Why Does It Matter if Mormons Are Christians?
Posted by
Kevin
Fred has a very interesting post up today:
Those of us Christians who do not believe that this newest testament is holy scripture thus find ourselves in a paradoxical situation: We’re asked, out of respect for our Mormon friends, to overlook this difference and to dismiss everything in that book as adiaphora and inconsequential trivia.
I have a hard time viewing such a dismissal as respectful of their faith. I want to say, instead, that the content of their holy book matters — that it shapes their faith and doctrine and identity in a meaningful way. If the Book of Mormon is meaningful, then it also seems reasonable to say that the teachings of this text distinguish Mormons from non-Mormons. And the category of non-Mormons here includes all of those Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic and other believers traditionally referred to by the descriptive term “Christians.”
The comments are just as interesting. But I cannot help but wonder why this matters. Fred is right that to dismiss the differences between Mormon and Protestant and Catholic Christianity would be doing a disservice to those who take their Mormonism seriously. Fred is also right that telling people “I don’t care what you say, you aren’t a real Christian” is more than a bit on the arrogant side. But the fact that we have people so intent on claiming for themselves membership in some broadly defined Christian group is a little disturbing. If there was no discrimination based on not belonging to that group or if there was no concrete benefit to belonging to that gorup, then it would not matter if Protestants didn’t think Mormons were Real True Christians. It would be a point for friendly debate between neighbors and theologians. It would not, in any sense, matter to the public life of the country.
The candidacy of Mitt Romney, though, and to a lessor extent that of Huckabee, has shown us that it does matter. Romney has been trying for the entire campaign to prove that Mormons really are Christians, just like the evangelical and fundamentalist voters he so despertaly wishes to impress. Huckabee has benefited, to some extent, by the fact that he is manifestly one of that group. In the end, and depressingly, whether or not Mormons are Christians matters becasue a significant portion of our country cares more about what you are than what you do.
And that is a disturbing thing in a country as diverse as ours.
No, of course it shouldn’t matter.
Article VI of the constitution clearly states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust…”
That a candidate’s religious convictions has become an issue is not only in bad taste, it’s contrary to American values. That our friends on the “religious” right have made it an issue is not surprising. That the media have promoted the issue is alarming. It sets the bar of this campaign that much lower.
Comment 12/11/2007
It’s also fascinating to see how much the theology seems to matter much much more in the GOP primary. I don’t dispute the practical effects of someone’s belief system matter a great deal, but how they get there should be almost inconsequential as far as voting goes.
For example on the GOP side:
“Ban abortion because it is god’s will.” shouldn’t be any better or worse than “Ban abortion because we need more population growth.” Both achieve the effect you require. Besides it’s not as if Romney will somehow single-handedly start converting all non-LDS folks overnight.
If he’s gonna do what you want him to do, not voting for him because he disagrees with you about the nature of divinity just doesn’t seem that bright to me.
Of course if the doubt is as Governor he did and said things you don’t agree with and think he’s just blowing smoke to get your vote, well then it DOES make sense to vote for someone else.
Comment 12/11/2007
By doctrine and practice Mormons are not Christians. End of story.
Comment 12/11/2007
Thank you (our) Fred for that little piece of enlightenment. And here I was about to say that reading the commentary under (slactivist) Fred had actually given me some modicum of respect for Christians again. I guess I chalk it up to them not being good Christians.
Comment 12/12/2007
Fred wrote: “By doctrine and practice Mormons are not Christians. End of story.”
How terribly inclusive of you, Fred.
Mormons do think otherwise, as they believe they follow the Word of Christ.
All of which, of course, is irrelevant to the campaign. The Founding Fathers were quite clear that there should be no religious requirement for public officials.
End of story.
Comment 12/12/2007
From this point on I would like to be referred to as a liberal. I’m sure I will be welcomed into the group. Don’t let my conservative beliefs deter you. If I want to be called a liberal even if I don’t have a liberal philosophy, that is my right. Please respect my request.
Comment 12/12/2007
Lousy example, Morris, even for you. Because while Mormons and Christians like you disagree on a few points of detail, liberals disagree with you on pretty much everything.
Do Mormons not believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior? If they don’t believe that, then I can see the argument for not calling them Christians. But short of that, I don’t see how you can rightly exclude them, any more than you could exclude, say, Catholics.
