"Where Do We Go From Here: Transforming Evangelical Responses to New Religions", by John W. Morehead II in Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach. Eds. Irving Hexham, Stephen Rost & John W. Morehead II (Kregel, 2004; ISBN#: 0-8254-2893-9), pgs. 279-304.
Review by Jeff Downs


The Reformation principle of always reforming should apply to all areas of Christianity. The study of and our responses to New Religious Movements (NRMs) should be no different. This is the approach taken by John Morehead in his article "Where Do We Go From Here?: Transforming Evangelical Responses to New Religions." One of the goals the author has had over the past few years is get his colleagues to look at and evaluate the research and the conclusions he has come to. The end result being that the Counter-cult community would reconsider the models currently used in responding to NRMs and adopt what he labels a missiological approach. According to Mr. Morehead this new model would allow the gospel to be heard, by a greater number of members of NRMs.

In his opening paragraph Mr. Morehead starts swinging his ax at his characterization of Counter-cult apologetics when he states "...typical evangelical approaches to new religions do not conform on balance to biblical examples for interreligious evangelistic encounters." (pg 279) Mr. Morehead is in full agreement with one of the co-authors of Encountering New Religious Movements, Philip Johnson, in his classification scheme of the current models used by Counter-cult apologists. The classifications are as follows: "End-Times Prophecy and Conspiracy", "Spiritual Warfare", "Former Member Testimonies", "Cultural Apologetics", "Behavioralist Apologetics", and the "Heresy-Rationalist Apologetics."

Because Mr. Morehead believes the "heresy-rationalist apologetic" is the model most frequently used by Counter-cult apologists. He spends the majority of his article addressing this particular model.

Because the heresy-rationalist model is built upon (in Morehead's eyes) biblical text that call us to guard the body of Christ against false teachers and for the Church to continue in sound theology, this particular model in the end fails since it does not take into account "other passages that demonstrate examples of evangelism and dialogue" which results in "an imbalance of apologetics over evangelism" (pg. 287). At this point I'm grateful that Morehead adds a little word that carries a lot weight. He states "First, the model appears to be built upon...and does not consider other passages..." There are a couple of places in scripture where the word supposing is used, but the authors could've just as easily supplied the word appear (i.e. an assumption was made) and the meaning would remain the same. In Acts 16:27 after an earthquake occurred, the doors of the jail were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened, the prison guard "was about to kill himself supposing that the prisoners had escaped" (i.e. it appeared to him that way). In the gospel of John, we have Mary weeping at the tomb where Jesus was buried. Jesus, standing in her midst asks why she was crying. The text goes on to say "Supposing Him to be the gardener..." (i.e. it appeared to her). As we can see from both of these texts, just because something appears a certain way, it doesn't mean it's actually true. In the context of John's criticism of the so-called heresy-rationalist apologetic, while it might appear to him a certain way, he has made assumptions which prevent him from seeing things the way they actually are.

The second major criticism of the heresy-rationalist apologetic, is that it does not lends itself to sharing the gospel with adherents of the NRMs. According to Mr. Morehead, one reason for this is that the heresy-rationalist model is speaker-oriented which does not lend itself to listening. It is a model built on preaching instead of communication. It majors on "refuting heresy" and "annihilating worldviews." Since this is the case, Counter-cult apologists see NRMs "primarily as heretical systems in need of refutation" (pg. 291).

If you are familiar with the history of Counter-cult apologetics, Morehead's comments sound much like a book title by James Spencer Heresy Hunters. The picture you get from Mr. Morehead is that Counter-cult apologists who utilize the heresy-rationalist approach has his mind set on finding targets to spear and leave bleeding for dead. Or in his words, we "view new religions primarily as heretical systems in need of refutation" (291).

After spending little time describing the positive aspects of the heresy-rationalist approach, he quickly moves into criticism. John, then, proceeds to explain why the Counter-cult community is such a small segment within Evangelicalism. Morehead points out that the Counter-cult community has brought this on themselves since "the refutation of heresy is the primary reason for existence..." (pg. 290, emphasis in original).

