Bible.
So, our quest, and I'm in it just as Hazen, Rische, Morehead, et. al., is to find out is, how are we to exegete these passages and second, how does this affect our methodology.
Wow. It's striking how hateful and unattractive evangelicalism can seem when articulated by the likes of Jill Rische.
Fortunately, though, many evangelicals manifest a truly Christian spirit in their lives and conversation.
Daniel,
Sticks and stones . . . . :) Your insults didn't bother me years ago and they don't bother me now.
Are you here to defend Craig Hazen? That would be an interesting twist; a Mormon defending a Christian apologist.
Jill
Dismiss my comments as mere insult if you will.
I'm sure that I'm not the only onlooker who finds some of your comments profoundly unappealing and unattractive, even hateful.
Incidentally, I do think that Craig Hazen is a good man, despite our deep theological disagreements.
I hope and trust that the mere fact that a Latter-day Saint academic regards him as a decent fellow will not torpedo his candidacy for the leadership of Biola. I'm confident that we haven't yet reached that level of incivility and sectarianism. (This is America, after all -- not the Balkans, and not Iraq.)
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
I am thankful that we have a variety of perspectives represented here, particularly the alternative voices to the countercult through Greg Johnson and Frank Beckwith. Frank has been especially helpful in touching on both the missional principles of Paul in 1 Cor. 9:20-23 that undergirds the missional approaches of the new paradigm, and in also highlighting the ungraciousness in attitude and tone of many on this issue. Acting with incivility and not carefully considering the views of others as they see them while throwing biblical proof-texts at issues in fundamentalist fashion will not help us understand each other.
Mr. Morehead stated:
...in also highlighting the ungraciousness in attitude and tone of many on this issue.
Who are the "many" you speak of John?
Jill,
Thank you for standing up for the truth of the Gospel. Doing so will be increasingly difficult in these times, but our Father in heaven will reward those who remain faithful to him and to his word.
Your love for those who are lost is evident in your life and words.
Peter says that Paul's "letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16).
Some would have us believe that Paul's statement about having become "all things to all men" includes doctrinal compromise. As Paul's teachings show, it does not.
Janet and I have lived a 'missional' lifestyle long before some began to reinterpret the term. Compromise is not part of that lifestyle. Love is. Nothing is more loving that speaking the *truth* in love.
Compromise, on the other hand, creates stinking wounds.
Stand firm, sister, even when you experience that those who identify themselves as 'Christians' are often the first to cast stones.
Anton
Jill,
I prefer the way Dr. Craig Hazen evangelizes the mormons to the way you don't.
Regards,
John
I prefer the way Dr. Craig Hazen evangelizes the mormons to the way you don't.
I'm sorry John, but that seems to be a comment based on much ignorance. While your comments are probably welcome here, you could at least make the count!
Jeff,
You're right, I could be mistaken. Perhaps Mrs. Rische has preached the gospel to our mormon friends on such a wide level of influence, on their territory, to so many of them and has been asked back. Could you kindly direct me to any public information where she received an invitation from mormon leadership to do such a thing?
There is a reason the well intentioned people that stand outside the temple in Salt Lake with signs that say "repent or else!" and "turn or burn", have never been asked inside to preach the gospel to the multitudes. It's not that "repent or else", or "turn of burn" isn't true, it's that "repent of else", on a sign is as bad a tactic as this blog posting of Jill's at advancing the gospel.
Regards,
John
To Brian Stiles,
Please make your blogger profile available or your posts will be deleted.
Thanks,
Jill Martin Rische
The antagonistic dialog between Daniel (a Mormon) and Jill (a Chrisitan) speaks volumes.
Daniel:
"Wow. It's striking how hateful and unattractive evangelicalism can seem when articulated by the likes of Jill Rische."
Jill:
"Are you here to defend Craig Hazen? That would be an interesting twist; a Mormon defending a Christian apologist."
Daniel"
"I do think that Craig Hazen is a good man, despite our deep theological disagreements."
Who would you think has a better chance of reaching Daniel - Jill or Dr. Hazen?
Excellent point Bill!
