« McClay at Geneva | Main | Who Wants Theocracy? »
September 29, 2006
Who's Afraid of a Mormon President?
I just finished another radio interview about the possibility of a Mitt Romney candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. The question among my fellow conservative Protestants is whether a Christian should vote for a Mormon for President of the United States. I'll have to admit I am wavering between two positions here.
On the one hand, I do not think personal regeneration is a necessary prerequisite to serve as President of the United States. Romans 13 responsibilities are given to those powers that wield the sword with justice. The Scriptures make clear that the church in this epoch does not rule the world (1 Cor 4;8; 6:1-2; Rev 2:26-27). Imagine applying the 1 John tests of Christian spirituality in 1980 to a family man Sunday school teacher with a clear conversion testimony and an active church life and then to a divorced, non-churchgoing, Hollywood actor who was alienated from his own children? And yet, most conservative Christians (and everyone else) went with Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter.
My real fear in this vein is not that Mitt Romney is a Mormon but that he is not Mormon enough. After all, in all of his political races (including the last one 3 1/2 years ago) he took a "pro-choice" stance on abortion, a stance he has now changed. Is this genuine? Will he prove to govern like his fellow Mormon Orrin Hatch legislates, stem-cell research, IVF approval, and so forth? I doubt it. But do we yet know?
On the other hand, we shouldn't dismiss Mormonism as an issue, even if we concede that a Christian can vote for a Mormon candidate in good conscience. This is not another 1960, even for those who would equate Roman Catholicism with Mormonism (which I don't). Just to be frank, even if the Vatican had wanted to launch a conspiratorial New World Order through the Kennedy White House, they would have had to have found someone...more accustomed to taking directives from the Church on any subject. I expect that a President Romney would be informed by his Mormon beliefs, just as I would hope a President Brownback would be informed by his Roman Catholic beliefs or a President Huckabee by his Southern Baptist beliefs.
My fear though is not with Romney or with the LDS, but with American evangelicals. We tend to want a candidate we can identify as a "good Christian." Whether he is or not, we make him so in popular myth. My denomination's publishing house published Jimmy Carter's 1976 campaign biography, Why Not the Best? There are books in Christian bookstores throughout the nation celebrating the faith of Ronald Reagan, though a track record such as his on church attendance and astrological dabblings would be cause for church discipline in a healthy congregation. We have Internet urban legends about President Bush leading a young man to pray to receive Christ in a receiving line. I fear, if Romney is the conservative alternative, to John McCain and Hillary Clinton, we might do the same thing, baptizing Mormonism as just another expression of Christianity. It is not.
I suppose the possibility of a Romney presidency might be a test for American evangelical voters. Would we be able to go to the White House and ask for pro-life, pro-family legislation from a pro-life, pro-family President and then share the gospel with him before we leave?
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 09:32 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00d834ec8dd169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Who's Afraid of a Mormon President? :
Comments
It would be wise for all conservative Christians to freshen up on the doctrine of common grace before we head into the Presidential election cycle. The fact is that none of the frontrunners (McCain, Guliani, Romney) are "good Christians." None other than Luther said he would prefer a good Muslim to a bad Christian ruler. Although all of the above have been on the wrong side on many social issues, I will happily support any of them over the Democratic alternative. Lets not blow it by insisting that the Republican nominee meet our social litmus test.
Posted by: Jfred | Sep 29, 2006 10:04:32 AM
In 1976, my parents and grandparents (except for my maternal grandfather who was a Baptist minister) all voted for Carter despite the fact that both sides of my family have been Republican since the Civil War. All except my father (who died before the 1980 election) and my maternal grandfather (who voted for Ford in 1976), repented of voting for the "family man Sunday school teacher with a clear conversion testimony and an active church life" by voting for the "divorced, non-churchgoing, Hollywood actor who was alienated from his own children." All of them are now dead except for my mother, but I never heard one of them express remorse for returning to the Republican fold and voting against Carter.
Posted by: GL | Sep 29, 2006 11:11:02 AM
Perhaps discernment is to be cultivated apart from institutional associations. I escaped voting for Carter because he had a look in his eyes that reminded me of my sneaky, mendacious, platitude-spouting, church-going Aunt M*****.
Posted by: dilys | Sep 29, 2006 12:30:36 PM
The only ones who should be against a Mormon president are the Mormons. I've much respect for the Saints, however, I did learn an appreciation for how different their beliefs are from those of traditional Christianity after having spent a year's sabbatical at BYU. They do an excellent job of teaching their faith, which inspired me, however they have a number of beliefs that the press would have a field day with.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 29, 2006 1:59:27 PM
I think Romney's candidacy need only be a referendum on Evangelical acceptance of Mormonism if the Evangelicals choose to make it one.
If you guys are willing to drop the issue and "vote for the man" not the religion, this "Mormon question" in election politics will remain largely a figment of the liberal media's imagination. They are the ones, after all, who are pushing the concept most insistently right now.
I'm a Mormon and I realize that many readers here may not like certain things about my own brand of Christianity. Fair enough. There are things I don't like about your brand either. But I think we ought to keep this election away from denominational litmus tests - for the "Christian Right's" sake as much as anyone's.
