Recently, a discussion about Neo-Apologists has erupted in various online forums. This is a term that, although not new or uniquely Mormon, was coined by John Dehlin in a Mormon context. About a year ago on reddit, he explained how he was using the term to contrast “new” apologists with “classic” apologists:
Classic LDS apologists = Examples: Hugh Nibley, Daniel Peterson, Lou Midgley. Brian/Laura Hales. Old FARMS, Maxwell Institute prior to eviction of DCP. Old FAIR. Use(d) faux scholarship, ad hominem, etc. to defend the church. Live in the binary, “church is true/false” world. “Validity” truth criterion (vs. utility truth criterion). Very literalistic in scriptural interpretations. Try to defend past GA actions/statements. Brass knuckles and/or dismissive with critics and/or doubters. Squarely Fowler Stage 3 LDS church participants. TOTALLY becoming marginalized/irrelevant in today’s Mormonism. Ironically, still have influence amongst the brethren (i.e., DCP publishing column in Deseret news) since most (if not all) of the First Presidency/Q12 still hold this world view.
Neo-apologists = Terryl and Fiona Givens, Richard Bushman, Adam Miller, Dan Wotherspoon, Gina Colvin, Thomas McConkie, Patrick Mason, etc. Don’t focus on “true”, but instead on “good.” Pragmatic truth criterion (vs. validity truth criterion). Focus on practical value vs truth claims. More universalistic in approach to church — view LDS church as one of many paths. Use mellifluous prose, humanities, philosophy, and pragmatics to justify staying in the church. Acknowledge GA imperfections, de-emphasize following the brethren dogmatically. Focus on liberal/symbolic interpretations of scripture. Make slight attempts to be more pastoral/empathetic (at least in word) in their approach to critics, but often prefer to ignore them in public discourse. Attempting to grow a Fowler Stage 5 population within LDS church participation. TOTALLY on the rise in today’s Mormonism. Have become the darlings of Deseret Book and Peggy Fletcher Stack, which is really ironic and fascinating.
At first blush, I have a few observations about these descriptions. First of all, a caveat: I don’t find Fowler a particularly convincing model for faith stages. [1] It’s too self-congratulatory of those with diminished or nuanced belief and too dismissive of all others. It also points to an underlying temperament difference rather than actual “stages” that a person goes through. Fowler seems like a recipe for self-deception.
Secondly, I think the “brass knuckles” description is a bit unkind and overstated, although believe me, I haven’t appreciated some of the strong-arm tactics of a few individuals on his list. I think his point is that the “classic” apologists are more aggressive and less forgiving of dissent and that they often take umbrage at positions held by the second group, whom they consider to be wolves among the sheep rather than true or valid defenders of the faith. Apologists have historically often disagreed with each other, so this is nothing new. It should also be stressed that those in the second group probably would likely not self-identify as apologists at all, but more on that in a minute.
Defining Apologists
I did a post back in 2008 explaining apologetics a bit more. That post was partly in response to a conversation I had with John Dehlin at the time. It was clear he didn’t think much of apologetics in general, and so my post was framed as a defense of apologists (although I wasn’t enamored of them either–I just wanted to explore the topic in more depth). I have generally seen apologetics as a necessary byproduct of criticism. In short, the apologists respond to the critics to defend the religion from whatever the criticisms are. Their position is always defensive; the critics set the stage. Those who revile apologists do so on the following grounds:
- They are not objective. Of course not, and neither are critics. Apologists always start from the position that the church is defensible or in some way right and the criticism is either untrue or irrelevant.
- They are defensive. Yes, they are literally defending against a criticism. That’s what apologetics are.
- They require “mental gymnastics.” This is a tricky one. One person’s logic is another person’s twisted logic. “Mental gymnastics” can also be a byproduct of a defensive position. As I have often said in business, “When you’re explaining you’re losing.” Whenever you take a defensive position, you sound . . . uh, defensive.
- They bicker. Yes, but the other guys started it!
- They are irrelevant. It does seem to me that defending faith and belief with logic and reasoning is counter-intuitive. We don’t “prove” our way into a testimony. As Peter Enns said in a Maxwell Institute podcast, once you introduce the scientific method and secular reasoning into religious argument, you’ve already conceded the field. You’ve made religion a secular study.
As commenter Clay Whipkey noted in that discussion:
The process works like this (very similar to litigation):
1. criticism is given
2. indictment is made (doubt)
3. apologist presents a complicated defense
4. in many cases, the best the defense can do is re-introduce reasonable doubt in the details of the criticism, but usually it does nothing to support the faithful claim
Neo-Apologists in Evangelicalism
This term isn’t John’s invention. For another take on the term, check out this post by Fred Butler on an Evangelical site called Hip & Thigh. There are actual year long programs to become an Evangelical neo-apologist. The blogger takes umbrage at certain features of neo-apologists that don’t necessarily apply to Mormon neo-apologists (if such a thing exists beyond the borders of John’s mind):
- They aren’t anchored to a local church.
- They aren’t scripture focused, but rather anthropocentric.
- They are often in their early 20s.
- They aren’t officially sanctioned.
Those criticisms don’t apply to the group of people John identifies for the following reasons:
- Everyone who attends church as a Mormon is tied to a local congregation. We don’t shop churches like Evangelicals.
- Mormons aren’t a sola scriptura religion. You could argue (perhaps) that Mormonism would substitute leaders for scriptures and apply the same criticism, but since our leadership is an oligarchy, I would argue that Mormonism is anthropocentric. Therefore, neo-apologists being anthropocentric would be a very Mormon approach, not unique to apologetics.
- These guys are certainly not all in their 20s; they have more decades of life experience.