Perhaps Mrs. Rische has preached the gospel to our mormon friends on such a wide level of influence, on their territory, to so many of them and has been asked back.
I'm sorry, but this wasn't part of your original charge.
I wonder how many times an individuals needs to be asked back before he/she begin to share with the LDS that they are lost in their sins and worshipping a false God. Don't get me wrong, the # opportunities to speak with the same LDS folks is great and we praise the Lord for this.
Again, I'm not sure what all this had to do with your accusation of Jill not evangelizing the LDS. Frankly it has nothing to do with it.
So again, instead of accusing someone of not share the gospel, perhaps in your example of Craig Hazen, you can share with us how he evangelizes the LDS. NOTE: I'm not implying (in any way) that he doesn, I'm just trying to get something positive from your false accusation.
Jeff -
You're right that wasn't part of my original comment. Although poorly written and received in the wrong way, the point of my original comment, was that Dr. Hazen has obviously worked very hard to develop a relationship with mormon leadership that afforded him and other evangelicals the oppurtunity to preach and teach that night.
I do not see where Jill has done the same. Again - it's possible I am mistaken, but I don't think I am. Perhaps Jill can set the record straight.
Jeff wrote:"I wonder how many times an individuals needs to be asked back before he/she begin to share with the LDS that they are lost in their sins and worshipping a false God."
What evidence do you have that leads you to the conclusion that Dr. Hazen has not shared the gospel with his LDS friends? In otherwords, if your argument is true, then everytime I shared the gospel with my unsaved father, I would expect to not be asked back to dinner.
Clearly, we can share the bad and good news of the gospel in gentleness and respect, in such a way that we are asked back to share more! Remember the gospel is something neither of us created or wrote. As the words we share are God's words, if we are doing His work properly and advancing His kingdom here on earth, our unbelieving friends are pointed towards Him by our evangelistic efforts instead of the focus being on our underdeveloped communication style or failed tactical approach.
Regards,
John
Ms. Rische,
This is a very disappointing, and very poorly argued attack on a brother in Christ who, with others, has put much effort into reaching out to the LDS, speaking the truth in love. I say with great confidence that your conclusions about Dr. Hazen's beliefs and intents regarding this matter are wrong.
I have been involved for over a decade with the apologetics program led by Dr. Hazen and have heard and read vastly more of Dr. Hazen's assessment of the LDS than your selected "sound-bites" convey. If you truly believe that Dr. Hazen is in error, please provide a reasoned critique that addresses the fullness of Dr. Hazen's record on the matter.
If you really have a substantive argument to be made, please let us hear it, as I agree that the candidacy for the Presidency of Biola is a serious matter.
What you have provided here is an attack no more worthy than a 30 second political TV attack ad.
(Admin note: profile added. Sorry for the newbie mistake.)
This post has been removed by the author.
I do not see where Jill has done the same. Again - it's possible I am mistaken, but I don't think I am. Perhaps Jill can set the record straight.
Your assumption here John is that Jill has the same methodology as Craig. I'm assuming (from her comments on this blog) that she does not. Actually, I believe that is quite clear. So, you're probably not going to see Jill being invited to speak at the temple and it certainly seesm that if she were asked, she wouldn't go. But, just because this is the case, doesn't meen she is not evangelizing the LDS.
I know this is not what you are saying (at least I hope not), but your post comes across that way.
What evidence do you have that leads you to the conclusion that Dr. Hazen has not shared the gospel with his LDS friends? In otherwords, if your argument is true...
I'm sorry John, I'm having a real hard time with you. I seem to have to correct what you thing I'm saying every time you make reference to me. Pehaps I'm also not being clear in my writing. But, please reread what I wrote. Where was a making an argument? Where did I say that Dr. Hazen has not shared the gospel with his LDS?
Let me answer you. I didn't!
I was only posing some general questions regarding this "new" methodology that people are taking.
