This discussion (it can't rightly be called a debate--the LDS is convinced they're Christian, most other Christians are sure they aren't really, and the news media doesn't really get to vote) has been raised because of the presidential candidacies of two Mormons. The popular discussion actually raises three questions:
- Who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't?
- Are Mormons Christians?
- Should we eliminate someone as a candidate if they are not Christian?
Who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't?
We're still trying to figure this one out. Some groups have a pretty tight hold on deciding who is and isn't (Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics come to mind--though the modern ecumenical movement has even eased a bit of that). Conservative Protestant groups at times also claim a unique hold on Christian truth, and disagreements over baptism, communion and church beliefs and polity continue to fill the space and discussion between groups. And certainly there are some who hold weird views.
Generally, though, we fall back on the historic creeds. Creeds that were often formulated in the fire of theological debates that at times became deadly. This wasn't child's play. Through that, and through the ages, with our disagreements about sacraments and church structure, we've been able to at least hold onto the creeds--those words that give us clarity about what the core of Christianity affirms. Throughout history there have been groups who called themselves Christian who disagreed with key parts of the creeds (Apostles and Nice-an-Constantinopolitan being key) but everyone else at least agreed they were far afield--so far that they could not be seen to be in line with historic Christianity. Were they more correct? Perhaps. But only they thought so. It's one thing to argue they were right, and quite another to argue they were in line with everyone else.
We may be uncomfortable with having any rules about who is in and who is out, but how can it but be that way? A Muslim is not a Christian based on religious beliefs. Those two faith traditions say very different things about Jesus that cannot be reconciled--one (or both) must be wrong. Both cannot be simultaneously correct. There are some key Christian beliefs that cannot be changed even a little, or the whole of it is lost. And these differences really do matter to the core of Christianity.
Today, those same creeds guide our discussions and reflections on these questions. There are, of course, some fine lines. But in many cases the lines aren't fine at all. Such is the case with the LDS.
Are Mormons Christians?
Properly speaking, no. For the fullest explaination of this from a United Methodist perspective, check out the UMC's statement. Some key quotes from the statement:
According to Mormonism, "Not only was God the Father once a human being, but he was and still is clearly male gendered and married to a heavenly mother of clear female gender." (yeah, no, not cool by Christian standards, or according to the statement, "Such belief regarding a gendered, married, and procreating god is at the core of LDS doctrine of God and makes claims about the essential nature of God that are in sharp contrast to the doctrinal statements of United Methodism.")
"Basic Christological differences exist between the two traditions...the Jesus of the LDS tradition is not co-eternal with the Father and “of one substance with the Father.” On the contrary, he is thought to be begotten of the Father (and Heavenly Mother) s are all pre-mortal spirits...Begotten of two heavenly parents, as were all subsequent spirit children, this Jehovah of the LDS tradition constitutes an entirely separate and distinct being from the Father. He is neither eternal (in the sense of having no beginning and no end) nor “of one substance with the Father.” He was not even “true God” at this point in time, for he was as we all were in our pre-mortal existence. Jehovah, then, was first a spirit child and later became a mortal as he, like all spirit children, was born in bodily form. Here again, however, Jesus was unique. While all other spirits were born to two mortal parents, Jesus was born to Mary and the Heavenly Father, who quite literally fathered Jehovah again, this time in the flesh, enabling him to be born as Jesus Christ."
"These theological claims identify the end or goal of salvation as the achievement of godhood. The way of salvation is following the model set by those who have already attained that status. They leave ambiguous the precise salvific role, if any, of the already existing gods.23 They do, however, make it clear that according to LDS theology, there are already in existence the three gods of the Godhead and a god who presumably presided over the mortality of the Father. There will be more gods to come, as at least some of those at an earlier stage of the “divine continuum” will become gods, as did the Father. Thus by traditional Christian definition, the LDS faith is polytheistic, and the role of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is decidedly compromised."
"Whereas in the United Methodist tradition and the broader Christian tradition,baptism as a sacrament is, first and foremost, about what God doesfor us, in the LDS tradition, baptism as an ordinance is, first and foremost,about human acceptance of God’s plan. God is understood to act in an LDSbaptism, but God acts to forgive sins in response to human worthiness."
The statement's explanation of baptism is best read in whole.
On top of that, the history and origins of the LDS are...interesting. But then, so are everyone else's. Really, though, you should read up about what they believe about Jesus' appearances to the Native Americans as well as Joseph Smith and
To say that some group's theology and practices are not in line with historic Christianity is not to speak to God's love for them, or even, as I suggested, whether they are right or wrong. It's just that if they are right, then the rest of us are wrong.
Ultimately, I personally affirm the historic creeds of the church. I believe they most fully explain God and God's activity in the world and our lives. But one must allow for the fact that they could be wrong. In order for the LDS' beliefs and practices to be correct, the historic creeds must be wrong.
As one of my college professors said, good, smart people disagree. we have much to learn from people of other faith traditions and a variety of belief systems--including those who believe in no divine power or being(s). But in terms of religious orthodoxy, we must admit we cannot all be simultaneously correct.
Should we eliminate someone as a candidate if they are not Christian?
That is up to you as a voter. And if you're going to have a religious litmus test, you're in for a bumpy ride. Because who passes? Someone who publicly affirms the same beliefs are yours? What if they say they do, but really do not. On any given Sunday, tons of people in church pews would flat out reject some if not all of the historic creeds.
Unfortunately, we've seen too many leaders who affirm Christian values only to later discover they don't live them. And what about how they do or do not intend to apply their beliefs to others? There are many politicians who disagree with abortion but vote in favor of a woman's right to choose. At issue here is what role a person's faith out to play in government. And that is a different thing than what that person's personal faith is. It absolutely is.
Let me give you an example of why this is true even on a contentious issue like abortion. Let's say you think a person's religious beliefs here OUGHT to impact their policies. The same is not true of all aspects of their faith tradition. Is Sunday a legal day of sabbath? I don't know of any place in the county where it is--not to mention the Bible clearly says Saturday (or rather sundown Friday) is the appointed sabbath. Or, does the law allow for children to be stoned for disrespecting their parents? NO. So there is, at some point, a line which separates our religious beliefs from what is appropriate both (1) to still abide by today and (2) to impose on others. We may have different opinions on where that line is but it exists. In our country at least, it does. And thank God for that.
Here's my confession--yes, I do consider religion when I look at candidates. But I cannot say I have a definitive rule. There are times I would absolutely choose a Muslim, or an atheist, or yes, even a Mormon, over someone whose professed religious beliefs are close to mine (aside from what they say, I can only judge otherawise based on behavior). All other things being equal, I suppose I might be inclined to choose a mainline Christian over one who is not. But "all other things" are rarely ever equal.
So, no answers. You have to work through this all yourself, and decide how much if at all it matters. Who'd have thought a presidential race would have us talking about baptismal theology?!
No comments:
Post a Comment