Does Mormon count as Christian? Does religion count in politics?

December 9, 2007 by Pastor Dan.

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney finally made his “religion speech” last week. http://www.getreligion.org/ notes that Romney basically wrote the speech. Certainly this is a big enough issue for a sizeable block of the American people he had better take responsibility for his words, and choose them carefully.

For many Christians – at least those in an official position where they represent the teachings and doctrines of their faith— the Latter Day Saints are not Christian. I know this causes these people great pain – and that they see it as a form of prejudice and bigotry.

(And who shouldn’t be against prejudice and bigotry? In the last 40 years we have seen Christians at many levels in society reject conversation and collegiality with the Metropolitan Community Church, for example because it is the denomination that unequivocally welcomes sexual minorities and is served primarily by lesbian and gay clergy. But is the M.C.C. not Christian?)  Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints not Christian?  Logically it is only fair to conclude that Mormons do not share many of the same essential beliefs about the person of Jesus that other Christians do.  Mitt Romney tried to massage this fact in his speech, here quoted from www.getreligion.org: 

“What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.  My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.  These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.  Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

I note in this passage that Romney is deflecting the religious doctrine question and trying to make it a social tolerance issue. And perhaps in terms of serving in the high office of President it is. “He seized the opportunity to connect his candidacy to something larger and transcendent: the history of religious freedom in America,” said Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal. “He made a virtue of necessity.” But he sidesteps the core question (sidestepping = “spin” = political necessity) which Christian voters are still curious and unnerved about:  Are Mormons to be considered Christian—either by other Christians (a very subjective measure), or by some objective standard? Is there such a thing as an objective test for using the term “Christian” anyway?

Unhappily, the Christian church has slugged that one out for 2,000 years. In the earliest centuries it excommunicated dissenters.  By the 4^th century, with new-found civil power, it had heretics put to death over theological disagreements– something which even St. Martin of Tour found to be odious.  A hundred years before Luther, the Catholic Church was still killing off dissenters such as John Hus, Michael Servetus and of course the Jews; Martin Luther survived only because his politically well-placed friends helped him hide (and later supported capital punishment for heresy!).  When the 16^th Reformers argued their case, they bent over backwards to show the Roman authorities that, by objective standards, they had not departed from the true Christian faith.  In the Lutheran confessional document, the Augsburg Confession, written in 1530 as a trial brief, for example, the core Christian dogmas are incorporated by reference:  the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, the doctrines embedded in the Old and New Testaments about God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Church.  If by no other measure, over 2,000 years these key elements (”symbols”) have come to define what “Christian” means.

Then why is there such fragmentation in the Christian Church, and isn’t the Mormon church just another expression, or denomination or tradition or fragmentation within the larger Christian Church?

By the way, it seems that another piece of “Christian” teaching which has deep tap roots in the Jewish/Christian Bible, is that once a doctrine is thoroughly defined, the Christian faith holds that anyone who holds different views (even slightly varied views) is wrong.  In talking about the great Councils of Christian history, where doctrines were hammered out, the late John Boswell, author of Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, once remarked: “Before the vote is taken, there is a majority and a minority. After the vote is taken, the minority is dead wrong.”  (The Athanasian Creed makes the rejection of other points of view a matter of dogma, which many Christians including me find very unsettling and choose to selectively ignore!)

Objectively speaking, Romney’s faith tradition is not Christian, or it is at best quasi-Christian, because, as he says, “My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths.” [Emphasis added.]

Be honest, Mitt. They are not the same as the beliefs of the Christian churches.  The LDS Church does not sign on to the Apostles, Nicene (and here is a very fascinating link for theological discussion!) and Athanasian Creeds, for example.   LDS founder Joseph Smith built his following on the premise that a heavenly angel revealed to him the right stuff and that all the other Christian churches were wrong.  Smith and many other 19^th century splinter and reformist groups carved out their “market share” (as we would call it now) by dropping some core Christian beliefs and adding others which are rejected by Christian churches.

Although it took from the year 1530 to 1999, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church worldwide are now in agreement about the essential issues of justification by faith which are at the heart of the Augsburg Confession.  The Lutherans and the Orthodox now see almost eye to eye on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. 

Do not look for the Mormon Church to sign on any time soon to these Christian teachings. For what they teach about Jesus and salvation, etc., are expressly and decisively opposed to these core Christian teachings.

Technically, the argument over who is a Christian, or what objective tests can be use to decide that, are irrelevant in the race for the Presidency. Romney is hoping that American tolerance of differences will not be an impediment to his election as President. But if the pollsters are correct, for the Christian evangelical crowd (the religious “right” wing), Baptist Rev. Mike Huckabee looks a lot more acceptable than ex-Governor Romney.

In my personal perspective, neither one of them would get my vote but not because of their particular theological views, or the official teachings of their church traditions and doctrines (Christian or not). I don’t agree with their social values, and I would worry more than a little that they would use those faith-influenced social values to enforce a particular, prejudicial and unjust agenda on this nation. (CNN’s sound-byte: “Romney: ‘My convictions will indeed inform my presidency’”.) From what I have read about Romney, while he appeals to American tolerance, he is not likely to promote the view that all the laws of this land be broadened to guarantee equal tolerance for the views of others. He does not support the legalization of same-gender marriage, for example, as the tolerant, American, thing to do.

It is pretty clear that George W. Bush used his own religious faith as a big factor to get himself into the White House. It is clear that the votes of his co-religionists counted heavily (even if they don’t know how to count in the state of Florida) in the last two general elections. Now a man equally as socially-conservative as Bush wants the America people not to count his religion against him. Is it any wonder that fundagelicals are finding this hard to do?

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Fundamentalism, Doctrine, LGBT Rights, History, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »