The term cult is admittedly loaded, conjuring up images of Jonestown and David Koresh. But the popular usage of that term isn't what I had in mind. The more proper term to describe Mormonism is probably heterodox from a Christian perspective.
Heterodox, which is an English transliteration of the Greek compound word meaning, basically to attempt to glorify God in a wrong way, is the opposite of orthodox. Orthodox means to glorify or honor rightly.
Christians believe that over a period of many thousands of years, to many hundreds of thousands of people under the prayerful guidance of God's Spirit, God has revealed Himself and His will for humanity. Christians also believe that God's ultimate self-disclosure came in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Mormonism claims to add something more to God's self-disclosure. There is no inherent reason why God can't disclose more of Himself, of course. But if one believes, as Mormon theology claims to believe, that God reveals Himself and His will for us in the Bible, one cannot also believe in the very different God, with a very different will for humanity, discussed in the Book of Mormon.
In contrast to the Judeo-Christian faith, Mormonism, like Islam, depends on the supposed communication of God with one man. In Mormonism's case, that one man was Joseph Smith; in Islam's, Mohammad. But Christians describe Mormonism, not Islam, as a cult because Mormonism claims to be Christian. Christians don't believe the faith claims of Islam. But Islam never claims to be Christian.
I bring all of this up because in that previous post, I said that three things indicate a heterodox cult from a Christian perspective:
- 1. doesn't believe in salvation by grace;
- 2. repudiates the deity of Christ; and
- 3. repudiates the doctrine of the Trinity.
How do you think that Mormonism does not use the word "grace" in the same sense as the Bible uses it? Mormonism claims that grace is not earned or deserved, but Christ gives it freely upon our obedience. Please address Heb 5:9.Good question. The Mormon take on grace is, I'm afraid, both facile and, from a Biblical perspective, untrue.
The term grace translates the Greek New Testament word, charitas, from which we derive the term charity. This conveys the character of the word.
God's way of bridging the decimated relationship between Him and humanity has always been through grace, God's charity, and not the works of human beings. When, in the Old Testament, Abraham was made right with God--declared righteous, it wasn't because he was obedient, if by obedient one means in compliance with God's law. Abraham, like the rest of the human race, was never able to fully obey God's law.
Abraham's rightness with God--what the Bible calls righteousness, when applied to human beings means--was solely and totally a question of trust (faith). Abraham trusted God. God called Abraham righteous.
What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.” (Romans 4:1-8)What was true of Abraham and his descendants as God revealed Himself to them is true for all humanity through Jesus Christ:
“no human being will be justified in his sight” by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of boasting? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law. (Romans 3:20-28)How are we made right with God? By believing in--trusting in--Jesus Christ. What does it mean to obey God? To heed God's call to believe in Jesus Christ:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life." (John 3:16)Though it's true that I will want to conform to God's will once I've been saved from sin and death through Christ, my salvation has nothing to do with what I do. It has everything to do with what Christ has done for me on a cross and from an empty tomb.
The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household." (Acts 16:29-31)
Sadly, to say that grace is free as long as one is obedient to certain proscribed rules, which is what Mormomism says, is akin to saying, "Charity is free. But first you have to earn it."
And what of Hebrews 5:9? As we've explained, to obey Christ is to trust that He--and He alone--can free me from sin and death. Only Christ. Not my works. Not my "obedience" of God's law, which the Bible teaches none of us is capable of keeping perfectly anyway.
Christians will seek to be obedient to God, out of their gratitude for Christ. But, thank God, our salvation does not depend on our sin-limited capacity to be obedient.
Lest some readers get their stomachs in knots, remember that this discussion all began in the context of debate over the probable presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney. I have always held--and first expressed it on May 29, 2005, that there is no inherent reason to reject a Romney candidacy based on his being a Mormon.
But his faith is an issue insofar as it provides a window onto his worldview. To inquire into a candidates' worldview is not to create a religious test for their election to office. It is a way of understanding what their predispositions and predilections may be.