- The people John identifies aren’t in any deliberate grouping and haven’t done a certification program.
But that doesn’t mean that just because they aren’t like the self-identified Evangelical neo-apologists that they don’t represent a new apologetic movement. The criticisms leveled at the Evangelical neo-apologists aren’t authoritative, just one blogger’s opinion. From what I’ve seen, apologists tend to be individuals writing defenses of a religion, with or without reference to the bible, with or without special schooling, and with or without affiliation with a local church or other apologists.
Are Neo-Apologists Apologists?
So that’s what apologetics are and how they work. Back to the question about whether Neo-Apologists are really apologists or not. One Redditor, TigranMetz, argues that the Neo-Apologists should be further split into those that are progressive (seeking change) and those who are passive about change (de facto supporters of the status quo):
I also think that “neo-apologists” should be split into two groups. The first group of neo-apologists recognize and acknowledge some of the pressing issues, but then just side-step them and say that the status quo should go on anyway because it makes them feel good (in so many words). The second group of neo-apologists differ from the first in that they also advocate for systemic change to the status quo, however slight that change may be. Consider the following three straw men:
Issue: Joseph Smith made a lot of objectively dumb decisions and made mistakes that objectively hurt the church (i.e. bad choices in counselors and other leadership, BoA and Kinderhook plates, Kirtland Safety Society, etc.).
Classical Apologist: JS was clearly inspired and most of that information is out of context, blah, half-truths, blah, blah, triple pretzel somersault, blah. So you see? The Church is perfect, our prophets are perfect, and we should obey them perfectly no matter what!
Neo-apologist 1: Yes, these facts are real and they present issues to the official narrative. It seems JS wasn’t as perfect as we thought. However, I get such great feelings when reading the Book of Mormon and feel spiritually enlightened by the subtle supernal scribbles found therein! The church and our prophets aren’t perfect, but they are connected to God somehow so we should still obey them perfectly because they are His inspired mouthpieces on earth!
There is no functional difference between these two. They advocate for the same thing: conformity to the status quo. They just reach that conclusion from two different angles.
Neo-apologist 2: Yes, these facts are real and they present issues to the official narrative. It seems JS wasn’t as perfect as we thought. These facts illustrate problems with the practice of following our leaders as if they were infallible. I still have good feelings about church generally, and feel spiritually enlightened by scripture, etc., but I think the organization as a whole will improve and step closer to perfection in Christ if it stops perpetuating the myth of infallibility and rescue the Law of Common Consent from the depths of vestigial obscurity and re-institute it as a real balance against unchecked authority.
The second group of neo-apologists both acknowledge the issues and advocate for change within the system. In other words, they see the system as inspired, but is also imperfect and could benefit from change.
John’s response to this:
I think the church is trying to have it both ways. For people still in a black-and-white worldview, they’ll offer up the classic apologetics. For people troubled by the new information, they’re recommending Givens and Mason. Making room for the nuanced believers means that they have to take the sharpest edges off the classic approach, but it doesn’t mean it’s going away entirely.
But apologetics is always “the church having it both ways” because apologists are unpaid shills for the institution [2] and that’s how it’s been since the dawn of Christianity. The critics criticize, the apologists defend, ad infinitum, worlds without end. This isn’t something the church invented for its nefarious purposes. Well-wishers of the church who want to help people fazed by specific criticisms of the church are wise to point them to the most effective apologetic sources they can.
As Matt Thurston aptly put it in the 2008 discussion, classic apologetics often fail to persuade when they are too strident and lacking in nuance:
My problem is that Church feels like an anemic two-instrument symphony… I can only hear the Correlated Piccolo and the Apologetic Violin.
Surely this is a case for a more nuanced approach, whether progressive or not, one even divorced from implied institutional backing. Redditor zoidbergs_moustache further explains the differences between individuals lumped into John’s “neo-apologist” category:
I think of apologists as starting with the conclusion and then making whatever contortions and leaps are necessary to support it. It’s a bit different than the dictionary definition that you quote. Maybe less charitable? I think my understanding is common among internet mormons, but I don’t have any data to say whether it’s more or less common than the dictionary version.
I think my definition applies as well to Nibley/Peterson/Hales as to Givens/Bushman/Mason, but the conclusion being justified has changed from “the church’s story is literally true” to “the church will make you a better person”.
From my reading of his book, listening to his Colvin interview, and hearing him at a ATF meeting in Alpine a couple weeks ago, I couldn’t say that McConkie starts from the conclusion that you should stay in the church, and then tries to back it up. He is very much centered on personal growth and development from a clinical (and sometimes mystical) perspective. I would agree that he justifies continued engagement as a valid path. But it’s just one of many equally valid paths. I don’t think he would say that “the church will make you a better person” is true for everyone.
Colvin I don’t know as well. I’ve heard her many times on the interviewer side, but not as the interviewee or advocating any particular path. My hunch is that she’s justifying her decision to stay, but it really doesn’t feel like she’s pushing that decision for others.
I think you’re making an important distinction between the old and new styles of dealing with people’s doubts. It’s hard to lump McConkie and Colvin in with them though. I don’t think the brethren like them much. On the other hand, maybe my liking them is clouding my judgment.
And commenter anironrod takes exception to the underlying agenda to categorize the later group as apologists at all, seeing it as counter-productive:
Terryl comes across as having devotion and loyalty to the church. He’s committed to furthering the purposes of the church.
I get more of a sense from Gina that she finds herself in the church because of previous decisions. The church isn’t anything special–it is just where she is and so out of service to the community she continues to explore ideas within the context of Mormonism.
