I wrote this response to John:
One of my seminary professors, Trygve Skarsten, gave us this definition of what constitutes a cult from a Christian perspective. [I should add that this references those groups claiming to be Christian.] A cult...[THANKS TO: Andrew Jackson of SmartChristian.com for linking to this post.]By these terms, Mormonism would be considered a cult.
- 1. doesn't believe in salvation by grace;
- 2. repudiates the deity of Christ; and
- 3. repudiates the doctrine of the Trinity.
But the issue of whether a person who is a Mormon should be elected the presidency or to any other public office is altogether different from how one views his or her religion.
People of all faiths must be committed to not using their public offices to give preferred treatment to the doctrine or the adherents of their faith. I see no reason why a Mormon could not serve as president or be considered as a candidate for the presidency. Many Mormons have served in other public offices, including Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, who also was a luminary in his faith group.
I don't think that someone should be blocked from consideration for the White House just because they're Mormon.
More specific to Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts governor who occasions so much of your posting on this subject:
Romney appears to be gaining traction in his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and seems to have gotten the tacit endorsement of Jeb Bush. Romney might well take the nomination.
But Romney has decided liabilities as a candidate, none of them having to do with his faith.
His father ran in 1968, you know, and at one point was considered one of the top contenders. But following his famed "brainwashed" gaffe, he was out of the field. The son seems paranoid about making the same mistake as his father. Mitt Romney appears to be scripted. When one adds to this what looks like a natve woodenness, there is an air of detached inaccessibility about him, not unlike that of John Kerry.
As he continues to campaign though, Romney may shed some of his obvious fear and become a more relaxed, likable campaigner. That would enhance his prospects.
Another thing that may hurt him is a mood is that appears to be taking hold of the American people, a mood to no longer reward political dynasties. It's one reason among many, for example, that Hillary Clinton will probably not run for the 2008 Dem nomination or have it denied to her if she does. Bush, Clinton, Gore, Taft, Kennedy, Romney: They've been important political names for anywhere from thirty to more than one-hundred years. But, even if the latest members of these dynasties are qualified to be president, the American people are presently in no mood to elect them.
The big advantage that Romney does have is in being from Massachusetts. No matter what he does in the Iowa caucuses, he'll have a fighting chance for the nomination because he will likely perform well in the New Hampshire primary. Massachusetts pols, because of their proximity to the Granite State, have always fared well in NH. Consider the list that immediately comes to mind: John Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge (on an unauthorized write-in campaign), Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and John Kerry.
[THANKS ALSO TO: NewsforChristians.com for linking to this post.]
4 comments:
Dear Mark: I am John Schroeder's co-blogger at http://www.article6blog.com. I only want to point out that the second element of "cultness" in your test does not apply to Mormonism. There is no way a reasonable analyst can argue, using the plain meaning of words, that Mormons dney the deity of Christ. As for the Trinity, we believe fervently in all three members; we simply beleive they are separate beings, one in purpose.
All this misses John's point, of course. The word "cult" has many meanings, and the one that most critics of Mormonism mean when they use the word is quite pejorative. Do you really want to lump Mitt Romney (and me, and 12 million others around the world) in with the likes of David Koresh and Jim Jones? I doubt it!
Lowell
No and I don't think I insinuated that Mormons and Koresh should be lumped together.
I was only talking about a theological definition, learned from one of my professors. It speaks of a cult not in a perjorative sense, but relative to Christian orthodoxy.
My larger point was that whether Mormonism is, by this theological definition, a cult or not, it should not prevent Romney from being given serious consideration for the presidency.
I enjoy Article 6 Blog. Someone has suggested that Mitt Romney is the prime beneficiary of George Allen's "fade" as a presidential candidate. I suspect that's right. I'll be interested in seeing what happens in the months to come.
Thanks for writing and allowing me the chance to clarify things.
Blessings!
Mark
Some better questions than "Is Mormonism a cult?"
"Can Mitt Romney be the architect of a federal budget deficit turnaround without raising taxes, just like he did in his home state of Massachusets?"
"Can we please get someone in the white house who can actually expalin their reasonable policies? Say, as opposed to Bush."
Murphy:
Since grace (charitas, the ancestor our own word, charity, in English) is not earned, I concede that Mormon theology uses the term, but not as the Bible or Christian theology uses it.
Samuel's Bro:
The first point of my post--which riffed off another blogger's discussion of Mormonism and Romney's presidential prospects--was that from an orthodox, Biblican Christian perspective, Mormonism can be called a cult. But I also indicated that should not necessarily disqualify Mitt Romney from consideration for the presidency.
I do think that worldview questions about Romney and every other candidate is relevant and appropriate.
Romney's ability to work with Democratic legislators (and, in the case of the Massachusetts health care program, Ted Kennedy) is impressive. He and a number of other Democratic and Republican former governors all will bring interesting credentials to the 2008 presidential race.
Mark
Post a Comment