There is an ongoing debate on the beliefnet blogalouge regarding whether or not Mormons are Christians between Scott Orson Card and Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention:
Bio: Dr. Albert Mohler
Dr.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist
Convention. He is also Professor of Christian Theology at Southern
Seminary. His writings include work in "Hell Under Fire: Modern
Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment," "Here We Stand:
A Call From Confessing Evangelicals," and "The Coming
Evangelical Crisis."
Bio: Orson Scott Card
Best
known for his science fiction novels "Ender's Game" and
"Ender's Shadow," award-winning writer Orson Scott Card is
also a committed Latter-day Saint. He has written screenplays for
animated children's videos from the New Testament and Book of Mormon,
and is active in his LDS community.
Thursday June 28, 2007
Category: Are Mormons Christian?
Mormonism Is Not Christianity
Are Mormons “Christians” as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy? The answer to that question is easy and straightforward, and it is “no.” Nevertheless, even as the question is clear, the answer requires some explanation.
The issue is clearly framed in this case. Christianity is rightly defined in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christianity.
We are not talking here about the postmodern conception of Christianity that minimizes truth. We are not talking about Christianity as a mood or as a sociological movement. We are not talking about liberal Christianity that minimizes doctrine nor about sectarian Christianity which defines the faith in terms of eccentric doctrines. We are talking about historic, traditional, Christian orthodoxy.
Once that is made clear, the answer is inevitable. Furthermore, the answer is made easy, not only by the structure of Christian orthodoxy (a structure Mormonism denies) but by the central argument of Mormonism itself – that the true faith was restored through Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century in America and that the entire structure of Christian orthodoxy as affirmed by the post-apostolic church is corrupt and false.
In other words, Mormonism rejects traditional Christian orthodoxy at the onset – this rejection is the very logic of Mormonism’s existence. A contemporary observer of Mormon public relations is not going to hear this logic presented directly, but it is the very logic and message of the Book of Mormon and the structure of Mormon thought. Mormonism rejects Christian orthodoxy as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.
So, what does Mormonism reject? The orthodox consensus of the Christian church is defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations. Two great doctrines stand as the central substance of that consensus. Throughout the centuries, the doctrines concerning the Trinity and the nature of Christ have constituted that foundation, and the church has used these definitional doctrines as the standard for identifying true Christianity.
The Mormon doctrine of God does not correspond to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Mormonism rejects the central logic of this doctrine (one God in three eternal persons) and develops its own doctrine of God – a doctrine that bears practically no resemblance to Trinitarian theology. The Mormon doctrine of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are what God once was and are becoming what He now is. That is in direct conflict with Christian orthodoxy.
Contemporary Mormonism presents the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ,” but the Jesus of the Book of Mormon is not the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Trinity, or the one through whose death on the cross we can be saved from our sins.
Normative Christianity is defined by the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the other formulas of the doctrinal consensus. These doctrines are understood by Christians to be rooted directly within the Bible and rightly affirmed by all true believers in all places and throughout all time. As one leading figure in the early church explained, the true faith is recognized and affirmed everywhere, always, and by all (Vincent of Lérins defined the orthodox tradition as those truths affirmed “ubique, semper, ab omnibus”).
The major divisions within Christian history (Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism) disagree over important issues of doctrine, but all affirm the early church’s consensus concerning the nature of Christ and the Trinitarian faith. These are precisely what Mormonism rejects.
Without doubt, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects that very tradition.
Richard John Neuhaus, a leading Roman Catholic theologian, helpfully reminds us that “Christian” is a word that “is not honorific but descriptive.” Christians do respect the Mormon affirmation of the family and the zeal of Mormon youth in their own missionary work. Christians must affirm religious liberty and the right of Mormons to practice and share their faith.
Nevertheless, Mormonism is not Christianity by definition or description.
Thursday June 28, 2007
Category: Are Mormons Christian?
Who Gets to Define "Christian"?
Each time a group of Christians comes up with an unfamiliar way of understanding the scriptures and our relationship with God, there are other Christians who are quick to insist that anyone who believes like that can't really be Christian.
Much blood has been shed over these doctrinal differences; wars have been fought, boundaries have been changed, and people have gone into exile.
Whether it was the often bloody struggle between Arians and Athanasians, between Lutherans and Catholics, between the Church of England and the Puritans, people have been willing, it seems, to die, to kill, and to deprive others of their rights as citizens over differences of Christian belief.
In America, though, we long ago decided — though not easily — to put such things behind us. Many states refused to ratify the Constitution until it included provisions forbidding one religion to be given preference over others.
Besides the first amendment, there is this statement in Article 6: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
This didn't mean that Americans stopped caring about doctrinal differences. Quite the contrary — America became a place where, if anything, we talked incessantly about religious differences.
I mean, what would have been the point of open religious discussion in Catholic France or Church-of-England Britain or Lutheran Sweden?
But in America, we agreed that people who had very different ideas of what it meant to be Christian could — and must — get along without violence.
Well, mostly without violence. There were many places in America where Catholics were not counted as Christians. And when we Mormons came along, well, we were clearly beyond the pale — for precisely the reasons that Dr. Mohler outlines (though for other reasons as well).
While Dr. Mohler sometimes couches his summary of our beliefs in terms we would not choose, I am happy that his explanation is generally clear and fair-minded. (His characterization of the Book of Mormon's presentation of Christ is the exact opposite of the truth — the Book of Mormon makes every single point that he says it does not. But I don't expect him to be an expert on the book, or even to have read it.)