And it is likely to become an issue if rumors that the Romney campaign is asking Mormon churches for their mailing lists, deeming them fertile territory for fund-raising and volunteer recruitment, are true. I have always been opposed campaigns using churches or churches getting into bed with campaigns in this way. Christians shouldn't do it. Neither should Mormons.
It does bother me that Mormons aren't more forthright in admitting that their religion is not the same as Christianity. Such honesty from Mr. Romney would enhance his chances as a presidential candidate, engendering the respect of Christians willing to accept someone of another religion, but not a phony.
[Interesting: A thorough site called Utah Policy has linked to this post. UP has a sidebar category devoted to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. It's called, Mitt Romney Watch. Welcome to those readers.]
10 comments:
I live in the land of Mitt Romney (Massachusetts) and there are many things about his beliefs that I can hold against him. Mormonism is not at the top of the list.
Rhea
The Boomer Chronicles
Mark:
I like the term "heterodox" - Mormons will reject the term if it implies Christian derivation, they hold themselves to be Christianity restored, but in it's Latin roots "different orthodoxy" I think it an excellent word, and shall be using it in future discussion.
Next point - Much as atheists often spin our beliefs differently than they really are, I would suggest you have done the same with some Mormon tenants. I will not try and correct you, only suggest you consult Mormons on precisely what they believe. They are far closer to Pentecostalism in their view of revelation than Islam.
As to the designation "Christian" - by their own admission - they view the "hows" extremely differently than we do, but they claim "salvation through Christ" as we do. - Is that not the strictest definition of "Christian"? The rest of it is a matter of doctrine as developed in later centuries. They are followers of Christ - but it ends there, and indeed they will admit to being, non-creedal, non-orthodox, or some such formulation. When you ask them to admit they are different, they readily do, they simply want to insist they believe in Jesus, His death and His resurrection. I personally think that's fair provided the proper use of modifiers like creedal, non-creedal, traditional, non-traditional, etc.
Finally, the worldview thing is valid as far as it goes, but I have yet to find the Mormon doctrine that will change the Mormon worldview in such a way that a Mormon would hold a different view on an important political issues than we would. I'm open to hearing about it, but to date haven't found it.
Which raises an interesting question - under the circumstances I have just prescribed (same political stances) does emphasizing our differences with them theologically accomplish anything useful in the political discussion, or is it simply prejudicial, like raising prior bad acts in a criminal trial?
Oh, by the way - Mitt Romney will readily admit all the differences between Mormons and us, provided we grant that he believes in Jesus - he has done so to me personally.
Now having said that, he will avoid the topic in public like the plague for the reasons I sight in the last paragraph in the post above
Scribe and John: Thanks for your comments.
Frankly, John, my discussion of Romney's Mormonism has come in response to that those who support his candidacy are routinely bringing it up.
I can't imagine that his religious affiliation would be that big a deal were it not for Romney-boosters talking about it.
It certainly wasn't an impediment to his being elected governor in Massachusetts. And I can't recall the matter of his religious affiliation having anything to do with the implosion of his father's once-bright presidential prospects back in 1968.
Since many Romney backers seem intent on talking about his religious affiliation, it seems appropriate that it be discussed by all of us.
This is especially so since the Romney campaign appears to want to have it both ways: It wants to use the Mormon Church as an arm of its campaign but doesn't want anybody to probe what his Mormon faith has to do with his politics.
I have to say that I don't agree with what you said when you wrote: "As to the designation Christian" - by their own admission - they view the "hows" extremely differently than we do, but they claim "salvation through Christ" as we do. - Is that not the strictest definition of Christian? The rest of it is a matter of doctrine as developed in later centuries." The doctrine of justification by grace through faith is hardly a later theological formulation. It's central to the identity and character of God and always has been, going back to Abraham. This is no inconsequential matter.
