Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Should you vote for a Mormon?

You can say the right thing at the wrong time. And this appears to be what has happened on the issue of Romney's Mormonism.

Okay, for starters, I have no political problem voting for a Mormon candidate for office. In fact, if I was faced with a choice between an atheist candidate who would do the right thing and a Christian candidate who would do the wrong thing, then, in principle, I would vote for the atheist candidate without blinking. As Gene Veith has recently reminded us, Luther once said, "I'd rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian."

So when someone like Robert Jeffress, a Dallas pastor and Perry supporter, made this an issue the other day, it really complicated things politically, even for people like me. The problem lies in connecting together the question "Should I vote for Mitt Romney since he is a Mormon?" and the completely different question "Is Mormonism Christian?"

What we need here is de-linkage. The two questions have little to do with each other: the answer to one should have little to do with the answer to the other. Unfortunately, it may be too late, practically speaking, to make that distinction.

The answer to the second question, "Is Mormonism Christian?" is: No, of course it's not. Unfortunately, this question has been sort of muddled by the use of the word "cult." Is Mormonism a cult? Sure it is. So is Methodism, Lutheranism, and Pentacostalism--and Catholicism. Cultus is a Latin word that means "worship" or "form of worship." Is Mormonism a form of worship? Yes it is. So are all Christian sects, Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic.

As Pastor Jeffress himself rightly pointed out, he was using the term in a modern evangelical religious sense to mean "non-Christian sect," and not the sociological sense of a culturally deviant and dangerous religious group a la Jim Jones. But it still muddies the waters, maybe hopelessly.

What Jeffress was really saying was that Mormonism was not a Christian sect. He was right here too. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, Christianity is defined as "the beliefs of the apostles." That is its original and still dispositive meaning. Those beliefs were refined and extrapolated by the seven ecumenical councils, the last of which was the Council of Nicea, which produced the Nicene Creed, the greatest and most definitive statement of Christian belief. A few of us would add a few more councils, here, but that's a different issue.

So the answer to whether Mormonism is Christian is easy to decide: Are their beliefs consistent with the beliefs of the Apostles as they were expressed in the New Testament and as they were articulated in the Nicene Creed? And the clear answer is "No."

If you take any cardinal doctrine of Christianity and ask whether the Mormon Church unconditionally accepts it, the answer is "No." The Atonement. The Resurrection. The Virgin Birth. The unique deity of Christ. They may have beliefs that sound similar, but just a little scratching under the surface shows they do not accept these beliefs as historically defined by the Church.

Heck, they're not even monotheistic.

That doesn't mean they're not good people, or that they ought to be culturally marginalized, or that any one of them can't be president. It just means that they are not within even the broad definition of the Christian Church.

All that being said, if voting for Romney for president is going to require culturally that we all say nicely that his religion is Christian, then a cultural problem is created that affects my political decision. It gives the political position, which is otherwise unproblematic, a negative cultural consequence.

This wouldn't be Romney's fault. It will be the fault of people like Pastor Jeffress, even though he's right about Mormonism.

14 comments:

Lee said...

What complicates the question about whether Mormonism is Christian is that Mormons themselves promote the idea, for recruitment purposes I wager. When a theologically-squishy mainstream Protestant religion does a poor job of teaching theology, Mormons are there to offer something that appears firmer and more authoritative. (The ranks of liberal Protestant churches are their most fertile soil.) They encourage recruits to think of Mormonism as just another Christian sect, until the recruit is safely ensnared, at which point they can start leaking out gradually the theology under the facade.

I have discovered that it takes a lot to get a well-trained Mormon to admit that Mormonism is different than Christianity. They are allowed to see the differences; we're not.

But as screwy as their theology seems from a Catholic or Reformed perspective, it's hard not to admire Mormons for their steadfastness and their teaching of proper Christian-flavored ethics. I know several Mormons myself and admire them very much as friends, neighbors, and co-workers.

Mormonism simply has succeeded in making an otherwise unremarkable establish-Republican candidate into something more remarkable.

Andrew said...

Nicaea was second.

Martin Cothran said...