I am also happy to agree with him that when one compares our understanding of the nature of God and Christ, we categorically disagree with almost every statement in the "historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations" he refers to.
The only major point on which I could criticize Dr. Mohler's essay is that he begged the question in the first and second paragraph.
"Christianity is rightly defined in terms of 'traditional Christian orthodoxy," he says. "Thus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christian."
In other words, he began the discussion by saying, "We win. Therefore we can define anyone who is not us as 'the losers.'"
When he defines "traditional Christian orthodoxy" as "the orthodox consensus of the Christian church [as] defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations" he is ignoring the fact that these creeds were the result, not of revelation, but of debate and political maneuvering.
Arians and Athanasians got along about as well as Shiites and Sunnis; the Athanasians generally prevailed by the authority of the Roman state and force of arms. It is hard for us Mormons to understand why ancient force and bloodshed, rather than revelation from God, should be the basis for defining the doctrinal consensus of Christianity today.
Many evangelicals have as many doctrinal problems with calling Catholics "Christians" as they have with us Mormons. While they accept the (Catholic) creeds insofar as the various Protestant denominations accept them, they reject other Catholic beliefs that were, prior to the Protestant reformation, every bit as "orthodox."
Which is why the Catholic (i.e., "universal") Church branded the Protestants as heretics, using precisely the kind of arguments that Dr. Mohler is using against us Mormons.
Because Martin Luther (and his fellow Protestant reformers) rejected many parts of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Universal Christian Church as they had been defined for a thousand years in the West, they could not be considered Christians — they were heretics, and their ideas were forbidden for any good Christian to hear, let alone believe.
So the Christian world has been down this road before. Thank heaven we live in more tolerant times, where our debate takes place on the internet or from the pulpit or in quiet conversations in people's homes, instead of on the battlefield or in the courtroom.
But what if we don't let Dr. Mohler define the question in such a way as to specifically exclude Mormons before the debate begins?
What if we define "Christians" the way most people would: "Believers in the divinity of Christ and in the necessity of the grace of Christ in order to be saved in the Kingdom of God."
Or, "People who believe Christ is the Son of God and the only way to please God is by following Christ's teachings as best you can all your life."
Or how about, "People who believe that the New Testament is scripture and that its account of the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus is true and that we should act accordingly."
We can come up with a lot of definitions that do a much better job of describing what most people mean when they use the word "Christian."
How many ordinary Christians actually know or care about the "historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations" that form Dr. Mohler's definition-of-choice?
I remember, as a Mormon missionary in Brazil, how many times I would explain our doctrine of the nature of God, and the Catholic or Protestant family I was teaching would say, "But that's what we believe." And they were telling the truth.
Their theological-seminary-trained priest or minister certainly did not believe what we were teaching, but time after time we found that the ordinary church-going Christian already saw things as we did, and thought that our peculiar doctrines were what their church had always taught.
The theologian is bound to say, "Just because ordinary,
ignorant Christians don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity does
not mean that their ignorance should prevail over our
more-sophisticated understanding."
I agree completely. When
Baptist theologians define Baptist beliefs, it is their privilege to
base it on as sophisticated an understanding as they please.
But when we are defining words as they are used in the English language, we all get a vote. Dr. Mohler does not get to speak for all Christians. Nor does he get to speak for all English-speakers. The ordinary meaning of the word "Christians" definitely includes Mormons; and when you say Mormons are not Christians, most would take that to mean that Mormons "do not believe in the divinity of Christ," which would be flat wrong.
That's why I appreciate the fact that Dr. Mohler made it clear at the start that by "Christian" he means "everybody but the Mormons," so that if we accept his peculiar definition of the word, the argument is, indeed, over.
But it still makes me sad that he would single us out for rejection, when we really ought to be working together.
I remember a few years ago attending a conference with the Templeton Foundation, which brought together scientists, theologians, and science fiction writers to discuss the future of religion in relation to science.
There was only one theologian present, a man highly trained in all those creeds that Dr. Mohler insists define Christianity. As we listened to a group of brilliant scientists — and some science fiction writers who, unlike me, were also trained scientists — explain with marvelous clarity some highly sophisticated concepts, I was impressed by how eager they were to communicate clearly — to be understood.
But when the theologian spoke, he immediately did what the scientists could have done but chose not to — he plunged into the jargon of his own intellectual community, deliberately excluding non-experts from the conversation.
However, I had read and studied enough traditional Christian theology — and enough deconstructionist and multicultural mumbo-jumbo — to know the vocabulary he was using; and the more I listened, the clearer it became that with all his sophistication, this man did not actually believe in the literal existence of the God and Christ described in the New Testament. He didn't even believe in the literal existence of the Trinity described in the Nicene and later creeds.
In fact, as I looked around the table, I realized that I was the only person in that room who believed that Jesus is the Savior of the world, the Son of God, and that God created humankind in his image for the purpose of bringing us to a joyful reunion with him, after we had learned to control the desires of the flesh and turn our lives over to him, and after the grace of Christ has cleansed us of our guilt for the many sins we have committed.
He was an ordained minister of the Church of England who did not actually believe in the God of any official Christian creed.
I was an ordinary Mormon, holding no lofty office.
But in that room, I was the only believing Christian.
Yes, Dr. Mohler. You and I disagree on exactly the points you listed in your essay. You are correct in saying that we Mormons completely reject the neoplatonic doctrines that were layered onto Christianity long after the Apostles were gone.
And just as you would put any reference to Mormons as "Christians" in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as "Christians" in exactly the same way.
Here's the difference. While we have no patience with creeds that owe more to Plato and other Greek philosophers than to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, we do recognize and respect as fellow Christians anyone who confesses that Christ is the Savior of the world.
So I can go to "The Passion of the Christ" and be moved by it, even though Mel Gibson's view of what the passion actually consisted of is very different from the Mormon view. I recognize and respect the sincerity of his faith, and I recognize that despite our doctrinal differences, his faith is in Jesus Christ.
It's like the ancient Hebrew penchant for referring to God as "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." They did not try to subject God to the limitations of human understanding; they did not define him in ways that would say more about the limitations of their own minds than about the nature of God.
Their definition, unlike yours, was simply to point to the great fathers of their religion and say, "The God they worshiped, that's the God we worship, too."
Can we not define God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a similar way? "The God that Jesus prayed to, that is the God we pray to. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament, he is the one we believe has suffered to redeem the world from sin. He is the way, the truth, the life, as best we understand what he taught."
That last phrase is a key to our getting along, I think. It is one of the central tenets of Mormon religion that our understanding is not perfect or complete, that we fully expect that many of our present ideas are incorrect, and we look forward to a day when we will be ready to receive a better understanding.
In the meantime, we do our best with what light and knowledge we have received. We might be in error. So might you. We all struggle to puzzle out things that are, in fact, beyond the ken of mortal minds.
The points of disagreement between us are not insignificant. In fact, they're so important that we do not recognize the efficacy of baptism performed by any other denomination, and anyone joining our church must be baptized — for the first time, we believe — regardless of any previous Christian baptism they might have received.
In other words, at the level of religious practice we believe that we are the only Christians who act and speak with the authority of Christ today. So we can hardly take offense when Dr. Mohler and many other ministers and priests of other Christian churches return the favor and refuse to recognize us as Christians of their communities.
On the level of theology, doctrine, practice, ritual, and even history, we Mormons stand alone, neither Protestant nor Catholic. Just as Lutherans and Baptists and Presbyterians generally don't accept the authority of the Pope, we don't accept the authority of anybody except those that we believe hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on earth today.
And so when we send out our missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as we understand it, it is perfectly fair for Baptist ministers and Catholic priests and any other religious leader to point out to their congregants precisely what we point out to them — that our beliefs are very different from theirs.
They call us wrong; we call ourselves right.
But that's a matter of private belief and conscience. Those who put our religion to the test and come to believe in it don't do so because we fooled them into thinking we believe just like Dr. Mohler.
If that was our message, who would join us? They could join the Baptist Church and accomplish as much (and it would be cheaper and easier, given the way we Mormons tithe and abstain from alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco).
We openly state that we teach a version of Christianity radically different from all others. We proclaim it.
But let's remember now why we are having this discussion. It's because Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States, and Mitt Romney is a Mormon.
Mitt Romney is not running for Pope of America, or Head Rabbi, or Minister-in-Chief. He is not running for any religious office. He is a citizen of this country, who has a distinguished record of achievement in business and government, asking people to vote for him to become the leader of our country and, perforce, the leader of the free world.
His religious beliefs are not irrelevant. Far from it. Americans should care very much about religious beliefs that will affect how a president would fulfill the duties of his office.
Here's a man who is faithful to his wife, without a breath of scandal associated with him; he is a devoted father and grandfather; he tithes to his church; he doesn't smoke or drink and never has. In other words, he not only claims to be a member of a particular church, he lives by the standards of that church.
I think that matters a great deal. It means he's not a hypocrite, pretending to be religious when he needs the votes. He has put in the time, made the sacrifices — he has walked the walk.
So when Mitt Romney says, "I believe this is the right thing to do, and I'm going to do it," then American voters can be reasonably confident that he really does believe it and he really will do it.
That's something that I would look for about any candidate, from any religious tradition. Does he live by what his religion teaches? Or is he a member in name only?
His profession of membership in a Church gives us a way to find out about the standards of good and evil, of right and wrong, that his religion teaches. Where I would be worried is when we have a candidate who does not profess any religion, or does not live up to the standards of the religion he professes.
How then would we find out what he really believes? What his standards are? How well he keeps his commitments? It's not impossible to determine that even with people whose religious commitments are, shall we say, skin deep. Certainly, for instance, it wasn't hard to find out what Bill Clinton's standards of truth-telling and word-keeping were before he was elected; he absolutely performed exactly as his past behavior had given us reason to expect. We got what we voted for.
So by all means look at Mitt Romney's religion, and how well he has lived up to it. It's a fair test.
But don't look at his religion as if it were a complete guide to how he would perform as president. There are those who fear a Romney presidency because somebody's been telling them that Mormonism is a "cult" and they think Romney would get all his instructions from Salt Lake City — or from what he imagined God might whisper to him.
May I suggest that before you leap to that conclusion, you consider carefully: Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is also a Mormon. As far as I know, he's a Mormon in good standing. And he's a Democrat — a liberal Democrat, on most issues.
If Salt Lake City is telling Mormon politicians what to do, they're sure giving Harry Reid a different set of instructions from those they've been giving to Mitt Romney.
Like Harry Reid, I'm a Democrat. If my own party nominates somebody that I think would make a better president than Mitt Romney, I'll vote for the Democrat. If my party doesn't, and the Republican Party nominates Romney, I might well vote for him.
It won't be because he's a Mormon. It'll be for a whole range of reasons — his political views, his announced plans, and my assessment of his character. And that assessment won't be based on mere membership in the same Church as me. It will be based on how well I think he lives up to the commitments that Mormons make.
You don't have to be a Mormon to use those standards.
Now, what if you are an American citizen who absolutely hates every Mormon doctrine you've heard about?
My advice is: Don't join the Mormon Church if you feel that way. But what does it have to do with choosing a president?
Dr. Mohler has gone on record elsewhere as advising evangelical Christians not to vote for Mitt Romney, even though he's the candidate whose life practices and whose professed beliefs are the closest to fitting the political agenda of many or perhaps most evangelicals.
Why? Because he fears that the election of Mitt Romney will lend "legitimacy" to Mormonism.
Guess what, Dr. Mohler. Mormonism has legitimacy. Millions of American citizens already believe in it. And not the dumbest American citizens, either. We're above average in our education. We're also above average in our religious activity, our charitable donations, our marital fidelity, and the time we spend with our families. We try to be good neighbors and good friends.
We are as legitimate, as citizens and therefore as potential officeholders, as anybody else in America. Because there is no religious test for holding office in America.
And if you try to impose one, by saying that all persons belonging to this or that religion should never be elected president, then who is it who is rejecting the U.S. Constitution? Who is it who is saying that people with certain beliefs are second-class citizens, for no other reason than their religion?
I urge all evangelicals Christians who are worried about a Mormon as president to consider this:
What if somebody were saying that no evangelical Christian should be elected president, solely on the basis of his religious beliefs?
Oh — wait — they already are.
Think about it. How often has President Bush been mocked because he believes he was born again? How often have his critics ridiculed him because he believes that when he prays, God hears him and even, sometimes, answers?
How many have, in effect, claimed that evangelical Christians have no business holding the office of President — that they are unfit for such a vital public trust precisely because of their beliefs about how God and human beings interact?
We Mormons don't agree with you on many vital points of doctrine. But I hope we all agree with each other about this: In a time when a vigorous atheist movement is trying to exclude religious people from participating in American public life unless they promise never to mention or think about their religion while in office, why are we arguing with each other?
You don't want your kids to join the Mormon Church; well, I don't want mine to join the Baptist Church, either. That's because you think you're right about your religion, and I think I'm right about mine.
But I would rather vote for a believing Baptist who lives up to his faith than for a Mormon who doesn't take his religion seriously or keep the commandments he's been taught.
And vice versa. Don't you feel that way, too?
Thursday July 5, 2007
Category: Are Mormons Christian?
The "Church of the Devil"?
I appreciate Orson Scott Card’s response to my first entry, and his rather lengthy essay can serve to move the discussion along.
The first matter of concern is to clarify the question. When I asked, “Are Mormons ‘Christians’ as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy?,” I was stating the question exactly as it was put to me. The words “as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy” were part of my assignment, not my imposition.
At the same time, I was glad the question was asked in this manner, for it is the only way I can provide an answer that matters. The question could surely be asked in other ways and we could attempt to define Christianity in terms of sociology, phenomenology, the history of religions, or any number of other disciplines. In any of these cases, someone with specific training in these fields should provide the argument.
The question could simply refer to common opinion – do people on the street believe that Mormonism is Christianity? But then the matter would be in better hands among the pollsters.
In any event, the question was framed theologically, and it was framed by Beliefnet in terms of “traditional Christian orthodoxy.” With the question structured that way, the answer is clear and unassailable – Mormonism is not Christianity. When the question is framed this way, Mr. Card and I actually agree, as his essay makes clear.
In his words, “I am also happy to agree with him that when one compares our understanding of the nature of God and Christ, we categorically disagree with almost every statement in the “historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations” he refers to.”
Mr. Card would prefer that the question be put differently. I understand his concern, and if I were a Mormon I would share that concern and would try to define Christianity in some way other than traditional Christian orthodoxy. The reason is simple – traditional Christian orthodoxy and Mormon theology are utterly incompatible.
Mr. Card is gracious, even when suggesting that I misinterpret the Book of Mormon. He even suggests that I have not read it. The fact is that I have, and I have even studied Mormon theology in the course of my graduate studies. Reading the Book of Mormon was a fascinating experience. Nevertheless, if I were a Mormon arguing that Mormonism is Christianity, I would be very reluctant to suggest that those I am seeking to persuade should read the Book of Mormon. Nothing will more quickly reveal the distance between Mormon theology and historic Christianity.
Mormonism uses the language of Christian theology and makes many references to Christ. Mr. Card wants to define Christianity in a most minimal way, theologically speaking. If I were arguing the other side of this question, I would attempt the same. But Christianity has never been defined in terms of merely thinking well of Jesus. Mormonism claims to affirm the New Testament teachings about Jesus, but actually presents a very different Jesus from the onset. A reading of Mormonism’s authoritative documents makes this clear.
All these things point back to the reason the question is so important in our contemporary context. Mormons want their religion to be seen as another form of Christianity. In other words, they want to identify with what from their inception they sought to deny. There are advantages to Mormonism on this score, but this surely places them in an awkward position.
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints,” as Mormonism is officially known, claims to be the only true church. As stated in the Doctrine and Covenants [1:30], Mormonism is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth.” According to Mormon teaching, the church was corrupted after the death of the apostles and became the “Church of the Devil.” Mormonism then claims that the true church was restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith in the 1820s. This restored church was, Mormon theology claims, given the keys to the kingdom and the authority of the only true priesthood.