I hope you realize that you're being set-up here. The mainstream media would absolutely LOVE to see Evangelicals loudly and publicly reject Romney's candidacy on what are clearly religious grounds. All liberals would love to see the supposed myth that the "Christian Right" is an "issues-focused movement" exploded decisively. They've been looking for proof that the Christian Right is "about the issues" in name only, but is truly a solely religious animal.
What better opportunity than a candidate who has the appearance of meshing with the Christian Right on every "issue" - whose only real downside is his denomination? You mention that he has some liberal voting background, but that really depends on how Romney's IMAGE plays out over the next few years doesn't it?
I'll say it again. You are being set-up.
If "Evangelicals" aren't careful, they could really lose a lot of political credibility here.
Posted by: Seth R. | Sep 29, 2006 2:00:45 PM
Very good thoughts Dr. Russell. I have many of the same concerns. I have to say that, to me, Mr. Romney's change of heart over the life issues, seem sincere to me, and is a consolation. He is certainly the only pro-life name being put out of the Republican party. I thought he addressed the problems in MA with adoption and Catholic agencies with great prudence, he wouldn't change the law by fiat, but encouraged people to change the law themselves and was one of the initiators of that process. I would certainly vote for him over any of the other options in a primary, and most definitely over the Democrat's offerings. A friend of ours at church talks about our party system as choosing between evil and stupid. Well, I'll pick stupid, I guess.
JFred, perhaps you miswrote, but I think indeed there is a social litmus test that we should have for politicians, but that there shouldn't be a religious litmus test. If there were Democrat who was pro-life, supportive of marriage, not completely tied to big government or big business, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. It doesn't matter to me what religion he is.
Posted by: Ranee Mueller | Sep 29, 2006 2:15:28 PM
"I'll say it again. You are being set-up."
Here's one evangelical who agrees with Seth. Romney will get my vote if he's nominated. I won't think twice about his religion. If he's not nominated, I think I could even vote for Joe Lieberman (if he'd run). And I'm not Jewish either!
Posted by: Bill R | Sep 29, 2006 2:17:29 PM
Seth, I agree with virtually everyting you say except for one thing. You are not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity, but a gnostic heresy. Period.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 29, 2006 4:28:39 PM
When Mitt Romney's father George was the governor of Michigan, I don't recall that much being made of his Mormonism. My husband lived in Michigan then and he confirms that it was never an issue. Think how much we have changed, that this seems to be the most important thing about Mitt Romney in the minds of so many.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Sep 29, 2006 7:41:33 PM
I grew up in Michigan under George Romney, and Judy is right. He gained his entrance into politics by his successful management of the (now long defunct) American Motors automobile company. His political careers went down in flames when in 1968 he made a run for the Republican nomination for president (against Rockefeller, Nixon, and Reagan) and made his disastorus remark that he had been "brainwashed" by Gen. Westmoreland, et al. during a fact-finding trip to Vietnam. His wife later made an unsuccessful run for U.S. senator in the state.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Sep 30, 2006 9:20:17 AM
Romney has a very powerful card to play (or for others to play on his behalf): the insinuation of "bigotry" on the part of anyone who introduces the "Mormon question". So - don't expect the Press to go there. In fact canny underlings of his will likely inflate any criticism he might get on the basis of his faith, to make him look nobler, and scare "soccer moms" into thinking any vote against him would be tinged with bigotry! "Romney: Mean Religious People Hate Him. Elect Him Today."
National Review made a great little quip, by the way: Romney has polygamist ancestors, they noted, but is the ONLY Republican front-runner with a personal long-term monogamous marriage history!
I'd vote for him in preference to many other names being bandied about, and politically his Mormonism will be a net "plus" since it can't be attacked without "moderate" voters' sense of "tolerance" being fatally offended. (Hoist by their very own petard, those libs. I weep bitter tears for them.) Indeed the objection that comes to my own right-wing mind has nothing to do with the spurious revelations of Moroni, but runs more along the lines of: "Can any good thing come from Massachussetts?!!"
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 30, 2006 1:06:34 PM
My vote will go to a Mormon Romney over a Methodist Rodham-Clinton, Catholic Kerry, Presbyterian Warner or Baptist Gore. Their religious affiliation has nothing to do with my decision.
Posted by: GL | Sep 30, 2006 1:15:08 PM
Oh, that's fine James.
I doubt under your definition of "Christian" that I'd qualify as one anyway.
But I reserve the right to maintain my own definition of the word just the same. We can throw charges of heresy back and forth all we like, but I doubt we'd get anywhere particularly useful.
My whole point was that, from a purely pragmatic point of view, the Christian Right would be better served to put away the thornier issues of theology for 2008. It is unlikely to go down well in the media.
Posted by: Seth R. | Sep 30, 2006 1:22:51 PM
James,
I would be interested in your rationale for classifying Mormonism as a gnostic heresy.
They are not Trinitarian, this is certain as they, in my opinion, have declared the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are not of one substance. In their view, the Son is begotten but not co-eternal. Then there is all the stuff about the pre-existance.
I view the religion as one of the consequences of Bible-only in the abscence of a living tradition. Yet the many, many fine Mormons I know bespeak the power of God's Grace and the Holy Scriptures.