Right.

One Brow said...

On the other hand, unitarians (deliberately with a small "u") might say that by the time Nicea occured, 150+ years of corrupting influences had inserted a Trinity not accepted by the apostles.

Lee said...

While the Bible never comes right out and says "Trinity", a unitarian is either going to have to reject the Apostles' accounts as an outright fabrication, or else explain a some things.

E.g., the Book of John, chapter 1. It comes right out and says Jesus is God. That makes at least two.

The Holy Spirit is mentioned many times even in the Old Testament. It's clear (in the Book of the Acts) that the Holy Spirit is conscious (e.g., He speaks) and that Jesus holds Him in the same high esteem He holds the Father (e.g., blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgiveable sin). He has God-like powers, but is not the Father nor the Son. That makes three.

The plural nature of God is even reflected in Genesis 1. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." To whom is God speaking?

One Brow said...

Lee,

Unitarians believe in the unity of God, but that doesn't mean there are no other gods. The Bible regularly speaks of other gods. The writers of the OT were henotheists (many gods exist, only one is to be worshipped).

As for Holy Spirit beingt a person, I'll just say it's at least as easy to interpret those passages metaphorically as Trinitarians interpret the passages that refers to other gods as metaphors/idols.

In Genesis 1:1, God is speaking to Jesus, of course (at least according to some unitarians).

Lee said...

> Unitarians believe in the unity of God, but that doesn't mean there are no other gods. The Bible regularly speaks of other gods. The writers of the OT were henotheists (many gods exist, only one is to be worshipped).

They distinguished between these other gods by calling Yahweh the "one true God" (Isaiah 65:16.) They believed Yahweh was the creator of all things. It would follow that the other gods are mere creatures.

> In Genesis 1:1, God is speaking to Jesus, of course (at least according to some unitarians).

As a Trinitarian, I would say He was definitely speaking to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit as well. What did He not say? He did not say, "Watch Me while I make man in My image." He was speaking to a participant in Creation, or so it would appear. I think that bumps Jesus' status up to God's.

One Brow said...

Lee said...
They distinguished between these other gods by calling Yahweh the "one true God" (Isaiah 65:16.) They believed Yahweh was the creator of all things. It would follow that the other gods are mere creatures.

While I would not go so far as to say every OT writer has teh exact same belief here, generally what you said agrees with what I said.

As a Trinitarian, I would say He was definitely speaking to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit as well. What did He not say? He did not say, "Watch Me while I make man in My image." He was speaking to a participant in Creation, or so it would appear. I think that bumps Jesus' status up to God's.

You mean, if Jesus were a creation, Jesus would not be capable of creating other things? Why is that?

Martin,

I promise I will not get into a long discussion on proof-texting. I aw curious about that one point in Lee's argument.

Lee said...

That's a fair question, OneBrow, and I think you're right that I can't build a case for Jesus' deity status out of that one statement in Genesis.

But in combination with John, I think it's a pretty good case. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things were made; without Him, nothing was made that has been made.... The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us." There isn't much doubt that John meant Jesus.

One Brow said...

Lee,

I'll just say that unitarians accept both verses, that the Word was Jesus, and still interpret them on a non-Trinitarian way.

Lee said...

Browsing Wikipedia, I came across this interesting statement about Unitarian beliefs...

> No religion can claim an absolute monopoly on the Holy Spirit or theological truth.

I did not see anything indicating Unitarianism itself was an exception to this rule.

So, apparently, the only thing about which Unitarianism is certain is that Trinitarianism is wrong.

One Brow said...

Lee,

There is a specific denomination called Unitarian (more properly, Unitarian Universalist, IIRC). My recollection is that they were originally unitarians but have since dropped most doctrines/dogma. There are still unitarians (e.g., Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists) which have specific doctrines/dogma. Be careful to not confuse the "U" with the "u".

Lee said...

I think you're wrong about Seventh Day Adventists. From http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html ...

> There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.

Regarding your main point, however, point taken.

One Brow said...

Lee,

Thank you for the correction. I'll try not to make that mitake in the future.