Why would Mormonism now want to be identified as a form of Christianity, when its central historical claim is that the churches commonly understood to be Christian are part of the Church of the Devil?
There is simply no way around the Mormon claim that the other churches hold to a corrupted theology and have no true priesthood – and are not true churches. Mr. Card may complain that traditional Christianity defines the faith in a way that rejects Mormonism. Fair enough. But Mormonism rejects historic Christianity as it makes it own central claim – to be the only true church, restored on earth in the latter days.
Mr. Card’s statements on baptism make this point clear enough, as does this statement from his essay: “In other words, at the level of religious practice we believe that we are the only Christians who act and speak with the authority of Christ today.” I sincerely appreciate Mr. Card’s straightforward statement of this fact.
I was genuinely troubled, but hardly surprised, when Mr. Card recalled his experience at the Templeton event. It is indeed a scandal that so many Christian churches and denominations allow priests, theologians, and bishops to deny the faith and still call themselves Christians – and even to remain in good standing in these churches. If these deny the faith and persist in their error, they are not Christians. Of course, the only way we know this is because we do have an objective standard by which to judge what is and is not Christianity, and that is the very “traditional Christian orthodoxy” that Mr. Card and Mormonism reject.
Finally, Mr. Card brings up the question of Gov. Mitt Romney’s candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. He states, “But let’s remember now why we are having this discussion. It’s because Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States, and Mitt Romney is a Mormon.”
Mr. Card also claims that I have “gone on record elsewhere as advising evangelical Christians not to vote for Mitt Romney, even though he’s the candidate whose life practices and whose professed beliefs are the closest to fitting the political agenda of many or perhaps most evangelicals.” That is not true. I did not advise evangelicals not to vote for Mitt Romney. I have argued that evangelicals should think carefully about this question and I have raised concerns about a Mormon in the White House.
Others will bring their own concerns. I am not interested in worries about Mormon temple undergarments and plural marriage. I do not worry about a Mormon president playing into apocalyptic scenarios with nuclear weapons. I am concerned that a Mormon in the White House would do much to serve the worldwide missionary cause of Mormonism. I do not worry that a President Romney would push that agenda from the White House. My concern is more about symbolism and perception. My concern is that of a Christian who does not believe that Mormonism is Christianity.
In other words, my concern is about as politically incorrect as one can get in these strange times. I believe that Mormonism does not teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only Gospel that saves.
I am thankful that the U.S Constitution excludes any religious test for public office, but this excludes any government test, and is not a constraint upon any private citizen’s electoral decision. I will fight for Gov. Romney’s right to be on the ballot and to serve if elected.
There are very many reasons to admire and appreciate Gov. Romney – starting right where Mr. Card points, with the Romney family. I, along with millions of fellow evangelicals, do admire the Romney family and respect his family commitments. The fact that so many other candidates fall short of his commitment is a sad commentary on the age – and on those candidates.
As I have argued over and over again, electoral decisions are contextual decisions. Will evangelicals vote for Mitt Romney? Time will tell, and the context will largely determine that decision. I will be glad to argue this further, but that is not the assigned question.
So, Mr. Card I thank you for your thoughtful and gracious response and I look forward to our continuing exchange.
Wednesday July 11, 2007
Category: Are Mormons Christian?
Are Any Sincere Christians Expendable?
By Orson Scott Card
There is a sort of comfortableness that can settle in with majoritarians. A complacency that allows one to be picky and exclusive.
I remember getting this feeling when I lived in Utah. I moved to the town of Orem, where Mormons were an estimated 98 percent of the population. That should certainly have made me feel at home!
However, I was also a Democrat, and in Orem, Democrats in 1980 were about as common World Series pennants in the Chicago Cubs clubhouse.
So the local Mormon congregation had no idea what to make of me. I clearly didn't have a job — freelance writer? Of science fiction? — and I did something so eccentric as joining the Democratic Party, so how could I possibly be a good member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
My opinion was that the two questions were really unrelated — my identity as a Mormon was, I thought, secure. I kept the commandments. I fulfilled my callings in the Church. And — here's the clincher — I sang tenor in the choir. Good tenors in church choirs are almost as rare as Democrats. I expected to be embraced with open arms.
Unfortunately, my ward (congregation) did not have a choir at that time.
Nor did they have a single calling that they thought I could fulfill.
Now, this is one of the peculiarities of Mormonism (which is, after all, the subject of this discussion, yes?): Because we have a lay ministry, every single member is expected to serve in some ministerial role. We teach or supervise or perform other services as part of an official "calling" in the Church.
In fact, that's much of the way that we create our identity — by our callings. No matter where we move in the Mormon Church, our congregation will have a "Relief Society president" and many "Primary teachers" and a "ward clerk" and an "executive secretary," and so on.
Even if these people are complete strangers to us, we know who they are in the ward — the function they fulfill, and what we can expect of them, and even some information about the kind of person who is usually given such a calling.
But in my ward in Orem, they couldn't think of a calling that a science-fiction-writing Democrat could possibly fill.
In their minds, because I was such an unfamiliar creature to them, I couldn't really be counted as "Mormon."
It happened that my wife (a good Republican) was approached for her fourth — or was it fifth? — calling just as she was getting good and sick with the pregnancy that brought us our second child. So as my wife was turning down the calling — to teach a class of 9-year-olds in which the boys were so rambunctious that they had driven away four teachers in the past few months — I interrupted the conversation and said, "I'm available."
Well, what could they say? I ended up teaching the class and calming down the boys, and we all had a wonderful time.