Are they Christians? This is too hard for me, and I have thought about it deeply, but I will say I have seen within many of them a powerful desire to follow Christ.
Bobby
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Sep 30, 2006 1:55:33 PM
"Can any good thing come from Massachussetts?!!"
Joe, Mitt Romney is not from Massachusetts. He just stopped there on his way to the presidency.
However, to answer your question more fairly, there's John Adams, Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams, Paul Revere, Ben Franklin, and ... oh, here's a little list. They're mostly pretty good.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Sep 30, 2006 3:40:32 PM
As a Catholic looking at your fine country from the outside, may I say that I regard politicians of the ilk of Kerry and Teddy Kennedy as bitterly disappointing. JFK's theoretical and practical repudiation of his beliefs likewise. My advice would concur with many here: look at policies, personal decency, voting record. Romney falls down on the last, I believe, on pro-life issues.
Posted by: alien | Oct 1, 2006 11:32:55 AM
Dear Bobby,
The essentially gnostic basis of Mormonism has been written about at some length by various Christian writers. (One could start with the various books by Walter Martin, e.g. The Kingdom of the Cults.) But, just for starters, one clearly gnostic dimension is the Mormon doctrine that the highest level of male Mormon believers become deified -- not in the Christian sense of adoption by grace after the pattern of Christ by nature, but in actual nature -- and become actual gods at the "celestial" (as opposed to "telestial" and "terrestrial") levels, with their own planets and polygamous harems. It is admittedly gnosticism with a twist, in that it does not reject the material cosmos as ipso facto evil. But any system that denies the essential difference in nature between God and man (recall too that Mormonism teaches that God the Father also has a human body), and teaches a doctrine of salvation by superior enlightenment (through initiation into esoteric knowledge) rather than grace, is at bottom gnostic.
I know that there is at least one breakaway Mormon group from the main body that has attempted a return to something like Protestant evangelical Trinitarianism (just as certain Quaker groups did in the later 18th c.) and to jettison some of the more embarassing doctrinal baggage, but I don't recall the details, and in any case it is not the "mainstream" Mormon church.
I treasure one of the many acerbic witticisms of a late friend, Fr. William Deutsch of blessed memory -- "Can you imagine how much history might have been changed if Joseph Smith had been an honest man with a liberal education?"
Of course, when one looks at the moral conduct of many practicing Mormon believers, a lot of Christians by comparison should hang their heads in shame.
I am less concerned with Mitt Romney's religion than I am with his late conversion to pro-life positions. Of potential Republican presidential candidates, I'm most interested in Sen. Brownback of Kansas, though he's probably an extreme long shot.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 1, 2006 9:22:50 PM
Being myself LDS I'm generally pleased with the sentiments here.
Just an issue on James Altena's most recent post–
We believe that salvation through superior knowledge can only come via faith, not, as you posit, at the exclusion of such. We believe that the rites and powers and knowledge and capacity and work and ALL needed for salvation can only be received and effected for us via God's grace. Not some mutually exclusive thing here, rather various channels through which God's grace is manifested and effects salvation for all who will have it, to the degree they will receive such.
Not trying to side track. It's just that the implication that we don't hold God's Grace/Atonement as THE only power behind the modus operandi of salvation is something that is an afront and (in this case) libel against the Gospel we lay claim to.
Posted by: HiveRadical | Oct 2, 2006 1:42:46 AM
I meant to say 'grace' in place of faith. Though faith in God's grace would work also. Those two words are so tied together
Posted by: HiveRadical | Oct 2, 2006 1:44:17 AM
>>>We believe that salvation through superior knowledge can only come via faith, not, as you posit, at the exclusion of such. <<<
Of course, that's not the Christian Tradition, either. In the Christian Tradition there is no "secret knowledge" or "gnosis". Christian gnosis is not the result of "faith" but of direct personal experience of the living God. And salvation is not the result of "faith" or "gnosis", but of divine grace, which inspires faith. And, of course, you sidetracked many other Mormon doctrines that are diametrically opposed to orthodox Christianity.
An objective look at Mormonism can only conclude that it is indeed a syncretistic, gnostic cult with serious dualistic tendencies. That, like many other American cults, the great Protestant homogenizer has managed to make its outward behavior more mainstream and acceptable doesn't change its inherent nature.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 2, 2006 5:33:52 AM
I'm uneasy about the directions a number of our comments are going. Frankly, I'm happy to see the editors closing off comments on posts where we, the invited guests, get out of hand with personal or doctrinal attacks. I too agree with the commenters above about the heretical nature of Mormonism. But that's not really the point of Russell Moore's post, and it gets us distracted from the unique point of view offered by Mere Comments and Touchstone Magazine. It also seems to encourage others to broaden the attacks to brothers and sisters within the orthodoxy encompassed by the Fellowship of St. James. I hope everyone commenting here agrees that that violates the unwritten law of this website.
Posted by: Bill R | Oct 2, 2006 12:46:45 PM
"Can any good thing come from Massachussetts?!!"
"Joe, Mitt Romney is not from Massachusetts. He just stopped there on his way to the presidency.
However, to answer your question more fairly, there's John Adams, Abigail Adams, John Quincy Adams, Paul Revere, Ben Franklin, and ... oh, here's a little list. They're mostly pretty good."
Thank you, and indeed, lots of them were quite good.
However, my question was in the present tense...!
Thanks for the reassurance, though - maybe the Sam Adams potential is still there, like the brewery is!
Posted by: Joe Long | Oct 2, 2006 1:10:02 PM
Joe, how about Mary Ann Glendon? Harvey Mansfield? Hadley Arkes? Abigail Thernstrom?
The main thing, though, about Romney is that he is not a product of Massachusetts (as I believe the above people are not). I don't know why he chose Massachusetts to run for governor. Maybe he just likes huge challenges, like straightening out the Olympics. I am almost completely unconcerned about his religious beliefs, since he is running for president, not high priest. I am impressed by his ability to work with a Democratic legislature to pass a pretty good health care plan, and by his statements and recommendations on Muslim terrorism.
Posted by: Judy Warner | Oct 2, 2006 2:07:18 PM
"I am less concerned with Mitt Romney's religion than I am with his late conversion to pro-life positions."
I've often wondered if the surprising turn some of the LDS take on such things as stem-cell research and abortion have to do with their views on the pre-existance. Is getting a soul our of the pre-existance into the Celestial Kingdom skipping life on earth an option that comes into the thought process? I've seen evangelicals use similar arguments. Rationalization knows no religious boundaries.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Oct 2, 2006 2:20:58 PM
" know that there is at least one breakaway Mormon group from the main body that has attempted a return to something like Protestant evangelical Trinitarianism (just as certain Quaker groups did in the later 18th c.) and to jettison some of the more embarassing doctrinal baggage, but I don't recall the details, and in any case it is not the "mainstream" Mormon church."
You speak of the group formally known as the Reorganized Latter Day Saints now remained something with CCC as an acronymn. They still hold the Book of Mormon as scripture.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Oct 2, 2006 2:23:07 PM
In rebutal of Stuart Koehl
He said
Of course, that's not the Christian Tradition, either. In the Christian Tradition there is no "secret knowledge" or "gnosis".
Of course not in "Traditional Christianity," but certainly it exists in early Christianity. Else--why the rise of the Gnostics? Why would Christ return AFTER having completed his task (the Resurection/Atonement) and STAY for 40 more days? What did he teach then that required his return and extended stay? It says he taught them when he returned. Yet this moment, a time one would think some of the most profound of things would be taught, for if Christ neededd to stay 40 days teaching disciples something not already given previously it must be of import, I mean he returned from the dead to life to get there, there's nothing said of why or what he had to come back and talk about for forty days. Why did the Gnostic movement start and why did it recieve such heed if there was no tie between it and Christ and his Apostles and items such as Christ's 40 day lingering? How many times did Christ command those he performed miracles for to not disclose the happenings at all??? And if those we know of are the disobedient recipients what can be said of all those who kept the admonition? Why is it so hard to believe that the Apostles might have also been confided in on certain points? And what's to say that such revelations could not be mediums of divine gnostic transfer or that such a physical meeting would make it less personal or less divine?
Christian gnosis is not the result of "faith" but of direct personal experience of the living God.
And if it's that what's to preclude a direct personal experience involving the dispensation of truth through ordinances? Direct personal experience with the living God throughout scriptures generally has a thematic time and place. Mountain tops, Temples, Tabernacles, Upperooms, Gardens. Why cannot this personal experience and true gnosis come from such things?
And salvation is not the result of "faith" or "gnosis", but of divine grace, which inspires faith.
Without either you cannot be saved because one is the vehichle of the other. God does not force salvation on those who will not receive it, he doesn't cast pearls in the presence of swine. They are interconnected NOT mutually exclusive aspects.
And, of course, you sidetracked many other Mormon doctrines that are diametrically opposed to orthodox Christianity.
I did not sidetrack anything. I may not have agreed with the tone or presentation of some of the other aspects but the only patently wrong item I could readilly see in his discription of my faith was pertaining to his false implication that grace and gnosis were mutually exclusive concepts.
An objective look at Mormonism can only conclude that it is indeed a syncretistic, gnostic cult with serious dualistic tendencies.
Not in any negative sense of the words. Dualism is a trait of the very people Christ was of. Dualism is not inherently wrong. Most prophecies I see in the bible involve such. It's more an efficiency in communication from God to us.
That, like many other American cults, the great Protestant homogenizer has managed to make its outward behavior more mainstream and acceptable doesn't change its inherent nature.
Which is what makes it so wonderful in my view.
Posted by: HiveRadical | Oct 2, 2006 6:34:40 PM
>>>Of course not in "Traditional Christianity," but certainly it exists in early Christianity. Else--why the rise of the Gnostics?<<<
QED. The gnostics were not Christians--as all the Ante-Nicene Fathers asserted. Now that we have the Nag Hammadi Library and other early gnostic documents, we know that Fathers truly presented the beliefs of the gnostics, and were right in their assessment. The successors of the gnostics--the "neo-gnostics", as well as all the 19th and 20th century gnostic cults--are no more Christian than the orginal variety (and a lot less intellectually coherent, which is saying something).