Comment 12/12/2007
Point taken, Fred. Although there’s a difference between genuinely thinking you uphold the ideals of a given group and thus considering yourself as such, and recklessly calling yourself any label to question (or in your case, assert the legitimacy) or such a label.
But the question is not so much whether Mormons are Christians. The question is why it matters, why, if Mormons are satisfied with the teachings and beliefs of their religion, they feel the desire (politically speaking, the need) to be welcomed into somebody else’s tent.
This is especially true in the political arena, as the question becomes one of ideology versus practice. Christianity is becoming a viewed as a simulacrum in terms of its place in the political sphere, in so far as it is more important to be able to flash a membership card than it is to actually embody the ideals the group is supposed to stand for.
(Not saying Romney does this better than Huckabee or anybody else)
Comment 12/12/2007
“Do Mormons not believe that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior? If they don’t believe that, then I can see the argument for not calling them Christians.”
The words are the same; the meaning is not. Do some research (and try to have an open mind).
Comment 12/12/2007
Oh gods, here we go again…
Chris·tian
1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): disciple 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 1961
2: the hero in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress
An adherent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would fit definition one a (1a), a definition that has currency with the rest of the world.
And this is pertinent to the presidential campaign…how?
Comment 12/12/2007
Of course the Mormons also consider theirs to be the one, true, religion and all others (including Fred’s) as false. As do Catholics. So Fred and his clan are not unique in their exclusionary ways. All of which strikes this observer of religion as quite comical.
Comment 12/12/2007
You know, I think I’m going to let Morris have this one.
I don’t know if the dictionary is the best source to “define” Christian(s).
I mean, many of us make judgments about one’s religious convictions in an operational sense. The dictionary defines “Christian” only in a sense of nomenclature, and I think there’s more to it than that. By the dictionary definition there really aren’t any Christian ideals except “profess(ing) belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.”
It would make all talks of “real” Christians moot because the standard is only professing, not adhering to. That seems to fly in the face of much of the discourse surrounding religion on this site. So, if for no other reason than internal consistency and personal amusement, I’m going to say that there’s more to being a Christian than the dictionary definition.
FTR, this rubric does not hold for being a (New York) Yankee. The only criterion for that is to be employed by the New York Yankees (specifically in a capacity that relates to onfield major league games).
Comment 12/12/2007
But from a realpolitik point of view, why do they want the political exclusion of members members of the LDS church? While Jack Chick style fundamentalist Christians may think Catholics are going to hell, when it comes to their political rallies (focus on the family etc…) They leave that by the wayside because the only thing that type of language will accomplish is getting Catholics to stay home or worse, vote for a democrat. Likewise while Missouri Synod Lutherans don’t approve of the religious doctrines of Baptists or Catholics they have no problem voting for one on theological grounds.
As modern political fundamentalist Christianity defines itself, the two largest doctrines are (what they view as) the terrible murder of unborn babies, and the condemnation of homosexuality. Mormons match these beliefs 100%. Why then can’t the different denominations of fundamentalists accept the Mormons in at least the political arena?
Comment 12/12/2007
digglahhh wrote: “The dictionary defines “Christian” only in a sense of nomenclature…
“Christian” is a very broad term. Given the number of denominations that define themselves as “Christian”, it has to be. The problem with people like Fred/Morris/Mo, as Ted pointed out, is that they define themselves as true “Christians” at the expense of everyone else who profess to be “Christian”. To what do they owe this sense of authority in Scripture? I think we can all agree, it is certainly not by appointment of the Almighty, who to my knowledge has not shown preference for one denomination over another. That it has become an issue in the campaign is unsettling.
The irony is that the fundamentalist right continually plays the patriot card, when in fact, imposing religious requirements for public office is contrary to American values.
Comment 12/12/2007
Nice to have the well-reasoned Janusz commenting again.
I apologize for the totally off-topic question, but since NYY was mentioned above.. Digg, do you dread the release of the Mitchell report tomorrow as I do? I suppose dread is too strong, but I am hoping none of “my” players are named. I don’t have many illusions (delusions?) when it comes to pro athletes, but still…
Comment 12/12/2007
People always seem to get caught up in pissing contests of conviction. The holier-than-thou mindset is not unique to religion. Sports, and the determination of “true fans” is a particularly good example of this for anybody immersed in the culture of sports fandom.