And by the time we moved away, the ward had learned something. It was actually possible for a Democrat without a day job who wrote books about space and strange creatures and all — he could also be a good Mormon.
When I moved to a place where Mormons were more rare, however — South Bend, Indiana, and then Greensboro, North Carolina, where I live today — Mormons were much more rare. Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians predominated.
So the leadership of all these wards saw me very differently. Because we were not in the majority, every Mormon who would faithfully fulfill his callings was valued — and nobody much cared about my day job or my politics. In fact, I wasn't the only Democrat, because we hadn't got the memo about how all good Mormons had to be Republicans out here in the hinterlands.
The result? They've had no problem finding callings for me. I'm still considered rather odd, but I have not felt myself to be an outsider; no one has regarded me as "not a good Mormon" because I don't fit their preconceptions.
This story may seem overly long to some, but it's absolutely central to the point I'm making.
It happens that I have exactly the same view as Dr. Mohler — only I apply it differently. I believe that only the Gospel of Jesus Christ can save the souls of those who sin. However, I believe that the only Church that has the authority to act in the name of God and speak for him in the world today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
But I also know that far from being in the majority (except in the nation of Tonga), we Mormons, who (in my belief) do have that authority and that living gospel of Christ, are usually a tiny minority. It makes it all the more important that we teach the gospel — openly, to those who care to listen, and also quietly, by trying to live exemplary lives so that, seeing who we are and how we live, others might be moved to join with us and receive the saving grace of Christ that is offered to all who will believe and obey his commandments.
This is exactly what worries Dr. Mohler about Governor Romney: If elected, he might be such a good man, and such a good president, that people might become confused and think that Mormons are actually good Christians.
So I can't disagree with him there: There is a real possibility that if Governor Romney became president, people around the world would look at him and his actions and say, If that man is a Mormon, then maybe I should be a Mormon, too.
That wouldn't be Gov. Romney's goal — his goal would be to serve his nation as best he could. But it might well be a by-product.
Of course, if people around the world hated him, then the reverse effect could happen, and people would say, If that man's a Mormon, then keep those missionaries away from my door, I want none of that." That's also a risk — and I know Mormons who devoutly wish Gov. Romney were not running for president, because they see it as just one more way to bring negative attention down on the Church.
But let's look at this as dispassionately as we can. None of us can control the impression Romney makes on the rest of the world, or how they extrapolate from him their attitude toward the Mormon Church. Dr. Mohler fears one possible outcome of a Romney presidency; there are Mormons who fear a different one.
But let's take Dr. Mohler's worst-case scenario: that President Romney is so universally loved that people all over the world will be moved to follow his example.
If Dr. Mohler is successful in persuading all those people that an admirable Mitt Romney has nothing at all to do with Christianity, then the logical result is that those who admire him will look, not to Christianity in general, but to Mormonism in particular as the sole source of his virtues.
On the other hand, if people perceive this same admirable Mitt Romney as I wish they would — as a Christian who is trying his best to emulate Christ as he believes the Savior wants him to — then these admirers of his who were already Christians of whatever denomination might show their admiration for Romney by returning to the Christian church they already attend and trying to live more assiduously the Christian life they have already been taught.
In other words, by differentiating Gov. Romney from Christianity, Dr. Mohler fairly guarantees that anyone who admires Gov. Romney will be led away from Christianity in general, because Christianity will have repudiated him. Only the Mormon Church would benefit from any admiration a President Romney might inspire.
Surely this is not what Dr. Mohler intends.
But this is truly a mere speculative argument. If Romney, as president, were despised, then it would be a good thing indeed for Christianity in general if everybody thought of him as a non-Christian!
Of course, I see no evidence that the low popularity of our very openly evangelical president Bush has caused any harm to Christianity. Most people have the wit to realize that the actions of a U.S. president may say nothing about the validity or value of the particular religion he belongs to. Or does Rev. Mohler know of some study that indicates that Pres. Bush's low popularity throughout the world is harming Christian missionary work?
In all likelihood, Rev. Mohler's worries about a Romney presidency and its effects on Christianity and the salvation of souls are unfounded or contrary — either Romney would have no influence, or his influence could even be positive toward all Christianity, if only other Christians would let it.
But I think there is a much clearer and more important argument, which does not just involved a particular candidate for the presidency.
It is true that when it comes to teaching the gospel of Jesus
Christ, we Mormons are definitely rivals with the evangelical
Christian movement. Baptism in one requires a clear rejection of the
other interpretation of Christ’s gospel, just as joining either
of our Christian traditions means rejecting the Catholic and Orthodox
Christian traditions.
Let’s not forget, after
all, that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians have an even
older “mainstream Christian tradition” than any
Protestants, and for hundreds of years they were all convinced that
Protestants were going to Hell—and causing the damnation of
many souls. Since the 1960s, Catholics have been more polite toward
Protestants—the word “heretic” is never used
anymore (and they long accepted “heretic baptism”)—but
the pope recently reaffirmed that while the Orthodox churches are to
be regarded as “apostolic” with a defect, Protestant
churches simply don’t have the apostolic authority.
And to hard-line Catholics, any distinction between Mormons and Baptists is pretty trivial—we’re all pope-disdaining, saint-ignoring, transubstantiation-denying distractions from the true Christian message.
Have we forgotten, too, that American Protestants have a long tradition of denying Catholics the status of Christians? Magnanimously, for purposes of our discussion here, Dr. Mohler is willing to admit that Catholics are Christians ... at least compared to Mormons. He recognizes—no, he asserts—that his movement is part of the ancient Christian tradition, despite the long anti-papist tradition of the Baptist Church.