>>>And if it's that what's to preclude a direct personal experience involving the dispensation of truth through ordinances? Direct personal experience with the living God throughout scriptures generally has a thematic time and place. Mountain tops, Temples, Tabernacles, Upperooms, Gardens. Why cannot this personal experience and true gnosis come from such things?<<<
Because Christ removed the need for intermediaries. Through his Resurrection, and through our baptism, we have become sons and daughters of God, sharing in Christ's relationship with the Father. As a son can access his father without intermediary, so can the Christian access the Eternal Father without intermediaries.
>>> Dualism is a trait of the very people Christ was of. Dualism is not inherently wrong.<<<
It is quite obvious that you do not understand "dualism". Alternatively, you do not understand the Judeao-Christian conception of God.
>>>Which is what makes it so wonderful in my view.<<<
All it means is that most Mormons give as much thought to the teachings of their faith as other Americans give to the teachings of theirs. Which is to say, not much.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 2, 2006 6:47:26 PM
"It is quite obvious that you do not understand "dualism". Alternatively, you do not understand the Judeao-Christian conception of God."
Or both. Great refutations, Stuart. (We're riding the same train here!)
Posted by: Bill R | Oct 2, 2006 6:57:48 PM
And I agree with Bill...
Posted by: David Gray | Oct 2, 2006 7:12:51 PM
I had to re-read that a few times to make sure that my eyes weren't playing tricks on me--Orrin Hatch actually being accused for not being conservative enough. Wow, that's just laughable. You could find a few issues like Stem Cells where he's not 100% in the ultra-conservative mode, but if you look at Hatch's voting record the vast majority of his legislative activity is lockstep GOP. Whether that's a good thing or not is another question.
The sooner mormons can admit that according to the creeds and traditions of the church fathers, they are not christians, and the sooner other christians can admit that by that definition, neither were the apostles, the better off we'll all be. How about this: we all read the scriptures, pray to the same Father, and form our own beleifs as the spirit guides us, express our faith Christ to each other, and stop telling each other what to believe.
I always find it strange, and mildly amusing, when people tell other relgions what they believe instead of asking them what they believe. Why is it so hard for us all to admit that none of us have the full truth and that we'll just have to wait for death or the rapture to get it? Personally, I care a lot less about whether the mormons or the protestants or the catholics are right on this or that theological quibble than whether I actually have a personal experience with grace and am living up to my acceptance of Christ.
I'm worried that Romney will try too hard to convince the rest of the country that he isn't so mormon and will end up a puppet of the republican leadership instead of following his instincts. Ultimately questions of gay marriage and abortion will be mostly decided in the Senate and in the courts than in the oval office, so I think we do ourselves a disservice by focusing too much on them to the exclusion of other issues (like environmental stewardship, and limiting the power of the executive).
Posted by: JKC | Oct 2, 2006 11:46:00 PM
As a Mormon and ardent pro-lifer who strongly opposes embryo-destructive research, I thought I'd offer my own assessment of Romney's pro-life conversion. Simply put, I don't believe him. Not that he's not pro-life, but that he was ever pro-choice. I've never met a pro-choice Mormon who was as conservative and orthodox as Romney is on other issues, and for that reason when a conservative Mormon Republican runs for office in Massachusetts and says they're pro-life, I think they're trying to represent their constituency. (All politicians are torn between voting their own, or their constituency's, conscience.)
In the same way, Romney explained his conversion to the pro-life movement by his exposure to stem cell research, but I've talked to lots and lots of Mormons about stem-cell research, and I've never met ONE who changed their mind about the legality of aborting babies because of the controversy of frozen embryos vs Michael J. Fox. Orrin Hatch is typical of a sizable number of Mormons -- pro-life if the embryo is imposing burdens on an unwilling woman, pro-choice when there's no woman to impose upon and the embryo's death might benefit themselves.
Some may feel that a candidate must loudly proclaim all of their beliefs, even if it would make them unelectable to their constituents, while others feel that politicians are right to pick their battles wisely.
Oh, and to all of you "Mormons aren't Christians" posters -- the Christ of the New Testament saved me, a Mormon. I don't know who you pretend to be when you argue that Jesus didn't save me, or that even though the Jesus of the New Testament saved me, I'm not Christian.
Christ didn't teach people to understand his ultimate immateriality, or any other metphysical theology, before He offered them salvation on his name. It's blasphemous to teach that people must gain a particular understanding of Christ, beyond recognizing and accepting his divinity, before He can save them. The woman at the well knew nothing of the Nicene creed, and He saved her anyway. So does Christ save the Mormons.
Posted by: Matt E. | Oct 3, 2006 12:50:04 AM
>>>So does Christ save the Mormons.<<<
Salvation is a function of divine grace that falls as a free gift upon all. But to say that mere profession of Christ is in itself sufficient to ensure salvation is so vague as to render the name of Christian meaningless. Christ established the Church with a particular form and function. He gave his Disciples a rule of faith by which to live. He endowed them and his other followers with the gift of the Holy Spirit, that they may be led into all truth. The Church lived according to that rule of faith, that Tradition, for 1500 years. Even afterwards, the majority of Protestants still held to the fundamental tenets of Nicene faith. Therefore, the boundaries of "mere Christianity" are very well set. "New" revelations of the Joseph Smith variety that are radically at odds with that Apostolic Tradition are on the outside, not the inside. And discerning the inside from the outside is precisely what Paul means by "justification".