I think all “categories” have more to do with a person identifying him/herself as part of that group than there being some preordained order of those who can and can’t be a part of such a group. Your personal relationship with god is “real,” calling yourself “Christian” is just rough means of nomenclature.
Self-identify however you want, the jury is out on whether there even exists an objective reality, let alone whether your self identification closely mirrors it.
This question is only important in the practical, political manifestations of the issue at hand. If you think Romney’s the man, but he can’t get the support of the “Christians,” and thus can’t get elected, you have a practical stake in the Mormons being recognized as Christians. But, whether such a recognition is “correct” is still meaningless.
Comment 12/12/2007
“imposing religious requirements for public office is contrary to American values.”
A person who is free can impose any requirement he wants. It is the government which is forbidden to make a religious test for office.
Comment 12/12/2007
“…Almighty, who to my knowledge has not shown preference for one denomination over another.”
Mormons are not a Christian denomination. Next you’ll be telling us that Christians are really Jews and Jews should accept Christians as Jews.
Comment 12/12/2007
Janusz, abbreviated: “No true Scotsman…”
Morris:
A person who is free can impose any requirement he wants. It is the government which is forbidden to make a religious test for office.
For once, you’re correct. One can question the wisdom of individuals using religion as a primary litmus test for candidates, but not the constitutionality of it.
The bottom line is, many (if not most) religious Americans don’t want religious diversity or religious tolerance; they merely tolerate it because it beats somebody else’s religion “winning.”
To those of us (myself included) who are not very religious or not at all religious, it doesn’t make much sense, but to a lot of deeply religious people, there’s simply nothing more important than religion, and it touches every aspect of life. The idea of “separate spheres” is completely nonsensical to them.
But all of this does make me wonder: Given a choice between the Mormon but anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights Romney, and the Catholic but pro-choice and pro-gay-rights Giuliani, who does Morris choose? For the sake of argument, assume those are the only two choices.
Comment 12/12/2007
Ted,
To indulge in the tangent, I dread a couple of things.
One, that this will be seen as the definitive list or whatever and people will falsely think we have put this issue to bed, and that we can now look back with a anywhere-near complete perspective on the past ten to fifteen years.
Two, I dread the findings in relation to the Red Sox (and by extension, the Yankees) since Mitchell is a Director in the front office of the Red Sox. If we see many prominent Yanks, and no Sox, the sideshow could be insane.
I think we’ll all see athletes who we either rooted for, or were (relatively) not suspicious of - that’s not really going to bother me too much.
And, LL, if you disapprove of the tangent, let’s get some more sports-related posts up here so we don’t have to disrupt these other threads, huh…
Comment 12/12/2007
tgirsch wrote: “For once, you’re correct. One can question the wisdom of individuals using religion as a primary litmus test for candidates, but not the constitutionality of it.”
I would suggest that article VI does make such criteria unconstitutional (and contrary to the spirit of the founding fathers’ vision, so I don’t think the fallacy applies here). Of course there is the problem of enforcement; one can’t force someone to disregard religious affiliation once they’re in the voting booth. That being said, it is unfortunate that Romney felt he had justify his Mormonism. That the media leapt on the issue with unusual vociferousness is a sad commentary on the campaign (and the US)…I would have thought the country had grown beyond that sort of thing.
Comment 12/12/2007
Mormons are not a Christian denomination.
Again, it depends on just how you define “Christian.” Catholics and Protestants can’t even agree on that, and some Protestant groups disagree, too…
Comment 12/12/2007
I would suggest that article VI does make such criteria unconstitutional (and contrary to the spirit of the founding fathers’ vision, so I don’t think the fallacy applies here).
I don’t think that’s correct (at least not the first half of it). The constitution is explicitly a description of what government may and may not do. Even the explicit protection of rights enumerated in the constitution come in the form of prohibitions against government infringement upon those rights.
I do agree, however, that it’s contrary to the founding fathers’ vision; they were mostly extremely cynical about mixing of religion and politics in any context (with a few notable exceptions). It’s not an accident that the constitution is a purely secular document.
That being said, it is unfortunate that Romney felt he had justify his Mormonism.
As with Kennedy and Catholicism before him. History does tend to repeat.
Personally, I’d rather see Romney have to justify why his policies suck so hard, but I can’t rely on our media to substantively cover stuff like that. They’d rather obsess about Romney’s creed and Hillary’s cleavage…
Comment 12/12/2007
Tgirsch wrote: “As with Kennedy and Catholicism before him. History does tend to repeat.”