I submit that tolerance of other views of Christianity is a matter of perspective and situation.
When we Mormons, with the huge sums of money and supplies we raise for welfare work, needed to have help in getting it to the suffering people who needed it in places where our own church had no infrastructure, we turned to Catholic relief agencies and asked them to help us in our Christian mission.
I imagine that this caused some soul-searching among the Catholics involved, but they reached the conclusion that in the Christian goal of helping the poor, regardless of faith, surely our Mormon offerings must be acceptable to Christ, and should not be turned away just because they believe our doctrines about Christ to be horribly wrong-headed.
Because they realized that we did agree, definitely, on the simple truth of this scriptural statement: "Even as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."
So the Catholic relief agencies accepted the offerings of the Mormons and helped us distribute them because they knew it would be unChristlike to refuse to let the poor receive help, just because that help came from Christians with incorrect opinions about God.
There was an era when interdenominational rivalry would have trumped Christianity — but we were happy indeed that when it came to helping the poor, that era has passed, at least between the Catholic and Mormon churches.
There was a time — and not long ago — when we Mormons had a chip on our shoulders and began all our teachings by proclaiming the falseness of all other Christian churches. But we grew up. We realized that in most nations of the world, we aren't teaching other Christians, we're teaching people who have never heard the name of Christ.
What do they care whether we have the best Christian church — what they need is to hear of Christ at all. And to begin our teaching by telling them what's wrong with wrong people is simply...wrong.
Right now, Mormons are as unwelcome among evangelical Christians as I, a science-fiction-writing Democratic Mormon was unwelcome among Republican normal-job-holding Mormons in Utah.
But that's because evangelicals have a majoritarian attitude that is really not appropriate any more.
America is the most religious Western nation — but surely Dr. Mohler sees that our children can hardly get a college degree without being indoctrinated, not just in atheism, but in hostility to all organized religions, Christianity in particular.
When professors tell our children that all religions are outmoded, that Christianity belongs in the dustbin of history, that all evils in history have been caused by fanatical believers in some religion — do you think it matters to them whether the religion they're rejecting is Orthodox Judaism, evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, or Mormonism?
And when Islamist terrorists seek the overthrow of all secular governments and the establishment of Sharia and the downfall of all competing religions, do you think they'll care even a tiny bit whether the church they throw down or the crowd they blow up consists of official, traditional Christians or those weird Mormons?
The message of Christ is today proclaimed into the ears of an increasingly hostile world. Whether from jihadist Islam or jihadist atheism, we are beleaguered on all sides and none of us has the majority.
Instead of "mainstream Christianity" seeking opportunities to shun and exclude and deny the Christianity of Mormons, it might be more helpful for us to admit our irreconcilable differences but then recognize that in this world, today, right now, we can gain more for the cause of Christ by treating each other with respect and honoring each other for the degree to which we do live up to his teachings.
Returning to the example of Gov. Romney, I wonder if there is a Christian denomination on earth that would not be proud to claim as a member of their church a man who is so faithful to his wife and devoted to his children, so abstemious in his personal habits, so consonant to his expressed ideals?
Wouldn't evangelical Christianity be best served, not by proclaiming, "That man is no Christian!" but rather by proclaiming, "We may not agree with all his beliefs, but Christians should all try to live their understanding of Christ's teachings as well and thoroughly as he does!"
Shouldn't all Christians be saying, "Take Governor Romney as an example of effectiveness in the world without sacrifice of faith and religious ideals!"?
It is true that we Mormons do not accept the way the doctrines of Christianity evolved, under the influence of neoplatonic philosophy after the death of the Apostles. We reject that tradition and believe it has been wrongish and getting wronger from about the middle of the second century A.D. onward.
But we accept every word of Christ in the New Testament. We teach our members to live up to the commandments — and we work from pretty much the same list of commandments as the Baptists, with the major exception being that we dance.
When Christianity is once again seen — correctly, I might add — as the nurturing mother of democracy and freedom throughout the world, as the great teacher that made humanism in all its forms not only possible but the ideal that most decent people aspire to — then perhaps we can afford to squabble amongst ourselves about who is really Christian and who is not.
Right now, Dr. Mohler is as uncomfortable with my insistence that we Mormons are Christians as a Vatican theologian would be with Dr. Mohler"s insistence that his denomination is part of the ancient Christian tradition.
But just as the Catholic Church has accepted Mormon help in serving the poor in the name of Christ, and just as ordinary Republican Mormons have found it in their hearts to accept me, a Democrat, as if I might be a real Mormon all the same, I wish Dr. Mohler would take the tiny, tiny step of saying, not that Mormons are right, but that a person can believe as a Mormon does and still do good works in the name of Christ, that would be acceptable to Christ by that clear, bright standard:
Even as ye have done it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Mormonism Is a Sincerely False Gospel
I am pleased to have engaged in this discussion with Orson Scott Card.
I will hope to meet him more personally in the future. It appears that
we are not really discussing the same question, however.
My response to the question posed to me remains as it was from the start. Mormonism is not compatible with "traditional Christian orthodoxy." As a matter of fact, this is the essence of Mormon identity, and Mormon authorities going back to Joseph Smith were quick to separate Mormonism from "traditional Christian orthodoxy" as accepted by the Christian churches.
Indeed, the subtitle printed on The Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." A "testament," that is, other than that accepted by the historic Christian churches.