I am admittedly no scholar of Mormonism. But I have read enough of the Book of Mormon and enough about Mormonism, from both Mormons and Christians, to feel comfortable with what I've written here.
Rhea, why do you have such a low opinion of Romney?
Mark
This is a good post. I've been debating for over a month how exactly to best enter this conversation in a series of posts I've been doing, and intend to do at Texans for Mitt Romney. The posts are titled: Evangelicals Need Not Fear Romney -
I do want to interject a couple things here. First I think Mormons and Evangelical Christians understand the concept of salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ - almost identical to each other, although the typical linguistic conventions used to describe salvation through faith in Jesus Christ is different, and causes Evangelicals and Mormons to talk past each other.
Great book to read: How Wide The Divide - Blomberg & Robinson.
A lot of people describe Mormons as a works based religion. They often quote the Book of Mormon scripture that says: "It is by grace that we are saved after all that we can do." - See!! All that we can do! It is a works based church! But elsewhere in the Book of Mormon it says that all that we can do is to repent!
Mormons have the tendency to emphasize James' description of salvation by faith, instead of Paul's but we still believe Paul.
How are you saved?
You make a covenant with Jesus Christ by being baptized - (like Jesus commanded us to)
Do you deserve salvation?
No.
Do we earn salvation?
No. Christ saves us.
There are plenty of odd doctrinal beliefs that Mormons hold. But the Mormon doctrine of Christ lines up well within the boundaries of traditional Christianity.
Mark,
As far as why Romney backers keep bringing up the religion issue... I know I keep bringing it up because I'm worried about Romney not making it through the first hurdle - the primaries. There is enough misunderstanding out there about Mormons that an opponent could use it (widespread misunderstanding) quite effectively against Romney in a primary race.
And I'm not exactly sure how it is going to play out. Most Mormons I know think Romney has no chance - in a primary race - because of the willful misunderstanding of our beliefs. You can go to 10 protestant churches in any city and chances are you'll find a pamphlet or a book warning people off our missionaries by saying Mormons believe things that we do not believe.
I have no problem with people rejecting things that I actually believe. "You may have prayed about the Book of Mormon and God told you it was true. But God told me no such thing. He answered my prayer by saying it is a false book and I should have nothing to do with it." I have no problem with statements like that. But it hurts when people say that I believe things and reject me based on things that I do not believe.
You know. Like Grace. "I don't believe what Mormons believe. I don't believe that I can somehow earn my salvation."
Riiiight. Except that I don't believe that I can somehow earn my salvation either.
It doesn't feel fair, if that makes sense. And that is what concerns a lot of Romney backers. That people will insist that Mormons believe things we don't actually believe. And that prejudice will lose him the GOP nomination.
In a general election, Romney is electable. Most Americans don't care what particular brand of religion a candidate is, and they will be much more interested in his resume - his reputation for turnarounds.
I'm actually glad for the early rebuke by the Boston Globe of the Mormon network. The 'network' isn't as organized as the Globe would have you believe, but Romney can obviously count on a lot of funds coming from Mormons. And a lot of votes. Mormons need to be aware of what is okay to do, and what crosses the line.
But Romney is going to need more than the Mormons on his side. He'll need Americans of every stripe to donate money to his campaign, and to vote for him. If he can win the primaries, the GOP is in good shape and Romney won't disappoint.
As for how Mormonism might impact his foreign policy? I keep waiting for somebody to bring up the Book of Mormon story of Captain Moroni. "Israel will stop shelling Lebanon on the condition that every citizen of that country come forward within the next 30 days and sign their name and make a pledge never to wage war against the nation of Israel again."
Of course that is just idle speculation.
Mark:
You must be travelling in different political circles than I am. I have not done a strict count, but easily over 75% of the "looking at '08" articles I have seen mention "the Mormon question" Al Mohler has done hours on his radio program about it - James Dobson has stated openly on Laura Ingraham's program that he does not think Evangelicals will vote for a Mormon. Ted Kennedy opposed Romney and won for Senate by using his religion against him. Hugh Hewitt has a book coming out in February on Romney and Hugh has said it will be perhaps the biggest issue for him. McCain has sent operatives to Romney appearances to bring up the historical, but no longer, problems of polygamy and institutional racism in the Mormon church -- need I go on?
