Sunday, June 14, 1998

Baptists, Mormons avert nasty religious fight

By TOM SCHAEFER / Knight Ridder Newspapers

The 9,000 Southern Baptists have ended their three-day convention in Salt Lake City, leaving behind a mixture of goodwill and some "Good grief!" expressions among citizens in the predominantly Mormon state.

The encounter between members of these two evangelizing faiths (16 million Southern Baptists and 10 million Mormons) had all the trappings of a soap opera teaser:

Could Bible-believing Baptists find true happiness by evangelizing their Mormon hosts? Could dedicated Mormons turn their cheeks enough times and avoid a nasty confrontation with their Baptist guests?

With few exceptions, the two sides seem to have been congenial. Good thing. There's nothing worse than a nasty religious fight. And that's what both Baptists and Mormons wanted to avoid.

Starting last weekend, thousands of Baptists fanned out across the city, buttonholing anyone willing to listen to them. Armed with videos, religious tracts and memorized Scripture verses to counter Mormon teachings, they pressed their message of faith.

Because 70 percent of the state professes the Mormon faith (more accurately, the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), no one expected mass conversions -- either way.

At this point, lots of folks may be asking themselves, in a Rodney King-like manner: Why can't they all just get along? The logic of this question usually goes something like this: Who knows who's right when it comes to religious matters? If your truth works for you, well and good. Just don't try to impose your beliefs on someone else.

Both groups think their truth works for them -- and others. But there are some striking differences between them. Southern Baptists insist that the Bible is a complete revelation of God's truth; Mormons say that additional revelation came to their founder, Joseph Smith, who in the 19th century translated a book of lost scripture called The Book of Mormon.

Baptists and Mormons also disagree on such teachings as the nature of God the Father (an eternal spirit who is part of a triune Godhead, say Baptists; once a man who became immortal yet still has a physical nature, say the Mormons), and the relation of good works to faith (Baptists insist that faith alone saves; Mormons state that good works are necessary to maintain, though not to obtain, salvation).

Mormon teachings that once went against the cultural grain of this country (the practice of polygamy and the refusal to allow African-Americans into the priesthood) have since been rejected.

The fact is, religion is an ongoing story of individuals and groups who disagree over major -- and minor -- issues. As long as such views don't lead to persecution of another person or group, everyone should be able to "get along." In political and social contexts, we must be able to coexist with differing views. Sadly, that hasn't always been the case.

What's different today is that the popular belief in society, stated publicly and urged on us in more subtle ways, is that no group should seek to win others to its cause. To do so flies in the face of both cultural relativism and religious pluralism, cornerstones of our "civil society." Those who do either are quickly condemned: How dare you insist that your views are the true and only ones! How can you be so arrogant, so ignorant?

The idea that a person or group believes that there is an absolute religious truth -- and that it's worth living and dying for -- is antithetical to our "tolerant" culture that seeks the lowest common denominator of belief and commitment.

Does that mean we should return to an age of religious intolerance, with its penchant for hatred and violence? Of course not. Nor does it imply that we necessarily will. But if we have no beliefs to uphold, no truths to share, then how paramount is our faith? If it has limited relevance to me, why would it have significant meaning for others?

And that gets us back to the Baptists and the Mormons, two religious groups contending for a faith that each believes is true. (Obviously, they are not alone in their contention that they have the truth.)

What is important to understand is that, unlike the ugly religious wars of the past, their differences can be expressed without rancor. Each can insist on its understanding of truth and remain civil.

The goal of faith, after all, is not to conquer in a political sense, but to share in a caring way the message of hope and salvation. Those who don't want to be bothered can politely say "no thanks" and walk away.

So, who has the truth? Whose faith will carry the day? That's not for us to say. Neither are we to silence those who earnestly want to share their messages -- nor smugly mock their "narrow views."

Each of us who are struggling to stay committed to a faith -- and pass it on -- sees only through a glass darkly. One day, thank God, we will see and understand face to face.

---

(Tom Schaefer writes about religion and ethics for the Wichita (Kan.) Eagle. Write to him at the Wichita Eagle, P.O. Box 820, Wichita, KS 67201, or send e-mail to tschaefer(at)wichitaeagle.com )

---

(c) 1998, The Wichita Eagle (Wichita, Kan.).

Visit the Eagle on the World Wide Web at http://www.wichitaeagle.com/

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.