A Review of: Understanding These Other Christians An LDS Introduction to Evangelical Christianity by Richard G. Grant Sounds of Zion, Inc., 1998

According to the book cover, Richard G. Grant is the great grandson of Jedediah Morgan Grant, an early LDS Apostle and Second Counselor to Brigham Young. Richard Grant has held several callings within the LDS Church and, at the time of the printing of this book, was an ordinance worker in the Oakland Temple.

As seems to be common to this type of book, Grant was propelled into its writing due to questions posed to a member of his ward by a Christian. Rather than immediately dive into formulating a response to what Grant calls "attacks" against his church, he admirably sought to first understand the belief system and motivation of these critics. After four years of research Grant wrote Understanding These Other Christians. (vii)

In a refreshing change from the popular refrain that Mormonism is not really so different from orthodox Christianity, Grant makes this bold statement:

"The Evangelical community accuses Mormonism of teaching a different gospel. We often defend ourselves by pointing out our similarities. In doing so we may forget that in the Sacred Grove Christ called the world's understanding of the gospel 'the doctrine of men.' Yes, we do teach a different gospel, and we must continue to teach that restored truth which has been given to us." (ix)

Further, Grant states,

"Although this book points out many similarities between Evangelical and Mormon beliefs, that identification must not be construed to suggest that the differences in our beliefs are minor. The differences are deep and significant,…" (xi)

In his four years of research, Grant came to a foundational understanding of how Christians receive the LDS message; an understanding which is often lacking in Evangelical/Latter-day Saint dialogue. He writes:

"What Latter-day Saints may ignore or fail to understand is that our teachings about apostasy, restoration, prophets, additional scripture, latter-day visions, revelation, priesthood, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the nature of man and of God are each direct attacks against orthodox Christian theology…Much of what we view as anti-Mormonism is simply a defense of the Evangelicals' doctrinal position." (8-9)

Another plus in Understanding These Other Christians is the effort Grant made to accurately represent Evangelicalism. He submitted his manuscript for review to Dr. Roy Zuck, then a recently retired Senior Professor at Dallas Theological Seminary. Throughout the book Grant includes comments made by Dr. Zuck (most often as footnotes) which serve to clarify orthodox Christian thought. Sometimes these comments are not flattering to Grant; it is to his credit that he chose to include them. (e.g., 103, #22)

Richard Grant arguably did his homework before writing Understanding These Other Christians. His bibliography of Christian authors is impressive. Six pages long, it includes such authors as Calvin Beisner, James Montgomery Boice, Sinclair Ferguson, Norman Geisler, Alister McGrath, J.I. Packer, James Sire, R.C. Sproul, and John Stott to name a few. Interestingly, Grant places C.S. Lewis in a separate section of the Bibliography ("Others") with the note, "No, in spite of Evangelical claims, Lewis was not an Evangelical writer." (304)

While there are positive aspects of Understanding These Other Christians, there are problems with the book as well.

In discussing the middle position of the Christian view of the Bible, Grant uses Bishop John Spong as spokesman for the orthodox Christian camp. Bishop Spong is well-known for his ultra-liberal view of Scripture; a view disparaged in Evangelical circles. Grant acknowledges Spong's view may be liberal, but continues to use him as representative of the central view of Christianity. (20-23)

Despite his research, Grant did not come to a clear understanding of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. He writes:

"Christian orthodox theism is described as Trinitarian. Simply put, this is the belief that the one God is in some way also three." (37)

Grant's definition is woefully inadequate. Given the books included in the bibliography, it is puzzling that he did not better represent this central Christian doctrine.

Some additional examples of Grant's misunderstanding and misrepresentation include:

"Evangelicals may call Mormons polytheists because we sometimes refer to these three personages as three Gods, but this is mere semantics. Evangelicals also affirm that they are three and Mormons also affirm that they are one. Evangelicals just carefully avoid the terminology 'three Gods.'" (108)

"Beginning with the assumption that God is totally different from man, historic Christianity has evolved a theology that teaches that God the Father cannot be a father, the Son cannot be a son, and men cannot be the children of that one God who calls Himself Father." (109)

"Evangelicals believe that the true Christian has turned his or her life over to the Spirit and may even feel that they are no longer responsible for their actions." (152)

Many of Grant's conclusions are also inadequate. In a discussion of the Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible, Grant quotes Boice explaining that if we did not have a trustworthy Bible all theology would be open to speculation. Grant believes Boice's comments represent an "almost desperate spirit of the Evangelical need to defend the inerrancy of the Bible." (79) Grant concludes that it is the absence of living prophets which drives the orthodox Christian church to claim biblical inerrancy when, in fact, it is the nature of God which makes anything less than an inerrant Bible impossible.

Grant is straightforward about the fact that Latter-day Saints do not use the Bible as a doctrinal source. (93) He writes,

"We don't go to the Bible to learn our doctrine -- we take our doctrine there and find its echo." (57)

Therefore, he cautions his readers against using the Bible in dialogue with Evangelicals. (229) Yet he recognizes the fact that Evangelicals believe the Bible to be their sole source of doctrine, although he thinks they are mistaken in this. He writes,

"Just as the Bible is not our source for the foundation of our doctrine, it's also not really the Evangelical source. Their interpretation of the Bible is that interpretation which is necessary to yield the theology they have inherited from orthodox Christianity." (235)

Having discussed the importance of biblical interpretation, Grant includes an appendix which seeks to explain how an Evangelical interprets the Bible. In a section on hermeneutics which Grant says is based on R.C. Sproul's Knowing Scripture, he writes:

"1) The Rule of Faith: This is the primary rule of hermeneutics. It states that the Bible is its own interpreter. That is, no part of the Bible can be properly interpreted in such a way as to be in conflict with what is clearly taught elsewhere in the Bible (or clearly understood and accepted as a foundational doctrine of Christianity)." (243-244)

Grant later paraphrases this Rule of Faith:

"No part of the Bible will be interpreted in such a way as to be in conflict with what is understood and accepted as a foundational doctrine of the interpreter." (244)

The foregoing demonstrates a very troubling problem with Understanding These Other Christians. Grant does not understand the Evangelical position despite his well-intentioned research. Consequently, he misrepresents this (and other) aspects of orthodox Christianity. In this case he not only paraphrases the Rule of Faith according to his LDS misunderstanding, but also includes the error in his initial presentation of the Rule. This does a great disservice to R.C. Sproul, who is credited with the unorthodox idea which Grant has added within the parenthesis. It also has the unfortunate consequence of denying Grant's readers the opportunity to truly "understand these other Christians."

-SAL