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Oct 3, 2006 5:17:20 AM
Bravo, Stuart!
To Matt E. --
"Oh, and to all of you "Mormons aren't Christians" posters -- the Christ of the New Testament saved me, a Mormon. I don't know who you pretend to be when you argue that Jesus didn't save me, or that even though the Jesus of the New Testament saved me, I'm not Christian.
"Christ didn't teach people to understand his ultimate immateriality, or any other metaphysical theology, before He offered them salvation on his name. It's blasphemous to teach that people must gain a particular understanding of Christ, beyond recognizing and accepting his divinity, before He can save them. The woman at the well knew nothing of the Nicene creed, and He saved her anyway. So does Christ save the Mormons."
Christ saves everyone, in the sense that His grace is sufficient for all. But not all are saved, for all do not rightly accept it. The faith that saves us is faith in a person -- Jesus Christ, the Son of God -- not faith in a doctirnal system per se. But to have a right rtelation with that person, it is vital to believe rightly in and about Him, so that what you dismiss as "metaphysical theology" is of very great importance. It is vital to believe truth and not what St. Paul termed "cunningly devised fables." Otherwise your statement reduces to an assertion that you can be and are saved on any terms and by whatever beliefs suit your fancy.
No one here presumes to know your ultimate fate, or that of anyone else, in that regard. But we are obliged to withstand heresies of false Christs that endanger the salvation of the soul, of which Mormonism is one.
To assert that it is "blasphemous to teach that people must gain a particular understanding of Christ, beyond recognizing and accepting his divinity" is a distortion of the orthodox Christian position, but revelatory of Mormon gnosis. For Christians do not "gain" a "particular understanding" of Christ by superior enlightenment, they are given it by revelation and accept it as given. Such is e.g. the woman at the well of Sychar. But she did not then go off and claim to have additional secret revelations from angels of new gospels written in unknown tongues on golden plates, readable only with miraculous spectacles, all of which is then conveniently assumed away to heaven (in contradistinction to the extensive scholarship devoted to recovering ancient NT manuscripts and comparing and collating of variants in them.)
As for "the Jesus of the New Testament saved me" -- the problem is that Mormons DON'T have the Jesus of the New Testmaent. They have a fabricated Jesus of the canonical New Testmaent plus the gnostic Book of Mormon, with its fantastic claims of Israelite tribes in North America and a second Messianic ascension, etc. -- just as the ancient gnostics had a Jesus of the four canonical gospels plus their various fabricated gospels.
As St. Paul wrote, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8-9) A better description and prophecy of Moroni and Joseph Smith could hardly be devised. For as Christ said, "And many false prophets shall arise, and deceive many." (Matt. 24:11).
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 3, 2006 7:24:15 AM
It will be interesting to follow the Mormons over the next 50 years. With current population trends, our country will consist mainly of Roman Catholics and Mormons, with maybe a few Baptists here and there.
Perhaps my mind is clouded because of my friendships among them, but I hope we are somehow able to build bridges. The biggest bridge is that they seek to follow Christ. The biggest challenge is that their faith is based on the idea that the church universal as received through tradition from the Apostles is wrong.
Having spent a year as a guest among them, I know they admire CS Lewis who was almost Roman Catholic. There is hope.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Oct 3, 2006 7:33:18 AM
"Some may feel that a candidate must loudly proclaim all of their beliefs, even if it would make them unelectable to their constituents, while others feel that politicians are right to pick their battles wisely."
There is a difference between picking your battles wisely and lying. If you say that you don't believe that Romney was ever pro-choice then you are in effect saying that he was lying when he said he was pro-choice. To my mind, honesty and integrity are much more basic (and therefore essential) Christian doctrines than whether life begins at conception, at birth, or in between. I agree that it is not necessary to fight every battle, but I'm not comfortable voting for someone who would misrepresent himself for political gain. There are three possibilites with Romney: 1) he lied when he said he was pro-choice when he ran for governer of MA, 2) he is lying now when says he is pro-life, 3) his "conversion" to the pro-life ideology is genuine and sincere. Or, I suppose there could be a fourth possibility he doesn't care and is just adopting this or that position to please either the liberal constituency of MA or the republican leadership. Given those odds, there's a 75% chance that Romney is less than sincere.
I'd rather have an honest democrat in the white house who may be pro-choice but is willing to limit the growing influence of the federal government in our daily lives than an insincere pro-life republican who will continue the rise of the surveillance state. Questions of belief or sectarian position don't matter to me in this context.
Posted by: JKC | Oct 3, 2006 8:15:10 AM
This generally Republican voter agrees, JKC -- but would you mind posting the names of both Democrats in the universe who fit your description? And are either of them running for president?