So, I'm wondering, do those who hold to this "missiological method" (whatever they means in their book) ever tell the LDS that the god they worship is a false God...in fact, my take on Romans 1 is that this is one way man supresses the truth - erecting false gods. No doubt friends can see these type of things to each other and still remain friends. But, I'm wondering is this ever communicated (not necessarily by Dr. Hazen, although he would be included, just like the rest of us). We do know, according to the Koulk interview where Craig stands regarding LDS theology...he agree with Dave Hunt and that it is a lie of the devil. I'm beginning to wonder if others who hold to this so-called missiological model, would say the same thing.
Despite the weighty charges in the title of this post, the evidence presented in the post does not substantiate the claim that Dr. Craig Hazen promotes blasphemy.
What exactly Dr. Mouw said is not given, yet what is cited does not indicate anything of blasphemy. Certainly Christians have not always acted in the most seemly manner with regard to those with whom we disagree, so an apology for misrepresenting them seems appropriate.
Dr. Hazen's prayer is a common request for wisdom and divine enlightenment and references the Book of Mormon but does not affirm its truthfulness. Likewise the commendation of the book by Eerdman is not that Mormons are correct but that the book offers a good description of their beliefs. The quotation of Dr. Martin has no apparent connection to anything previously stated except to affirm in the strongest possible language that Mormons are wrong and that their views are odious to Dr. Martin. The citation of 2 Cor. 6 could apply, but the argument for how it in fact does apply is not given here. All we are left with, then, is a string of out-of-context quotations and a forceful conclusion.
Like earlier commenters, I would urge the exercise of Christian love, which "covers a multitude of sins". If Mrs. Rische disagrees with Dr. Hazen's evangelistic approach, a more edifying post would be one which addresses this specifically and thoughtfully and without unnecessary and unmerited pejoratives.
Jeff wrote: "I'm sorry John, I'm having a real hard time with you. I seem to have to correct what you thing I'm saying every time you make reference to me. Pehaps I'm also not being clear in my writing.
I think that may be the case here. I'm not always clear myself. It happened earlier. I wrote that I like the way Dr. Hazen does evangelism to the way Mrs. Rische doesn't. In my attempt to be pithy, I assumed the context was obvious - that we were talking about leadership. Dr. Hazen (a Christian leader) was evangelizing to LDS leadership, where (to the best of my knowledge) Mrs. Rische (a self-professed Christian leader) has not.
I went on to point out that a possible reason for the invitation to Dr. Hazen and not Mrs. Rische is a direct consequence of her approach. Not the message - but the tactics. I'm assuming she takes the same uncharitable approach with LDS leadership that she has taken here with Dr. Hazen. Although it is a assumption on my part for sure, it is a reasonable one given the information available. Again - my apologies for not being precise.
Jeff wrote: But, please reread what I wrote.
Ok, let's look at it together....
In response to my observation: Perhaps Mrs. Rische has preached the gospel to our mormon friends on such a wide level of influence, on their territory, to so many of them and has been asked back.
Jeff wrote: "I wonder how many times an individuals needs to be asked back before he/she begin to share with the LDS that they are lost in their sins and worshipping a false God.
If the reasonable implication of this statement is something other then to say Craig Hazen is soft-soaping the gospel to the LDS leadership, then please explain further.
Can I ask you a few questions Jeff? Have you ever read anything else by Dr. Hazen? Have you ever read his books?...attended any of his lectures? Did you even read the transcripts of this event? Do you think it's appropriate for any Christian, to charge anyother Christian with "blasphemy", because they disagree about tactics? As both you and Dr. Hazen are saved by the blood of our Lord, and you will both inhabit heaven for all of eternity, what are you going to say to him when you meet him someday?
hey...sorry Craig....I thought you were a blasphemer because someone with a keyboard in Minnesota said so....
I urge you to consider the evidence more carefully, and as the previous poster Paul has suggested - that the first response is an extension of charity.
Regards,
John
If the reasonable implication of this statement is something other then to say Craig Hazen is soft-soaping the gospel to the LDS leadership, then please explain further.
I guess a reason explaining would be that I have a probably bringing in two different conversation into one, and therefore make general statements. My statement was a general...that is the reasonable explaination.
what are you going to say to him when you meet him someday?
hey...sorry Craig....I thought you were a blasphemer because someone with a keyboard in Minnesota said so....
I urge you to consider the evidence more carefully, and as the previous poster Paul has suggested - that the first response is an extension of charity.
I'm sorry my friend, but you continue to misunderstand me. Where did I ever say that I agree with Jill that Hazen is a blasphemer. You are seriously mistaken. With that...press on.
Jeff wrote: I guess a reason explaining would be that I have a probably bringing in two different conversation into one, and therefore make general statements. My statement was a general...that is the reasonable explaination.
This is barely intelligble. If you're frustrated because I don't seem to understand your intended meaning, please consider that I can not read your mind. I can only read what you write and interpret it in the given context.
Your original comment about how many times must one be invited back before they share the gospel was not offered in a vacuum, but in response to the content of my post on a blog charging Craig Hazen with blaspheme.
We're going in circles now, so I'll will take your advice and just press on.....
Regards,
John
I'm sorry, I tend not read what I write before I post. I need someone to proof before I post! :)
Dwayna wrote: "Here is a quote for the Craig Hazen and Greg Johnson sycophants and everyone else who desires to rest in the merit of human intellect and persuasive charm rather than the power of the Holy Spirit--through suffering-- which raised Jesus Christ from the dead:"
Dwayna - please clarify what this means. As noted elsewhere, I have also visited your blog and have read just about everything you have published on this topic in the last few days. And in absence of any argument (let alone a robust one) for your position from scripture and a through explanation of how and why Craig Hazen's actions constitute blasphemy, are you declaring you're right, and that you are so right that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they are resting on their own intellect and you are speaking for God here?
As none of us comes even close to the perfect judgment and knowledge of God, don't you think a little humility and grace is called for when characterizing fellow brothers and sisters who don't share your view? I mean we don't even know if you're right or wrong, because - like Jill - you haven't given anyone a compelling reason to believe your point of view. An assertion is not an argument. A charge does not make someone guilty.
"Here is a quote for the Craig Hazen and Greg Johnson sycophants and everyone else who desires to rest in the merit of human intellect....
Using your logic, from this are we to assume that you are not using your intellect?..... in interpreting the scriptures but God's intellect such that you are speaking for Him? Isn't it interesting that what you just wrote is the very definition of blasphemy? Remember why the pharisees were so mad at Christ? Because He spoke as though He was God! It wasn't blasphemy for Him to do it because He was!...but is it wise for us to speak this way to fellow brothers and sisters?...especially in the public square?
The previous poster 'Jordan' raises a great point about Jill's approach. And it appears you are doing the exact same thing by insisting you are right, not by virtue of any reasoned scriptural argument but because you think you are suffering for your views! You wrote the following...."to rest in the merit of human intellect and persuasive charm rather than the power of the Holy Spirit--through suffering"--
We may suffer for our stance as Christians in this world; in fact, Christ guaranteed it. But I think this is another case where you are confused. Be very careful here. The pharisees and sadducee's were very quick and willing to stand in the public square and point out boisterously how they suffered for their piety.
We may suffer for our stance to stand firm in God's word. However, I don't think the one who suffers the most is necessarily a good indication of the one who is interpreting the bible correctly.
Regards,
John
Anton,
You wrote:
Stand firm, sister, even when you experience that those who identify themselves as 'Christians' are often the first to cast stones.
What do you mean by this? Are we to assume that you're questioning the salvation of those who view this issue differently then you do?
It seems to me if anyone is in this position, it's the guy getting skewered by the charge of blasphemy from an ill conceived, poorly researched, exegetical failure of a blog posting titled: Biola University: Blasphemy 101?.
JOHN WILLIS: As none of us comes even close to the perfect judgment and knowledge of God, don't you think a little humility and grace is called for when characterizing fellow brothers and sisters who don't share your view?
ME: Indeed. And I have been surprised in the extreme by the harsh tone taken by many of Jill M-R's critics here.
I thought we were on the same team here, trying to evangelise LDS folks.
I've been known to go to a few LDS services, testimony services, and Bible studies in my time, but you know, I never prayed and pretended, even for a second, to be in solidarity w/ them. Why?
Simply b/c I'm NOT in solidarity w/ them.
Peace,
ALAN
Jordan,
Share your profile or your posts will be deleted.
Thank you,
Jill
Keeping this simple -
"Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." (2 John 7-11)
This is not an issue of mere unbelief, but rather one of extendending open arms to a diabolical heresy that claims to be a legitimate manifestation of true Christian belief.
However, what Mormonism says about Jesus:
"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." (Ether 3:14)
"And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. " (Mosiah 15: 1-4)
"Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost."
(Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 1: 51)
... etc..
Mormonism is not merely blasphemy, but heresy. It is a foul stench, a perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ seen long before in the 3rd Century and summarily rejected by the early Church fathers. It sets itself up as orthodox, a replacement to the true Church, yet teaches a false view of God, and specifically, of Jesus. It is an old lie wearing a new dress.
Scripture COMMANDS the faithful to not welcome those who pervert the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then there are those like Dr. Craig Hazen who would call for spiritually communing with Mormonism. Wisdom is proved by her actions.
I fail to see how Jill's words can not be viewed as love. Strong words are not to be confused as hate. Consider for a moment the Lord Jesus Christ not only said that He was "sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 15:24), but also railed against the Israeli leaders of Judaism calling them "blind guides", "greedy," "self indulgent," "whitewashed tombs full of dead mens bones" (Matthew 23). Perhaps the issue is simply a matter of truth being too bitter a pill for some to swallow.
WAKE UP CHRISTIAN, lest the Father in Heaven have some choice words for you! You are called to evangelize, SHINE IN THE DARKNESS! Christian fellowship may only come through repentance and deliverance from the darkness that is Mormonism, for everything else is sharing in the wickedness that is Mormonism.
To the Mormon, in love I say, you need to abandon Joseph Smith and his diabolical fairy tale. Jesus is the I AM who delivered Israel from Egypt. He can deliver you, for He is the only one you will ever need.
James -
Please explain how 2 John 7-11 applies. Who is John writing to? For what purpose? How do the verses above and below verses 7-11 help you interpret the meaning of these verse. How does this verse apply in this particular instance?
Further, what exactly did Craig Hazen do in your view that constitutes an "alliance" with the LDS church? The mere act of meeting with them?...or something else?
You wrote: "Then there are those like Dr. Craig Hazen who would call for spiritually communing with Mormonism". Do you really believe this is Craig Hazen's purpose? If so, can you please reference for me the evidence that you believe supports this view?....what other books or articles of Dr. Hazen's lead you to this conclusion?
Thanks,
John
Hi Alan,
Thanks for your reply. As stated elsewhere - "I don't have a dog in this fight". I consider myself neither a Jill Martin Rische critic, or a Craig Hazen supporter. (whatever that means)
As we are all appropriately zealous for the truth, I find that ad hominems attacks such as Ms. Litz's and the absence of a reasoned argument keep us frustratingly further from it.
Mrs. Rische 'threw down the gauntlet' about this issue a few years ago. (Ref: http://www.waltermartin.org/forms/EMNR_Resignation.pdf)
She has recently re-visited this topic to discourage advancement of Dr. Hazen's professional career. I think the least we can do as Christians who consider the truth carefully and rationally is to avoid overtly emotive language such as this...."Here is a quote for the Craig Hazen and Greg Johnson sycophants... (Ref: Dwayna Litz, this post) emphasis mine.
Regards,
John
> John Willis said...
> How do the verses
> above and below verses 7-11 help
> you interpret the meaning of
> these verse?
More to the point how does the clarity of 2 John 7-11 inform you?
In that November, 2004 gathering of both Christians and Mormons, when Dr. Craig Hazen prayed:
"Our Heavenly Father, our Great King, our Sovereign Creator and Merciful Judge, Solomon asked for wisdom and you gave in abundance. "
..who constituted the "our" in his addressing God as the "Heavenly Father?"
Further, to "which" Heavenly Father was Dr. Craig Hazen praying? Surely he was not addressing the mythical Mormon Heavenly Father:
Mormonism: "But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did..." (King Follett Discourse – Joseph Smith)
Dr. Craig Hazen may have been true to his convictions, but to his error, his "inclusive language" has muddied the clarity of the Gospel message.