Finally, John spends the remainder of his article "Charting a Way Forward." Because the heresy rationalist approach has been unsuccessful in its application toward religious adherents, there must be a better way. Morehead defines success "as the ability of a model to conform to the balance of biblical passages that exemplify not only the defense of the gospel, but the communication of the gospel in terms the respondent can here" (pg. 293).

There are three areas Mr. Morehead believes the Counter-cult community needs to reassesss: "The Character of the Evangelical Speaker," "The Perceptions of our hearers," and "The Message Proclaimed." Those of us engaged in Counter-cult Ministries are admonished to carefully understand the NRM before criticism occurs. This would include a willingness to interact with the primary resources, the best of Christian and non-Christian scholarship, and that our material should be peer reviewed. Mr. Morehead also calls us to a humbleness in our approach to NRMs. "What needs to be appreciated is the value of genuine friendship, humility, regarding one's knowledge of another's worldview, and a palpable desire to understand." (295) 2

Because Counter-cult apologetics, according to Morehead, has such negative connotations, we need to reconsider our characterizations. "Counter-cult ministries must work with other segments of evangelicalism to rethink their collective identity and purpose. Rather than a defensive and reactionary identity, this new identity must be positive and thought of in terms of frontier missionary activity." (pg. 269) Closely related to the identity of the Counter-cult community is the identity we place on NRMs and how they, in turn, believed they are perceived. Therefore, we need to reevaluate the labels (e.g. Cult) we use for groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Latter-day Saints.

Finally, he posits that a better model will "interact not only with theology and apologetics, but also with cultural anthropology, sociology, communication theory, phenomology, religious studies, patristic studies and other disciplines that rest upon the foundation of missiology" (pg. 289). The idea here is to see NRMs as "spiritual cultures" which will lend itself to a holistic model and will enable us to build bridges to these communities. In the end, this new model "...may result in greater evangelistic fruitfullness" (302).

First, I want to commend Mr. Morehead in his desire to reach a greater number of people in NRMs. No doubt Mr. Morehead stands with the counter-cult community in their desire to reach these groups more effectively and in greater numbers. Second, Mr. Morehead has obviously spent a good amount of time reviewing the material pertinent to missiology and in turn "creating" a model for Counter-cult apologetics. Third, I commend John for his continual appeal to his colleagues to reassess the heresy-rationalist model, with a view toward a missiological approach to NRMs. While much of his critique surrounds the heresy-rationalist model, Mr. Morehead does not seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater. He sees this approach better suited for "boundary-maintence" within the church and even good for those who are new converts of these groups or even old members beginning to have doubts about their religion.(3)

I tend to agree with Mr. Morehead's criticism that the counter-cult community can do better. Since becoming a member of the Evangelical Ministries to New Religions (4) I have made it a point to address the board of this organization (on many occasions) of how and what we can do to make a bigger impact not only on NRMs, but to have credibility within our own churches, the academic community, and within the secular press. (5) It is certainly a fact that Counter-cult apologetics is marginalized and has been even before it became a "movement." No one in the Counter-cult community would deny this and some have worked on it becoming more mainstream within the Church.

I would also agree with Mr. Morehead that a better understanding and more interaction with missiological literature and organizations could only benefit those in Counter-cult ministry as well as missions in general. Again, I believe those in Counter-cult ministry would be in agreement with John as well.(6)

Actually, there many points made in Mr. Morehead's article where the Counter-cult community would be in full agreement. But there are also points of disagreement. First, it is very important, for the benefit of readers, to know that the sharp dichotomy between methods as categorized by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Morehead is plainly in error. While I believe it is very helpful to look at things categorically, what defines a specific category must hold true.

The primary goal in Counter-cult apologetics is to be used by the Lord to proclaim the biblical gospel to adherent of NRMs. We earnestly desire for individuals within these organizations to come to faith in Christ. (7) It is not to go heresy-hunting, to refute heretics, nor is it to annihilate worldviews. No doubt worldview analysis and comparison take place, as well as the refutation of heresy. But the primary goal is and always has been, to win people to the Lord.