Perhaps, but I thought we had grown substantially since then. Kennedy was running in a country that still tended to see itself culturally as an extension of European Protestants ie Germans, English, Dutch. Films, ads, the media promoted that idea as normal, as American. And of course, all previous presidents were Protestant (hey Fred…all sorts of Protestants, with even a few Unitarians thrown into the mix). That a Catholic could become president was a cultural paradigm shift. Since then, our view of what is “American” has become considerably more diverse. That Romney has to make his Mormonism palatable to the public is regressive…it’s sad to see.
“Personally, I’d rather see Romney have to justify why his policies suck so hard…”
I would agree. Just out of curiosity, who is more liberal/conservative, Romney or Clinton, and how can you tell?
Comment 12/12/2007
“Given a choice between the Mormon but anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights Romney, and the Catholic but pro-choice and pro-gay-rights Giuliani, who does Morris choose? For the sake of argument, assume those are the only two choices.”
Since I don’t have to choose, I won’t. I will vote for the person who will be the best president. Although it may influence my decision, a person’s religious affiliation is not the determining factor in my vote. If that was the determining factor, I would have voted for Carter and Clinton. Believe me, I was never tempted to vote for either one of them. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a president who was of the same denomination I am.
Comment 12/12/2007
Janusz:
Perhaps, but I thought we had grown substantially since then.
Wishful thinking, I’m afraid. If anything, we’ve gotten worse in that time. Kennedy’s Catholicism was an issue not just because they didn’t want the president answering to the Pope, but because they didn’t want religion dictating the nation’s policies. Now, I’m afraid, Romney’s religion is an issue not because it’s prominent in his views and policies, but because it happens to be the wrong one.
Just out of curiosity, who is more liberal/conservative, Romney or Clinton, and how can you tell?
Clinton is more liberal, but mainly on the “social” issues like abortion and civil unions. Both have a frustrating tendency to chase polls, however.
Morris:
I will vote for the person who will be the best president.
And if you had to pick today, who would that be?
Digg/Ted:
Per your request, I put an open Mitchell Report thread on the front page. Knock yourselves out.
Comment 12/12/2007
Funny, I would associate the NTS fallacy with Fred’s position and not Janusz’s.
Comment 12/12/2007
“And if you had to pick today, who would that be?”
I haven’t made up my mind. I know it won’t be Rudy.
Comment 12/12/2007
Of course, it is Constitutional, in the American sense, for a voter to use a religious test in voting, as indeed TG is right that the Constitution only binds the gov’t. Of course, the Founders (They weren’t Founding Fathers until Lincoln said so…), certainly saw using a religious test as unConstitutional in the British sense. That is to say, doing so is deeply unAmerican. (Note that British constitutional law does not derive from the text of any particular document.)
Also, I’m quite willing to let Fred use the label ‘liberal’, though it’ll probably have to be qualified to avoid confusion. But, heck, it’s not much worse that what libertarians have done to the word.
Comment 12/12/2007
I accept that I misspoke when stating that using a religious test by voters (as opposed to the government) is unconstitutional, but I think we can all agree such criteria are contrary to the spirit, vision and reasons for founding the country.
Fred may be called a liberal in the 19th century economic sense, but his thinking is so visceral and unreasoned that I would hate to dignify it as such.
tgirsch: in both cases, Kennedy’s and Romney’s, the candidate’s religion was perceived to be the wrong one. When Kennedy addressed the Southern Baptist convention and stated that no Catholic had been elected president, it was an appeal to broaden the criteria for office. We seem to have grown very little since then.
Comment 12/13/2007
I like that Morris doesn’t even bother denying being Fred.
Props to you for that, Frorris.
Comment 12/13/2007
Ted:
You misunderstand me; I wasn’t accusing Janusz of being guilty of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I’m saying that a shorter form of his accurate comment (#14) would have been to point out that Morris was guilty of it. I was agreeing with Janusz’ argument.
I should have been more clear.
Comment 12/13/2007
10-4
Comment 12/13/2007
Why do Mormons insist on being called Christian. Muslims believe in Jesus also but they are not Christian. Mormons insist they are right but constantly say there are no real differences. Puzzling.
Comment 1/8/2008