Which is not to say that I'm not thoroughly fed up with much of the Republican party -- it's just, shall we say, at this time slightly less nausea-inducing by comparison.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Oct 3, 2006 4:00:30 PM
"Oh, and to all of you "Mormons aren't Christians" posters -- the Christ of the New Testament saved me, a Mormon. I don't know who you pretend to be when you argue that Jesus didn't save me, or that even though the Jesus of the New Testament saved me, I'm not Christian"
But the Christ of the New Testament and the Christ of Mormonism are not one and the same being. The Christ of the New Testament saves, the spirit brother of Lucifer who is the false Christ of Mormonism cannot.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Oct 3, 2006 4:56:33 PM
If anyone is interested in sincerely pursuing the main points of difference between the Evangelical and Mormon theological positions, they might be interested in reading "How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation." The book is co-authored by Craig L. Blomberg, an Evangelical professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, and Stephen E. Robinson, a Mormon professor of ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University.
The book covers the most significant points of disagreement (and grounds for agreement) in: 1) Scripture; 2) God and Deification; 3) Christ and the Trinity; and 4) Salvation. And it does so respectfully on both sides.
Of course, many Evangelicals consider Prof. Blomberg's attempt at honest dialogue to be ill-advised. Likewise many LDS consider Robinson to be wasting his time even bothering to talk to Evangelicals. But I consider the book a useful first step.
As far as Romney's dubious conversion from "pro-choice" to "pro-life" or whatever else... I find it no less convincing than McCain's recent attempts to buddy-up to our current President or his sudden discovery that he, in fact, does have warm feelings for the "Christian Right." As others have said, you'd be hard-pressed to find a single politician on Capitol Hill who hasn't, at some point, engaged in a few political gymnastics of varying degrees of credibility.
In the end, it's too early to tell what to think of Romney. His national campaign hasn't hit full stride yet and he hasn't been forced to fully articulate his platform in view of the public eye. Yet.
I'm willing to wait and see. I'm quite warm to the idea of a Romney presidential bid. But I like McCain just as much really. And I haven't seen enough of Gulliani to form an opinion there either. I'm open to being persuaded or turned-off by any of the candidates at this point.
And for those Evangelicals who are disturbed by the idea of a "Mormon President," I've already said why I think they'd be well-advised to keep a lid on it. But consider further:
Evangelicals aren't the only people bothered by Mormons. The Left wing of American politics is almost equally hostile towards Mormons on issues like our rejection of "fashionable moral relativism" in favor of hard doctrine (think same sex marriage, abortion, teetotalism, anti-gambling, anti-pornography, monogamy/traditional family, etc.). They lump us together with those other "intolerant Christian fundamentalists loonies." Feminists are also upset with our continued refusal to embrace a "female clergy" and our uncomfortable polygamous history (which I suppose isn't quite dead yet).
If the anti-Mormon or counter-cultist elements in mainline Evangelicalsim are looking for Mormonism to get a black-eye in the public spotlight, it's quite likely that American liberals will do it for them without Evangelical spokespersons saying anything.
Posted by: Seth R. | Oct 3, 2006 5:19:08 PM
"...had to re-read that a few times to make sure that my eyes weren't playing tricks on me--Orrin Hatch actually being accused for not being conservative enough. Wow, that's just laughable...if you look at Hatch's voting record the vast majority of his legislative activity is lockstep GOP."
"Lockstep GOP" does not equal "Conservative." I wish we had a real conservative party in this country, but the fact is, we have a "more conservative" liberal party. There are lots of real conservatives in the GOP, to be sure, but the party's platform is not exhaustively, perhaps not even predominantly, conservative.
Posted by: Ethan Cordray | Oct 3, 2006 5:23:05 PM
Seth,
I agree that the Blomberg/Robinson book is a good place to start. Craig Blomberg is the poster child for irenic dialogue (imho). Having sit through classes with him (I am a DenSem grad), I can personally attest to this. Don't forget though, that the book is entitled, "How Wide the DIVIDE", not "gee, we're really both just different kinds of Christians".
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Oct 3, 2006 5:37:05 PM
James--fair enough points, I guess the only point on which we disagree is that I find the parties equally nauseating for different reasons.
Ethan--I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't think that the GOP is truly conservative in the way I think the word should be used, but based on what I've read on this blog, I assumed that conservative was being used to mean, essentially, republican. If I was wrong, I'm glad to be corrected.
Kamilla--the Robinson/Blomberg book is fantastic, and I've sat through Robinson's classes (I am a BYU grad).
Posted by: JKC | Oct 3, 2006 5:57:38 PM
The belief that we must have the same understanding of the metaphysical realities of the Christ to share a definition of Christian is a symptom of theological far-sightedness.
A good example of what I mean is found in fractal mathematics and the well known question, "How long is the coast of England?" and the answer that it depends on the size of the unit you use to measure with, "the size of your ruler", illustrate the non-intuitive nature of complex shapes in nature. The coast of England is a fractal, as is any coast line. The complexities of the shape of the whole coast line are reflected in the complexity of the details on much smaller scales. If you measure 50 miles at a time you miss all the little bays and peninsulas. If you measure a mile at a time you will measure these and get a longer measure, but not as long as if you measured with a yard stick and took into account every protruding rock and other small wiggle in the coast. If you measured on the level of an inch you would get a still longer length for the coast.
Are Mormons Christians? Well that depends on the size of your ruler. When measuring general tenets such as belief in the Jesus born of Mary in Bethlehem as our Savior and God, sure we are. But you can always shorten your doctrinal ruler to exclude us on the more specific points.