Further–John I don’t know if you have some sort of goal in mind with your current advocacy. But if you generally think it is good for orthodox members to transition to more and more progressive and open thinking, then each of these people and the approach they take can be a stepping stone on that path.
It doesn’t do them a service to all be labeled as ‘neo-apologists’ and to be forced into the same box.
Can a group be considered apologists merely because they find good in an institution (without defending individual points of doctrine), even if they are marginalized by that institution? The term “apologist” as used by John has usually been a slur which is why applying it to some of his close associates (Dan & Gina) is perplexing. In a related note, I know John has previously considered me an apologist, although I think the definition here is so broad that anyone who writes from a pro-church perspective, whether progressive or critical–so long as they still hope for the good of the church–is an “apologist.” Surely we aren’t all apologists? Or maybe we are.
Because of the church’s exclusion policy toward gay people, graspingreality implies that anyone who hopes for change has to be cast as an apologist because being Mormon and progressive is apparently an oxymoron:
I like this and I’d argue that “neo-apologists” is a better description than “progressive” Mormons.
Applying “progressive” to active participants in the wake of the exclusion policy seems absurd. You would never call anyone participating in most far right organizations “progressive.” “Neo-apologists” fits.
Given the description, is apologetics really what these folks are doing? Doesn’t that make everyone who still sees good in participating in the church an apologist? Does the label “apologist” apply when people are no longer defending the church from specific criticisms but defending:
- their own decision to engage?
- the choices of believers to remain involved despite disagreement?
- the institution’s flexibility to progress past current positions?
Discuss.
[1] Or as kimballthenom put it in the Reddit link:
The Fowler Stages of Faith:
- Stage 1: You don’t know shit about the tooth fairy.
- Stage 2: The tooth fairy is gonna make you rich beyond your wildest dreams.
- Stage 3: Perhaps a buck-fifty isn’t gonna get you very far in life.
- Stage 4: You realize your mom always has a buck-fifty less in her purse after every time the tooth fairy visits.
- Stage 5: You don’t know if the tooth fairy exists, but the thought of its existence makes you happy.
- Stage 6: The tooth fairy does exist. You are the tooth fairy.
And then there is me who jumped ship at Stage 4. Faith is not the virtuous trait I thought it was. It’s a sham. It teaches us to trust our feelings over verifiable logic. The tooth fairy doesn’t exist. Get over it already.
[2] “Every member an unpaid shill” didn’t catch on so they went with “Every member a missionary.” However, I hasten to add that there are apologists who are subsidized by the church, including the “kidsplainy” 3 Mormons Youtube videos.
Wheat & Tares 
I see the so-called neo-apologists as trying to make the best of a difficult middle path. Orthodox members see them as heretical. John Dehlin’s ilk are equally, if not more, dogmatic in being critical of anyone who would maintain any participation in the Church. I prefer Richard Rohr’s three stages. 1. Structure, 2. Deconstruction, and 3. Reconstruction. I feel like traditional Mormon apologetics is desperately trying to keep the stage one (structure) puzzle pieces fitting and are willing to go to great lengths to do so. That works for a lot of orthodox members, but falls apart when you dig deeper. I feel like the John Dehlins of Mormonism are perpetually stuck in stage 2 of deconstructing the “traditional narrative” and chucking the whole thing. I like to think that neo-apologists have moved on to stage 3 (reconstruction), taking the pieces that work from stage 1, throwing out some of the things deconstructed in stage 2 and rebuilding a faith narrative that works for them. The John Dehlins are still stuck deconstructing and being negative about the whole thing and are critical of anyone using any of the pieces from the original structure trying to rebuild. I noticed that John Dehlin really tries to grill people who have a nuanced view. For example, his interview with Greg Prince was a non-stop barrage of questions like “Don’t you think participating in an institution that is causing so much harm is also implicating you as causing harm?” He gives people like Grant Palmer softballs. I identify with the neo-apologists and think this is the future of Mormonism. Let the haters hate.
There was a recent (like “last week”) reddit post from John regarding neo-apologetics again, so it seems he’s coming back to it..
To me, the biggest issue is that John struggles to really grok why people could be members of the church — especially if they are aware of the messiness of history and doctrine. He’s come up with a lot of (usually profoundly dismissive) constructs to try to explain this, and neo-apologetics just feels like one of these.
Lots of meat here to chew over and I started to jump in and then realized I was too worn out to do it. At the end of the day it seems like really all this is a way for groups of people to dismiss other people they don’t agree with. I’m finding I’m getting of tired of engaging with that. I’m tired of being told I have to fit a pattern someone else has developed (whether that be a traditional member or someone who has left). Why don’t we stop worrying about who fits what label and see people with individual lived experiences, individual hearts, individual paths in life. A path being right for one person does not mean every other path is inherently wrong (and vice versa). Judging each others paths because we think *only* our path is the correct one is so damaging and hurtful.
*To be clear, I am not saying the OP is doing this.
One of my favorite posts of yours. Thanks so much.
Felix, it seems odd to say that apologists want structure to remain unchanged. After all they often are quite at odds with more “fundamentalist theology” (say the no death before the fall crowd). They also have made pretty serious rethinking of theology that affected the church widely. While the limited geographic model is one example there are tons of theological implications for many theological perspectives.
I also am quite a bit more skeptical of so-called neo-apologetics. Apologists all have their own views. There’s a surprising amount of diversity on points where a strong argument for one interpretation can’t be made. That diversity isn’t really two totally different types of apologetics. I know some create a division between traditional apologists and neo-apologists over whether one accepts historicity – particularly of the Book of Mormon. But again I think that a misleading and often unfair interpretation. Of it confuses a focus with a position. For instance many if not nearly all at the Maxwell Institute accept Book of Mormon historicity but might not think that focusing in on such matters is as helpful from an apologetic perspective for doubters. I think that makes a lot of sense.