The debate has never been about whether Mormons are good Americans or would make good neighbors. I dare say that most American Evangelicals and traditional Roman Catholics would find more in common with Mormons in terms of child-rearing, sexual morality, the protection of marriage and family, and a host of other issues, than they would with liberal Catholics or liberal Protestants. No argument there.
The debate is not over Mitt Romney or his right to run for President of the United States. That is a settled constitutional fact – and a fact for which we should all be thankful. Nor is it about whether Evangelicals should vote for Mitt Romney. There is so much to admire in the man's marriage and family and leadership ability. This question is very complicated – as is the case with almost all political questions.
The debate is not over the right of Mormons to hold their faith, promote their faith, and spread their faith. That, too, is a constitutional right – the same right that protects the religious liberty of all persons of all faiths and no faith.
For me, and as the question was posed to me, the issue is theological. That is why I cannot answer the question except as I have from the start.
Here is the bottom line. As an Evangelical Christian – a Christian who holds to the "traditional Christian orthodoxy" of the Church – I do not believe that Mormonism leads to salvation. To the contrary, I believe that it is a false gospel that, however sincere and kind its adherents may be, leads to eternal death rather than to eternal life.
Indeed, I believe that Mormonism is a prime example of what the Apostle Paul warned the Church to reject – "a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you" [Galatians 1:8-9].
And thus I must end where I began. Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity – it is incompatible with "traditional Christian orthodoxy."Let's Call Mormons 'Nontraditional Christians'
By Orson Scott Card
It has truly been a pleasure to converse — or at least take turns speaking — with Dr. Mohler. His attitude of quiet analysis is a refreshing change from the vitriol and slander that I've seen from so many of his denomination when they talk about my religion.
His final message is reassuring in many ways. First, his assurance that Mormons can be good citizens and should not be deprived of their right to an equal place in the American political scene should be adopted as the guideline for people of all denominations.
It is hard to think of any religion that is not persecuted somewhere. The world is full of religions because people do not agree about the nature or even the existence of divinity; yet America was founded on a commitment to the idea that differing opinions about God should not be factored into a person's eligibility for public office.
When Dr. Mohler quotes Paul's warning that the Church of Christ should reject "a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you," we Mormons wholeheartedly agree. We believe, and history supports, that the "traditional Christianity" that Dr. Mohler so able explicates is remote indeed from the gospel that Paul taught.
So I am happy to accept the formulation suggested by Dr. Mohler's last sentence: "Mormonism is not just another form of Christianity — it is incompatible with 'traditional Christian orthodoxy.'"
Amen! Absolutely correct! We send out missionaries to every country that will allow them to enter precisely because we believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is incompatible with "traditional Christian orthodoxy."
At the same time, we recognize that "traditional Christian orthodoxy" represents a sincere desire and effort, on the part of millions of believers throughout the world, to teach and live by the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Despite our deep differences of belief over the nature of God and his plans for his children, we recognize that those who believe in the other Christian faiths have taken a giant step closer to fulfilling the intentions of our Lord. They are, in heart and mind, Christians.
We ask only the same favor in return. Let's take that word "traditional" and make use of it. Instead of saying that we are "not Christian," which is an obvious falsehood by any rational, widely accepted definition of the word Christian, let us agree that Mormons are "nontraditional Christians."
We'll live with that label quite happily, because it's true. We are Christians, but nontraditional ones. And if we ever become traditional, we'll have no reason to exist as a separate religion!
Meanwhile, history provides reason for optimism. The pope, while proclaiming that the Catholic Church and, despite defects, the Orthodox churches, represent the only authoritative Church of Christ, he still allows room for the "nonapostolic" Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Pentacostalists, and others that proclaim the name of Christ to be considered "Christian communities" and to have value.
It took less than 500 years for Protestantism to graduate to a "tradition" instead of a "reformation" or, in the former Catholic view, a "heresy."
Baptists, who were once viewed as a wild-eyed sect of the American lower classes, have now been around long enough to be "traditional" right along with the older Protestant denominations.
Now we live in a world where all believers in Christ — traditional or non — are assailed and persecuted. There is no shortage of atheists in foreign countries and in America who would like to limit the ability of any believer in a revelatory religion to achieve full participation and leadership in American politics.
The intense criticism, both public and whispered, focused on President Bush precisely because he believes that God has intervened and continues to intervene in his life should be the wakeup call to all of us.
Born-again Christians and Mormons agree on this: God is alive and working in the world, and his Spirit touches the lives of the faithful, offering guidance, comfort, and even miraculous intervention. This earns Baptists and Mormons the ridicule or hatred of the anti-religious extremists, who declare that our beliefs are a form of madness and proof that we are unfit for public trust.
Call us "nontraditional Christians" and continue to encourage your communicants not to believe our doctrines; we'll happily continue to call you "traditional Christians" and teach people why they should believe our doctrines.
But when it comes to politics, let's make common cause to maintain the full participation in American political life of believers in a living, active God whose Spirit touches the lives of all his children.
Let's work together to try to end the persecution of Christians throughout the world, for the enemies of Christ make no distinction between "traditional" and "nontraditional" Christians when they're looking for targets of their fear and hatred.
On these issues, we are on the same side.
And every "traditional Christian" who, like Dr. Mohler, will include us nontraditional Christians as equally entitled to participation in all aspects of American public life, without encouraging people to vote against Mormon candidates because of their faith alone, will find that we Mormons are good friends to have in a world that is increasingly perilous for followers of Christ.