Further in that November, 2004 gathering, Dr. Craig Hazen expressed desire for Christian / Mormon worship of God (if that is an accurate description of the event) to be repeated annually. I take his expression at face value:
Dr. Craig Hazen: "I really don't want this to end; in fact, I'd like to make this an annual event. In fact, don't y'all have a bigger place across the street?"
In any event, the early Church fathers Irenaeus and Polycarp inform us that at one time in Ephesus, the Apostle John was entering into one of the great public baths and when informed that Cerinthus, a false teacher of the nature of Jesus, was in the building, John turned away exclaiming "Let us flee, lest the building fall down; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is inside!"
Regardless of the specifics, this serves as a helpful illustration on how to view false teachers of the faith, and gets to the heart on what 2 John 11 is communicating. Where Dr. Craig Hazen sought to embrace, scripture commands to abstain.
James,
You didn't answer any of my questions, but thank you for your reply. I think they are important questions given your stated assertion and conclusion about this matter. Further, I'll ask two additional and if you don't want to answer this time either, that's fine too....
Are you aware of any of the other things said during this event by Ravi Zacharias, Greg Johnson or the other speakers, besides what Jill has posted here? And are Jill's posts about Craig Hazen your only knowledge of him and his work?
Thanks,
John
> John Willis said...
> You didn't answer any
> of my questions, but
> thank you for your reply.
Aw shucks. I'm sorry you missed the answers.
> John Willis said...
> Are you aware of any of
> the other things said during
> this event by Ravi Zacharias,
> Greg Johnson or the
> other speakers,
> besides what Jill has posted
> here?
Yes, very much so. But this blog posting is not about them is it...
> John Willis said...
> And are Jill's posts about
> Craig Hazen your only knowledge
> of him and his work?
Nope.
My, my! Full of assumptions aren't we?
This blog posting is about what Jill posted about Dr. Craig Hazen.
To go beyond scope of this posting would be impolite. I respect her too much to do that.
If anyone should be president of Biola, it should be Craig Hawkins. He was handpicked by Martin to co-host the national radio show. Craig is the best apologist in the west coast, if not America. His knowledge in logic, theology, philosophy, Bible and apologetics is unparalleled.
Hi Jill,
You know my sister April, M.V., CA (@church!). I was reading your blog and I happen to know Craig Hazen. Although I wasn't privy to all the facts of his visit to the Mormons and all he said there, I do know that his heart is a servant's heart for the Lord, and I have never in all our years of listening to his teaching at our church heard him say anything "blasphemous". I believe that is way too strong of a word. He is a very "right on" teacher. If you want to say that we Christian ought to be careful how we associate with other religions, then so be it, but even in your blog with the info you offered, I don't think I heard anything blasphemous when looking at the facts and context. The book he wrote an "endorsement" for was a debate between both him and a well known Christian author,and well-known prof at Roanoke College in VA. where the prof was debating in favor of our Christian faith. To be fair, you maybe should have mentioned that fact. I believe you misunderstood and overreacted to his well-intentioned meeting with those of a false belief system. I believe he was trying to share the truth with them in a loving way. Not shirking our duty to share with those outside, like so many of us do these days. (not you, your's is a great ministry) All this to say we Christians must be careful how we treat our true brothers and sisters in the faith! Thanks for reading....if you did! ;)
Shelley A. A.
Shelley--
A Christian Apologist, of all people, should know better than to place his name on a Mormon book. You may be a strong Christian who is able to discern false theology, but many are not.
Young Christians go to Christian bookstores to find truth--not cleverly disguised blasphemy, e.g. Mormonism. We are supposed to protect the sheep from wolves, not carry the wolf into the sheep pen so the lambs can pet them. I think you know where I'm going with this.
I could write ad infinitum about how and why I believe Craig was wrong, but I've already written quite a bit on the subject, and if you don't agree with me by now, nothing I say here will make any difference. :)
Thanks for posting,
Jill
Post a Comment
<< Home