The main problem is I think confusion over whether apologists are merely defending theology or trying to create a space for people with doubts to be able to regain a testimony. The latter is (or should be) the main focus. But that doesn’t mean one can’t also make arguments for the former as well. Creating a divide among apologetics on this issue is odd since often the same person might work in both types of apologetics.
Felix, it seems odd to say that apologists want structure to remain unchanged. After all they often are quite at odds with more “fundamentalist theology” (say the no death before the fall crowd). They also have made pretty serious rethinking of theology that affected the church widely. While the limited geographic model is one example there are tons of theological implications for many theological perspectives.
I also am quite a bit more skeptical of so-called neo-apologetics. Apologists all have their own views. There’s a surprising amount of diversity on points where a strong argument for one interpretation can’t be made. That diversity isn’t really two totally different types of apologetics. I know some create a division between traditional apologists and neo-apologists over whether one accepts historicity – particularly of the Book of Mormon. But again I think that a misleading and often unfair interpretation. Of it confuses a focus with a position. For instance many if not nearly all at the Maxwell Institute accept Book of Mormon historicity but might not think that focusing in on such matters is as helpful from an apologetic perspective for doubters. I think that makes a lot of sense.
The main problem is I think confusion over whether apologists are merely defending theology or trying to create a space for people with doubts to be able to regain a testimony. The latter is (or should be) the main focus. But that doesn’t mean one can’t also make arguments for the former as well. Creating a divide among apologetics on this issue is odd since often the same person might work in both types of apologetics.
I don’t find classifying *people* into apologetic categories very useful, rather I like Kevin Barney’s suggestion to specify different apologetic approaches. One particular scholar may use one approach in one conversation, and another approach in another. Barney’s 3 categories are engagement apologetics, scholarly apologetics, and educative apologetics. Maxwell Institute does scholarly Mormon studies (often related to apologetics), while Fair does more engagement apologetics (responding to the CES Letter arguments, for example). I’d consider the gospel topics essays as more educative. When apologists start talking about their own reasons to stay in the church, or offering other types of spiritual, devotional frameworks (like the questions at the end of the OP), I think we’re dealing with a type brought up recently at a roundtable discussion that’s pastoral apologetics. But like I said, the same person can do different types. Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling to me is more scholarly apologetics – doing first-class historical work from a believer’s perspective. But Bushman’s section in Patrick Mason’s Planted book where he talks about the possibility of staying in the church because it’s good, even if you aren’t sure that it’s true – to me that’s more pastoral apologetics.
I think JD is trying to get at the emerging prominent role of pastoral apologetics when he’s describing the neo-apologists. While we had some figures in the past who played around with it, like Eugene England or Armand Mauss, I just don’t think we ever really considered it part of the apologetics field because the presence of devotional arguments (spiritual/emotional in addition to intellectual) made it look so different from the more left-brain engagement, scholarly, or educative types of arguments.
I think I prefer to define apologists as those who arrive at a conclusion through some means (often through a feeling, i.e., a spiritual confirmation) and then do whatever gymnastics is necessary to try to prove they are right. It seems apologetics always involves getting the cart before the horse.
“Are we all apologists?”
We sure are. Whatever we believe (or don’t) we express, explain, justify, and defend, even if only to ourselves. Hopefully we learn more as we go along and keep an open heart and mind so we can adjust our apologetics accordingly, and allow all others the exact same privilege.
On another note, I find it rather ironic that Dehlin refers to binary, brass knuckles tactics of old school apologists he clearly thinks poorly of; yet he uses brass knuckles (or brass something-or-others) when asking if those who stay “in an institution that causes harm is also implicating you as causing harm?” How binary is that? How condescending.
Finally, I would say that generally speaking, apologetics kind of seem like some believe the people were made for the church, others that the church was made for the people, others that the church is dead and/or corrupt/evil/polluted, and still others just want to keep the commandments as best they can and partake of the sacrament each week to renew their covenants. The good news is there’s room for all such folks and every other type of apologist out there (though I admit I feel like the haters need a hefty dose of my cleansing tonic). Glory that.
A most excellent post Hawkgrrl. Glory that too.
Franklin – Jonathan Haidt would say that every conclusion the human brain makes is based on feeling first then justifications for that feeling (logic, reasoning, gymnastics) second. My understanding of the science of the brain isn’t near good enough to explain the why of it, but if you have an interest in such things I’d recommend his book ‘The Righteous Mind.’
Clark, I think what I mean by unchanging is an unwillingness of apologists to cede any ground to the traditional narrative. For good reason, there is a lot riding on the traditional narrative, it holds together nicely and works well as a belief system. That is what I mean by Rohr’s first structure stage. The religion has all the answers, there are very clear guidelines and everything lines up. This is great structure, especially to give people a foundation (i.e. primary, youth and missionary programs) and works well for a lot of members. I think the Church has operated this way since Joseph F. Smith and the Hugh Nibley-type apologists have essentially patrolled the borders to direct people away from the information and questions that leads to deconstructing that narrative. For example, when No Man Knows My History came out, the Church discouraged people from reading it, Hugh Nibley wrote “No Ma’am That’s Not History” critiquing Fawn Brodie and her style, but not really tackling the issues raised. That seemed to work really well for the Church as a whole. The internet has blown the border wide open and the traditional apologist responses to questions are not satisfying to many people, because they do not hold up very well. As Patrick Mason says, the CES Letter does a good job of deconstructing the traditional narrative. We need to find a way to have a safe place for people who want to go through deconstruction and come out on the other side in a better place. The Gospel Topics are a first step. I would hope in the future that any graduate of BYU or an institute program would be equipped with all the critical information and have an idea of how that fits into a nuanced view of faith. I think this is a viable long-term strategy to survival and growth. But, there is a price to pay, there is less deference to authority and less rigidity in observance. Long-term, I see Mormonism looking more like Catholicism with different levels of observance and room for liberals and conservatives.