I have never contended that salvation by grace was not critical and essential to our doctrine - but etimologialy speaking the word "Christian" means simply "follower of Jesus" and Jesus is the central figure of the Mormon faith, even if understood in entirely, and admittedly, different terms than we understand Him. It is undeniably the same historical figure, as they use the same historical documents we do regarding His life story.
And by the way - there is no more of a Mormon network than there is an evangelical one - a couple of guys made a mistake with a mailing, they have been reprimanded, before the press covered it, and it has been corrected.
The CJCLDS has very strict policy conerning politcal involvment of the church and its various organs, including BYU. Far stricter I might add than the average protestant church.
That individual Mormons would network in support of a like minded candidate is no more, or less, problematic than like minded Christians.
Sam's Bro and John:
These are interesting comments...and no doubt a good dialogue for us to have.
Except for one point, I will leave the discussion of grace aside for now. We obviously have a difference of opinion and we won't be convincing each other on anything.
What I will say is that one isn't following Christ if it isn't on Christ's terms. Mormon theology's use of Christ is akin to one of the common things people use to reject te Bible's claims about Him, "Jesus was a great teacher, but..." (This is a point I discuss in passing here: http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2006/11/second-pass-at-this-weekends-bible_10.html). Boiled down to its simplest terms: I reject the notion that the Book of Mormon has anything more to do with God than any other book or article or comment that invokes God's Name and bears no real relationship to Who God has revealed Himself to be over the centuries. The Book of Mormon has more to do with the writings of L. Ron Hubbard than those in the Bible.
John, of course people like Dobson, Mohler, and Ingraham are bringing Romney's Mormonism up. But they represent way less than a majority of people...in the case of the first two folks, way less than a majority of Christians.
Clearly, Romney's 'Mormon-ness' was not fatal to him in Massachusetts. Besides which, Kennedy didn't need to use anything in order to beat Romney. Up to and including this year, Kennedy simply has had to show up in order to be re-elected there.
I don't know if there is a Mormon network or not. That sounds awfully sinister. I only expressed concern that the Romney campaign allegedly wanted to use the membership rolls of Mormon churches to find donors and volunteers.
I find that as reprehensible as I have found it when other campaigns and interest groups have sought and secured the rolls of evangelical churches. To me, it's unethical for any campaign to solicit membership rolls from any religious institution and it's illegal, immoral, and indefensible for any religious institution to turn such rolls over to political campaigns. (And from a Biblical, Christian perspective, it's bad theology to endorse or become involved in such campaigns.)
To the extent that there is an evangelical network, I wish that they would dismantle themselves and not promote the fiction that there is a straight line between faith in Christ and a particular political philosophy. I've expressed myself many times on the inherent faithlessness and idolatry of such ideas.
The Iowa caucuses are little more than a year away. Romney has the potential of becoming a major player and I, for one, will be interested in hearing what he has to say on the issues. Any conservative Republican who wins in the bluest state in the country and who secures the help of Ted Kennedy in getting a health care package through the legislature deserves a hearing. As I've asserted time and again, there is no inherent reason why a Christian could not support a Mormon for political office, irrespective of theological differences.
But I am deeply disturbed by reports of Romney's campaign soliciting the rolls of Mormon churches. If true, such solicitation would, at the least, amount to asking the churches to violate the law.
Mark
Mark:
I believe you know we are in agreement regarding the use of church roles - my point is simply that "the campaign" did not, a over zealous, misinformed supporter tried and was rebuffed.
Kennedy did specific advertsing against Romney based on his faith - it was really dispicable stuff. Maybe he didn;t need to, but he did, and it is going to happen in this race too.
Post a Comment