If the two points made above are true, and they are, most of the criticisms leveled by Mr. Morehead are inaccurate. He has set up a system that frankly is non-existent and then claims to chart a better way. But the fact remains, "on balance" the Counter-cult ministries have done a satisfactory job. Although, as I already noted, more could be done and no doubt, how we do it should always be evaluated. Most former member of NRMs who have become Christians, have come out because of this so-called "heresy-rationalist" approach. That means, they have heard the gospel, understood it and have come to faith in Christ.

No doubt, Counter-cult apologetics to a large degree is confrontational. Any witnessing opportunity, to some degree, is going to be confrontational. Whatever method is used, in the end, the non-believer will need to realize they are sinners in need of reconciliation. They will need to understand that the god of their respective religion, is no God at all. They will need to understand that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works, etc... This can be done as a good ambassador of Jesus Christ and not as a heresy-hunter/worldview annihilator. Therefore, this entails listening to adherents of other religions and understanding who they are and what they believe.

Practically speaking, a lot of our encounters with NRMs take place at the doorstep. We need to be good ambassadors for our Lord. But, this also entails standing up for what is good, true and pure. Instead of preaching, this can be done through communication. Asking the right questions of the person can get them to begin to question their authority structure. Also, as Walter Martin and others have pointed out, terms need to be defined. This again can be done in a variety of ways and still remain a good ambassador for Christ. In most cases, time is of the essence

Bottom line, there is a lot of positive material in this article, but much to criticize as well. In order to set forth what he thinks is a more positive method in reaching NRMs, Mr. Morehead has created a staw-man of the Counter-cult community. Sadly, to a large degree Mr. Morehead has abandoned the colleagues he has worked with for so long. The inaccurate statements about the Counter-cult community have pushed him away even further.

I would encourage Mr. Morehead to reevaluate the research he has done with respect to the primary goal of the "heresy-rationalist approach." I believe if he spoke with some of his colleagues, his characterization that the Counter-cult community has sharply dichotomized apologetics and evangelism is simply mistaken. (8)

To my colleagues in Counter-cult ministry. I would encourage you to spend some time evaluating Mr. Morehead's materials (e.g. Encountering New Religious Movements). No doubt, we have much work to be done inside and outside the Church. Partnership with missiological agencies will give us opportunities to equip God's people, but will also give us a chance to learn a cross-cultural missiological perspective.

========NOTES========
1. Mr. Morehead, at least recognizes that Philip Johnson's "classification system is an artificial construct..." (see Fn. 2, pg. 280).
2. The following source is being quoted: Christopher Partridge, "The Disenchantment and Re-enchantment of the West: The Religio-Cultural Context of Contemporary Western Christianity," Evangelical Quarterly 74, no. 3 (2002): 251.
3. Mr. Morehead has stated elsewhere "However, during the majority of a person’s high commitment to a new religion apologetic arguments are often ineffective, and many times counter-productive. They can actually cause a person to develop a greater commitment to their faith when it comes under attack by the apologist." Personal e-mail (1/2/5) on file.
4. For further information on this organization visit the EMNR website at http://www.emnr.org.
5. Because this article is not necessarily about my ideas, I'll save my thoughts on details of what I have offered and how we can go about making some of the changes. I do not believe my ideas are unique...in fact Walter Martin addressed most of them in "The Road to Recovery" from the Kingdom of the Cults . 6. Mr. Morehead's contention is, if this is the case, why isn't anyone interacting with his material or more generally - missional material. I would suggest one reason is that Counter-cult ministries have been sucessful. Also, the fact that not everyone has access to large amounts of material and it is certainly costly to purchase. Other reasons could be offered.
7. Better yet, if like the World Wide Church of God the whole organization became orthodox, this would cause for all the more rejoicing. Not because they heresy was refuted, but that individuals within the organization have come to faith in the truth Christ of scripture.
8. I have had numerous e-mail discussion with John about these matters. Much more could be said, but wouldn't necessarily address the points made in this particular article.