Hawkgrrrl, this is a great post.
I’m going to dispute this assertion by Enns and assert myself that the scientific method and secular reasoning most certainly belong in a religious discussion; however, they are not the end of the discussion. They are simply a tool one brings to bear to scrutinize the religious arguments made by others. If I lived in 1844 Nauvoo and had James Strang deliver a letter from Joseph stating that Strang is the next leader of the church, I would hope I would do more than simply pray about it and let cognitive bias do its work. Hopefully I would work out the likelihood of such a thing occurring, scrutinize the document, compare the use of language in the document to that of Joseph, review handwriting, etc.
With that said, secular reasoning is certainly limited in the arena of religion. I have had several spiritual experiences that inform my religious views and I use them as data in my reasoning process. Some might state that such unfalsifiable data are not to be included in a reasoning process, but am happy to live with the uncertainty brought by the inclusion of such data. As Coldplay put it in the song “The Scientist”:
Questions of science
Science and progress
Do not speak as loud as my heart
That is ultimately what I feel is the difference between apologetic approaches. I like Barney’s description of them, which seems more accurate than labeling them “apologetics” and “new apologetics”. We are simply describing different approaches to religion. I personally prefer the approach of Mason, Givens, etc. because they are not dogmatic. They make room for different religious experiences. They may have their personal reasons behind the arguments they make, but they are also trying to carve out room for people who have different perspectives. I appreciate that approach.
I think the classification is just another way to bolster Dehlin’s credentials. If you’re going to dismiss something, it’s more convincing if you classify it first, as it signals you actually spent some time thinking about it, even if you put very little thought into it.
e.g. Dehlin is a neo-anti. He checks all the boxes that would usually be involved with regular critics, and he -really tried- to stay in the Church (but ultimately it was too much for him), so now he just blogs/tweets/webcasts trying to help the poor, deluded victims. Totally different from those old antis, who are the real “brass knuckles” extremists.
On several occasions at MDD when John Dehlin made this kind of generalization “faux scholarship, ad hominem, etc.” about supposedly everything produced by FARMS as a matter of deliberate editorial policy and universal practice, I asked for specific examples, and then demonstration that such examples were truly representative of the work of the over 300 individual contributors over the 22 volumes of the Review. (I’ve actually read all of them, and contributed several times, so I know the available evidence underlying the charges). And I got just the kind of substantial documentation and evidence that President Trump supplies when he makes his equally insightful and equally well supported charges against what he claims are typical Mexican or Muslim immigrants. That is to say, nothing of substance. But there are social groups out there who seem to thrive on such rhetoric without support.
Personally, I very much prefer the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth to the Fowler’s Stages of Faith. The Perry Scheme observes how a person processes information and categorizes that way, rather than on the conclusions a person makes, as in Fowler. Based on studies of Perry is very useful in watching the debates and debaters in LDS culture.
Position 1: The authorities know.
Position 2: The true authorities are right, the others are frauds
Position 3: There are some uncertainties and the authorities are working on them to find the truth
Position 4: (a) Everyone has right to their own opinion
(b) The authorities don’t want the right answers. They want us to think in a certain way
Position 5: Everything is relative but not equally valid
Position 6: You have to make your own decisions
Position 7: First commitment
Position 8: Several Commitments
Position 9: Believe own values, respect others, be ready to learn
That’s the nutshell version. I got a beautiful paper from Veda Hale many years ago, in which the Perry Scheme reads like rich poetry. She used it to map character development in Levi Peterson’s Canyon’s of Grace.
Wow, so many great comments!
Clark: “Creating a divide among apologetics on this issue is odd since often the same person might work in both types of apologetics.” Perhaps creating a divide was the point – easier to dismiss en masse? I think Mary Ann’s comment about Kevin Barney’s types of apologetic is very helpful at understanding what individual apologists are attempting to do in each effort, but I tend to agree that one person can employ various types of apologetics.
Mary Ann: The addition of “pastoral” apologetics makes a lot of sense and IMO is a much better naming strategy than “neo-apologists.”
Rockies Gma: Astute observation that some think the church was made for people and others that people have to be made to fit the church. This is probably a useful way to understand the differences between the two types of new apologists identified by Redditor TigranMetz (quoted in the post).
FelixFabulous: “But, there is a price to pay, there is less deference to authority and less rigidity in observance. Long-term, I see Mormonism looking more like Catholicism with different levels of observance and room for liberals and conservatives.” From your mouth to God’s ears!
Cody Hatch: I feel like I need to defend Enns’ statement a little bit. He goes on to say that he thinks it’s an impossible task to separate secularism from spirtuality. He’s mostly taking aim at fundamentalist or Evangelicals who decry secularism (but who then attempt to “prove” religion is right using secular tools). In saying secularism has already won that argument, he’s not opposed to that, just noting that those who are doing so don’t realize that secularism doesn’t exist separately from religion & vice versa and never really have. For lay people, spirituality has always been intermingled within the domestic (therefore secular) concerns of the community and individual. Actually, while Enns & Hodges DO discuss this here: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=5812&index=1, there”s another interview that’s more to the point with James K.A. Smith here: https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=6120&index=1. Well worth a read. (These links are to the transcripts). Both were excellent interviews.