Be careful though, if you shorten your ruler too much, you end up excluding everyone but your own self (this is evidenced by the intense theological divisions found on most mainstream Christian discussion boards/blogs/councils -- or Mormon ones for that matter).
So how big should your doctrinal ruler be? Only you can decide for yourself... but probably better to make yours a little longer than the Savior's, you'd hate to accidentally eschew those whom He counted as His sheep
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 3, 2006 6:21:58 PM
and to bring it back to the post. It seems to me that most Evangelicals have been willing to stretch out their rulers a bit to accomodate Romney as a viable option for President.
I think this is both admirable and wise.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 3, 2006 6:24:40 PM
Oh, I think my ruler is just about the right size - Holy Scripture a big enough ruler for you?
Apparently it isn't for the Mormons who need three additional sets of writings - the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price to show them how inadequate the canon of Scripture really was for nearly 2 millenia. Oh, how deceived we have been! Lucifer wasn't an overproud angelic being, created by God and cast down when he overstepped his bounds. No, he is the petulant spirit-brother of Jesus Christ who got his knickers in a twist when his plan of salvation was nixed by father-god!
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Oct 3, 2006 6:54:16 PM
Holy Scripture a big enough ruler for you?
Ask Mel Gibson and Fred Phelps. Most people don't qualify by their reading of your ruler.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 3, 2006 7:08:58 PM
I don't know enough about the beliefs of either of those men to say whether or not they hold to essentials regarding the person of Christ - that's all I am responding to here. But correct me if I'm am wrong in guessing that neither of them believe Christ and Lucifer to be brothers?
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Oct 3, 2006 7:18:23 PM
You're missing my point. You mention holding to the essentials of Christ. Surely you don't deny that even amongst mainstream evangelical Christianity there are severe theological disputes even on "the essentials" (The true nature of the trinity, the necessity of baptism, et.al.). Why then do you not exclude those who don't believe exactly as you do? Because you have extended your ruler to a particular inclusive length (a length which Phelps & Gibson would argue excludes you from qualifying as a "true Christian")
Again, my overarching point is that depending on the context of the theological debate, it can be fair for you to exclude Mormons as Christians. But in the sweeping national/global Christianity context, Romney should be considered part of the club and consequently garner evangelical support.
Posted by: Ryan | Oct 3, 2006 8:00:38 PM
No, Ryan, I believe I got your point. But I don't concede it or agree with it. As I indicated earlier, I believe it misses the mark because it points to precision, not truth itself.
I am speaking specifically of Christological heresies - a very narrow context which does not necessarily include the true/exact nature of the Trinity and certainly doesn't include the necessity of Baptism. That you bring in the latter indicates either that I have been unclear or you misunderstand the point I am making.
Christ and Lucifer are either spirit-brothers, or Christ is the only and eternally begotten Son and Lucifer a mere creation. One is the Christ of the Scriptures and the other is a figment of Joseph Smith's fertile imagination. The difference between the two is a matter of truth or falsehood and not the size of your ruler.
As for Messrs Gibson and Phelps, I know nothing which would indicate either commits the sort of Christological heresy the Mormons commit.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Oct 3, 2006 8:14:30 PM
Let me try to step in and aid communication between the sides.
As I have grown to understand it, Christianity does have set beliefs and the common beliefs that most Christians have held during most times are those of Mere Christianity. So far so good. However, there is more to it than that. There is also the chain of being and tradition reaching back to Jesus Christ. This is something that is preserved in the Universal-Apostalic Church as contained in the Church of Roman, the Eastern Orthodox church and there immediate derivatives. (Stuart will be along to clean this all up in a minute, so forgive me my sloppiness.)
The problems with the Latter Day Saints being called Christian by the definition of this blog are manifold.
1. The chain of tradition and being are missing. The accounts of Joseph Smith are fiction. (I know this is a point of debate for the LDS, but it is a dog that won't hunt on this blog.)
2. The beliefs are different not so much on points of morality, where there is a good fit and a bridge for communication, but on the very nature of God. How can two religions be the same if there is not an agreement about the nature of God?
My problem is that I have at times experienced Christ through them.
It was during my first few months in Provo when I began calling my Catholic friend and asking him to explain the Trinity to me. He outlined the Athanasian Creed and said, "If you think you understand me, then you haven't been paying attention." The LDS missionaries, though they were only 19, KNEW the answers. Imagine understanding God completely at 19. I may eventually become a Catholic. I'll never be a Mormon, but I refuse to say that Christ can't be seen in them. The Desire to follow Christ is there even if their theology is a hideous impediment.
Have I made every one mad now? ;)
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Oct 3, 2006 8:28:48 PM
Bobby,
Thanks for stepping in. I have also lived among Mormons. I have seen both sides of that world - In my memory the faithful father of many who struggled to tithe and keep his children in food and clothes sits right beside the 19-year-old punks who used to come over to Wyoming on the weekends, getting drunk and then getting into fights after the bars closed. I lost more than one night's sleep crossmatching blood for those young idiots. And I worked with one of those faithful fathers who protected me from physical harm on more than one occasion.
Kamilla
Posted by: Kamilla | Oct 3, 2006 8:47:56 PM