Kevin Christensen: Thanks for that different model (a better Fowler). It’s definitely more on point and less self-congratulatory. Food for thought. I’ll have to do some more reading on this. If you’d ever like to do a guest post on it, we’d absolutely love to publish it!
This comment may not be helpful, but I just want to clarify one thing. I may have included Dan/Gina in the “neo-apolgetic” list at one time (a year or so ago?)…but I intentionally did not include them in my most recent inquiry/exploration (or if I did, I didn’t intend to) — for the simple fact that they both openly and explicitly downplay or outright reject the importance of things like “beliefs,” exclusive authority, truth claims , etc. — and they are both willing to directly criticize the brethren. In other words, they do not carry water for the brethren (as do folks like Mason, Bushman, Givens, etc.). Just wanted to clarify….not that it will necessarily prove helpful in the dialogue.
(please delete the previous comment)
John
I feel like folks like Dan in particular highlight how fuzzy the lines are. Like, Dan says very explicitly in several episodes of Mormon Matters that he’s trying to help people see different things that could give Mormonism credibility — this certainly could count as a type of apologetic defense, even if that defense is not “carrying water for the brethren.”
In fact, part of Wotherspoon’s entire project is an encouragement to see more to Mormonism than just the “head” concerns of “belief,” exclusive authority, truth claims, etc., So, his defense of Mormonism cannot be separated from his downplaying of all of those things. To say that apologetics must focus on those things basically begs the question as to what Mormonism is or can be, and is tantamount to saying something like, “Well, Dan/Gina aren’t apologists because they aren’t *really* Mormon.”
And, to be fair, if someone wants to say that (whether explicitly or implicitly), the same sorts of criticisms can actually ultimately be made about any apologist, to the extent that apologists *always* deal in possibilities that are not necessarily institutionally accepted.
Hats off to you, hawk, for taking on such a complex and nuanced subject. I’m telling you, you really need to write a book (or several). My thoughts:
As a professional academic, I do find so called “classic” apologists grating. Their biases are so obvious and their reasoning, generally, quite poor. Poor enough that most of my students could spot the logical flaws immediately. And I get that everyone is biased, both detractors and defenders, but to gesture towards the Enns quote that Cody references, the classic apologists are entering the realm of logic and reasoning. And once they do that, I think it’s absolutely fair to hold them to the standards of logic and reason and not let them slide just because they’re trying to defend something rather nebulous. They’re the ones who chose to bring religion into the realm of reason and they’ve therefore got to be able to defend their religion logically and reasonably.
I think that a lot of where each reader of apologetics falls has to do with how they conceive of truth. Yes, the classic apologists seem to appeal to the “black and white” Mormons, whereas the neo-apologits are a bit more influenced by current thinking about religion and ideas and are therefore less ideologically (and rhetorically) rigid. For myself, I don’t really follow church apologetics that much any more. My beliefs regarding Mormonism are so subjective and so personal that A) I don’t feel the need to defend them (since I couldn’t do so with logical and intellectual rigor) and B) how could anyone else defend them when they’re my own, personal and unique beliefs?
I really think, ultimately, credibility, as Andrew S refers to it, is in the eye of the beholder. If I don’t feel that the church has the moral authority/unique access to God’s truths it claims it does, why would I feel it needs defending? And if I can only legitimately make claims about my own beliefs and they are based on faith and not consecutive reasoning, there really isn’t much worth defending, since a declaration of my faith is merely that; a statement about what I feel, not about what I think. I guess that’s how I separate faith and reasoning and since I separate them, maybe I feel it’s not terribly useful to try to join them? My .02.
Quote:
” I know John has previously considered me an apologist, although I think the definition here is so broad that anyone who writes from a pro-church perspective, whether progressive or critical–so long as they still hope for the good of the church–is an “apologist.” Surely we aren’t all apologists? Or maybe we are.”
I think that captures it.
Having talked and walked a little with Nibley he was very much aware of the foibles and failures of general authorities.
Sheesh, he had a family member GA tell him that if an angel came through the door he would throw himself out the window out of same for things he had done before he was called.
I’m afraid there is much too much black and white absolutist thinking when talking about apologists by the neo-anti-Mormons.
I know the term is “Defending the Faith.” We’d all be a bit better off if it was changed to “Explaining the Faith.” That way, people can choose to accept or reject and leave it at that. The bombardment from those oppose is not going to change whether the apologetics do or not. In the end, it’s a take or leave it situation. You either buy the explanation or you don’t.
We’ve seen that many people cannot tolerate shades of grey in their thinking. It’s either black or white. For many, they need the shades of grey to be able to explain for themselves the inconsistencies. And in other cases, they know to leave well enough alone.
Just because most people completely disregard Elder Maxwell’s clear praise for old school Mormon apologetics, should we disregard Elder Holland’s more recent and direct praise for the same? “In making our case for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe God intends us to find and use the evidence He has given—reasons, if you will—which affirm the truthfulness of His work.” – Elder Holland http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/transcript-elder-holland-speaks-book-of-mormon-chiasmus-conference-2017
Here is the Summary of the Perry Scheme I got from Veda Hale a few decades ago, in gratitude for a post I did on the AML List. Still provocative every time I read it.:
I was cleaning up my email and wondered if I ever sent this to you. Whatever….here goes.
Veda
PERRY SCHEME OF COGNITIVE AND ETHICAL GROWTH TABLE OF TRAITS BY POSITION AND TRANSITION
POSITION 1 – Basic Duality. (Garden of Eden Position: All will be well.)
The person perceives meaning divided into two realms-Good/Bad, Right/wrong, We/They, Success/Failure, etc. They believe that knowledge and goodness are quantitative, that there are absolute answers for every problem and authorities know them and will teach them to those who will work hard and memorize them. Agency is “Out there”. The person is so embedded here that there is no place from which to observe themselves, yet they have a dim sense of there being a boundary to Otherness somewhere that gives their Eden-like world view boundary.
Transition 1-2 – Dualism modified. (Snake whispers.) The person starts to be aware of others and of differing opinions, even among authorities. This started the feeling of uncertainty. But they decide it is part of the authority’s job to pose problems. It takes hard work to deny the legitimacy of diversity and to keep the belief in the simplicity of truth.
(It should be kept in mind that in any of the transition states it is easy for the person to become depressed. It takes time for the “guts to catch up with leaps of mind.” When a sense of loss is accorded the honor of acknowledgement, movement is more rapid and the risk of getting stuck in apathy, alienation, or depression is reduced. When one steps into new perceptions he is unlikely to take another until he comes to terms with the losses attendant on the first.)
POSITION 2 – Multiplicity Prelegitimate. (Resisting snake)
Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds. They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong. They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.
TRANSITION: 2-3 – Dualism modified
Now the person admits that good authorities can admit to not knowing all the answers yet, but they will teach what they know now and teach the rest when they have it. They accept that disciplines are divided into the definite and the vague, but that in the end even science fails. Though they have given up dividing meaning into just two realms, they still feel knowledge and goodness are quantitative and that agency is “out there”.
POSITION 3 – Multiplicity Legitimate but Subordinate. (Snake’s logic considered)
The person still feels that the nature of things naturally produces differing opinions, but it’s as it should be, because the Authorities will figure it all out and hand on their conclusions eventually.
ALL OF THE POSITIONS ABOVE FEEL ABANDONMENT IN UNSTRUCTURED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. WHEN CHANGES IN THINKING START TO HAPPEN, IT CAN BE A DANGEROUS TIME. (The forbidden fruit has been partaken and one is out of the Garden of Eden.)
There are seven ways a person can go.
Transition 1. The person can make the transition by modifying dualism drastically to where one no longer trusts authority to have any answers, and they think it will be a long, long time before they will; therefore, there is really no way to be judged by them. Bitterness sets in, as it seems as if rewards don’t come by hard work and rightness, but by good expression and arbitrary factors. With an inability to distinguish between abstract thought and “bull”, disillusion settles and blinds the person to where they become dangerously cynical and take advantage of any opportunity to get gain.
Transition 2. The person could decide that, if there are so many different answers a depending on individual perspective, that it is impossible for any true judgment; therefore anything goes. All is of equal value. To have an opinion makes it right.
Transition 3. Same as above, except it dawns that there are some facts that, if known, can make for a better choice among the many.
Transition 4. Anger and frustration win out. Instead of becoming cynical and opportunistic, person acts out negatively.
Transition 5. The person is moving closer to accepting relativity. He trusts authorities to have valid grounds for evaluations. To get along, one needs to accept that authorities are using reasonable information in making their answers. So the person tries to discover what it is authorities think and want.
Transition 6. Person realizes that on some matters, reasonable people reasonably disagree, that knowledge is qualitative and is context-dependent. They begin weighing factors and approaches in ways that force comparison of patterns of thought, they think about thinking and this occupies the foreground. But they still tend to want to conform so much that they have trouble thinking independently.
Transition 7. This position between multiplicity and relativity is now closer to relativity. The person sees that thinking relatively isn’t just what the authorities he has been dealing have reasoned out and want him to accept, it is the way the world works, in most cases.
NOW UNCERTAINTIES OR DIVERSITIES MULTIPLY UNTIL THEY TIP THE BALANCE AGAINST CERTAINTY AND HOMOGENEITY, PRECIPITATING A CRISIS THAT FORCES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VISION OF THE WORLD, BE IT ONE MARKED BY CYNICISM, ANXIETY, OR A NEW SENSE OF FREEDOM.
POSITION 5 Relativism discovered.
The person accepts that all thinking is relative for everyone and are much taken with this new perspective. It could be a time of profound anxiety as the person struggles to understand how to make right choices. They decide they can and must do something about this new world view, but they may spend a long time before sensing a need for commitment. They can take responsibility for a task at hand, but don’t yet realize they have a responsibility to choose commitments.
THIS POSITION COULD MAKE FOR A PERSON WHOSE AGENCY FOR MAKING SENSE HAS VANISHED ENTIRELY. THEY COULD ALSO REACT BY POSTPONING DECISIONS, FALLING INTO APATHY OR GOING INTO A RAGE. IT COULD GET SO BAD IT COULD APPEAR THE PERSON NEEDS CLINICAL HELP. THE POTENTIAL FOR CYNICISM COULD BECOME EQUALLY ALARMING EDUCATIONALLY.
If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate). He becomes moralistic righteous and has “righteous” hatred for otherness. He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.
If the person at this point doesn’t retreat, he may go into a state of TEMPORIZING. His agency for making sense has vanished, but he postpones any movement. He may reconsign agency to some possible event. If so, Guilt and shame accompany the uneasiness about a failure of responsibility they feel hopeless to cope with.
Or if not either of the above then the person may try to ESCAPE. He becomes apathetic. His agency for making sense has also vanished, but in his feeling of being alienated, he abandons responsibility and uses his understanding of multiplicity and relativism as a way to avoid commitment. He is drifting and has some sense that later he will find himself to be living a hollow life. This drifting with insecurity about “goodness” of his position can make for such a detachment that precludes any meaningful involvement. He starts to rely on impulse. THIS CAN BECOME A SETTLED CONDITION. “For the students reporting their recovery of care,…their period of alienation appears as a time of transition. In this time the self is lost through the very effort to hold onto it in the face of inexorable change in the world’s appearance. It is a space of meaninglessness between received belief and creative faith. In their rebirth they experience in themselves the origin or meanings, which they had previously expected to come to them from outside.” (page 92 of the Perry Scheme.)
POSITION 6. Commitment Foreseen.
FROM HERE ON THE PERSON WILL FEEL FRUSTRATION IN TOO-STRUCTURED OF AN ENVIRONMENT.
Now the person thinks he is alone in an uncertain world, making his own decisions, with no one to say he is right. He makes choices aware of relativism and accepts that the agency to do so is within the individual. He sees that to move forward he must make commitments coming from within. He foresees the challenge of responsibility and feels he needs to get on with it. He also senses that the first steps require arbitrary faith or willing suspension of disbelief. He knows he needs to narrow his focus, center himself and become aware of internal, what could be called, spiritual strength.
He starts to see how he must be embracing and transcending of: certainty/doubt, focus/breadth, idealism/realism, tolerance/contempt, stability/flexibility. He senses need for affirmation and incorporation of existential or logical polarities. He senses need to hold polarities in tension in the interest of Truth.
He begins to maintain meaning, coherence, and value while conscious of their partial, limited, and contradictable nature. He begins to understand symbol as symbols and acknowledges the time-place relativity of them. He begins to affirm and hold absolutes in symbols while still acknowledging them to be relativistic. He begins to embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own. Now the person has a field-independent learning style, has learned to scan for information, accepts that hierarchical and analytic notes are evidence of sharpening of cognition. He is willing to take risks, is flexible, perceptive, broad, strategy-minded, and analytical.
The TRANSITION position between Position 6, “Commitment Foreseen”, and position 7, “Commitments in Relativism developed” is as follows:
Besides the above, the person feels he is lost if he doesn’t decide, that if he can once make one decision, everything else will be OK.
POSITION 7. Commitments in Relativism developed.
The person makes first commitment while being aware of Relativism, and has a vivid sense of CLAIMING AND POWER. He now more fully feels that agency is within him and foresees responsibility with excitement and anticipates more empowering as he makes more commitments and choices. The TRANSITION between Position 7 and Position 8, sees the person having made his first commitment but feeling that everything else is still in limbo and he is foreseeing problems coming from trying to juggle responsibility. He senses need to be: wholehearted–but tentative, to be able to fight for his own values–yet respect others. Now, besides the other ways of studying, the person begins to read not to conciliate Authority, but to learn on his own initiative.
POSITION 8. Commitments in Relativism developed continues.
The person makes several more Commitments while realizing he must find balance and establish painful priorities of energy, action and time. He starts to experience periodically serenity and well-being in the midst of complexity. He has a sense of living with trust in the midst of heightened awareness of risk. He accepts fact that order and disorder are fluctuations in experience. He searches for models of knowledgeability and courage to affirm commitment in full awareness of uncertainty. HE STILL NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVEN THE MODEL MUST BE TRANSCENDED, AND HE SENSES HE NEEDS TO DEVELOP IRONY. The TRANSITION between Position 8 and 9 brings trauma. The person feels everything is contradictory and he just can’t make sense out of life’s dilemmas. But he begins to develop sense of irony and sees he must embrace viewpoints in conflict with his own, not in the old multiplistic way of “separate but equal” or “live and let live” but truly embrace them with what might as well be called “love”.
POSITION 9. Commitments in Relativism further developed.
The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace other’s viewpoints. He can accept life as just that “life”, just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of “PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY”, meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a “provision” for change. He has no illusions about having “arrived” permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known–meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build. veda
For what it’s worth, I have never heard the term “neo-apologist” used in Evangelical circles, and I feel like I would have if it were being used there. (I also have never heard of Fred Butler or Hip & Thigh.) It also seems like Butler is talking a lot of inside baseball kind of talk and coming at it from a weirdly (but not atypically) subjective viewpoint.
That’s a thing among Evangelicals–take the Gospel Coalition as an example. They’re objectively fairly conservative theologically (Calvinist/Reformed, gender complementarian, Biblical inerrancy, etc.), but you still get voices from hardcore Reformed circles who call them social gospel liberals who have compromised the Word of God completely and sold out to the culture. So if you were to read those voices describe TGC without naming names, you would have absolutely no idea who they were talking about (unless you were already engaged in conversation).
So, it would help if Mr. Butler named names so I could have an idea of who or what kind of apologist he is describing. but maybe it doesn’t matter, since my first point, that I believe “neo apologist” is not a term in general use among Evangelicals, still stands.
It’s an interesting discussion here — as usual. Although I generally identify with many of those identified here as neo-apologists, I don’t like the label. I’m not out trying to defend the faith — I’m just trying to live my faith, a faith that delights in the expansiveness and inclusiveness of Mormon Christianity, is well aware of the historical/theological issues and finds what answers I need in a personally nuanced approach.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I don’t have a good label for that. I have sometimes used the label “progressive Mormon,” but that can come across as a political rather than theological position. “Nonauthoritarian” is a partial fit, but that can come across as if I don’t respect the church leadership, although I do (I just see leaders as more human than some traditional Mormons would be comfortable with). “Nontradtional” isn’t specific (that might fit the Remnant folks), and if you were to judge me by church activity, I’m quite traditional. I’ve not liked the NOM label, as that suggests lack of belief — but I do believe, although sometimes in less black-and-white and/or more figurative way than many members.
I’ve sometimes described myself as an “inclusive Mormon.” While I know what I mean by that, I’m not sure others do.
Kevin Christensen- What happened to position 4? (I think I choose that one).