Telling The Story – Part I – The Words “Cult” and “Christian”
INTRODUCTION
They say that “journalism is the first draft of history.” Well, if that is the case, then blogging is the zeroeth. Certainly that is true of this blog which attempted in large part to simply chronicle all that was written and said about Mitt Romney, his religion, and his efforts to seek the office of President of the United States, and subsequent “campaign” for the vice presidential spot. While we managed to collect quite a bit of information here, and present it in the moment, we have done little to fashion that information into any sort of a narrative.
Now that it is all over, at least for this cycle, we are going to attempt a series of of very occasional (read “when we have some rare time on our hands”) posts we are calling “Telling The Story.” These posts will be our effort to take all the information we have gathered and fashion them into some sort of narrative.
So, without further ado…
Ideas Underlying Issues
There is no doubt in the minds of the authors of this blog that religious prejudice, even bigotry, was a significant factor in the lack of electoral success experienced by Mitt Romney in the 2008 campaign cycle. This prejudice and bigotry came in two distinct forms. The first was that typical of irreligious people towards persons of faith. Such prejudice and bigotry generally does not make significant distinctions between kinds, brands, or expressions of faith; it pretty well lumps them altogether into a single category. The other form is inter-religious prejudice and bigotry.
Prejudice and bigotry, while irrational, nonetheless are rooted in ideas. Some concept, some thought, catches on, regardless of its level of support in reason or fact, and becomes justification for the exclusion that expresses itself prejudicially. This case is no exception. The ideas that underlie the prejudice from the irreligious and numerous and actually exceptionally well documented in a variety of sources from a variety of religious perspectives. There is no need for this blog to deal with those extensively.
The inter-religious prejudice and bigotry that was seen is; however, born in a fairly short list of ideas that require some significant analysis. This is required by the general lack of rigor with which the ideas were addressed, typical of prejudice, during the campaign. The ideas were simply asserted, in an apparently rational, if not fully rigorously analyzed, fashion and arguments against were built upon them.
What were those ideas? They can be summarized in two simple, related statements:
- Mormons are not Christians.
- Mormonism is a cult.
“Mormons Are Not Christians”
They certainly are not traditional, orthodox Christians, but is that necessarily the end of the story? The fact of the matter is there is no clear cut answer to what constitutes “Christian.” Nelson’s Bible Dictionary defines it this way:
An adherent or follower of Christ. The word occurs three times in the New Testament: “The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch” <Acts 11:26>; Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to be a Christian” <Acts 26:28>; Peter exhorted, “If anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed” <1 Pet. 4:16>. In each instance, the word Christian assumes that the person called by the name was a follower of Christ. Christians were loyal to Christ, just as the Herodians were loyal to Herod <Matt. 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13>.
The designation of the early followers of Christ as Christians was initiated by the non-Christian population of Antioch. Originally it may have been a term of derision. Eventually, however, Christians used it of themselves as a name of honor, not of shame. Prior to their adoption of the name, the Christians called themselves believers <Acts 5:14>, brothers <Acts 6:3>, or saints <Acts 9:13>, names which also continued to be used.
In modern times the name Christian has been somewhat emptied of its true meaning as a follower of Christ. To some today, Christian means little more than a European or American who is not Jewish, while others have sought to make its proper use the name of a particular denomination. However, its original meaning is a noble one, of which any follower of Christ can rightly be proud.
Wikipedia and Answers.com provide very similar definitions. A web site devoted to “Religious Tolerance” has s similar, but perhaps even broader, understandably, definition. Interestingly, even when traditional, orthodox Christians turn to devotional reflections on the meaning being a Christian, the definition they arrive at is one that would be inclusive of ther various heterodox groups like the Mormons.
It is only when someone specifically asks the question “Are Mormons Christian?” that we seem to arrive at definitions of what it means to be a Christian that would exclude Mormons. The distinctions that do get made lie in the realm of theology and doctrine, not in any common understanding of a word. This fact accounts for a great deal of the difference in attacks on Romney’s faith from the religious and irreligious. The doctrinal differences that are so important to the religious are completely immaterial to the greater world at large. The irreligious fail to see or understand the distinctions – to them such distinctions simply say “intolerance.”
This blog, of course has adopted the idea that Mormons are Christians, though we use significant adjectives to distinguish Mormonism from the more traditional expressions of faith in Jesus Christ. We purposefully use the term “adopted” in the prior sentence because a definitive determination seems impossible. Arguments on both sides seem more derived from having arrived at a conclusion and seeking to justify it than from any sort of first principle derivation. Certainly linguistically one MUST accept Mormons as Christians since they call on Christ, but a religion is so much more than a mere linguistic understanding. There is a necessity for a distinction, the only question is whether one makes the distinction in the definition of the word or the adjectives applied to it. Such strikes this writer as an arbitrary choice to be made on factors other than the immediate definitional needs.
And so with that, we turn to the other issue:
Mormonism Is A Cult
I examined this issue in extensive detail on my “Godblog” early in the life of this blog. It was a series in four parts and there is little to be added to it. Please refer:
But having examined these two questions, we really need to wonder:
Why Does It Matter?
For most people, it just mattered. There was little effort to write to justify the concern, there simply was a concern and that was enough. A few people did try to justify the concern, but their efforts we ugly and petty and rooted in bigotry.
The argument, as I understand and have picked it up mostly from conversation and by reading in other, related areas, seems to be a variant of the argument that the irreligious use against religion in general. The irreligious claim that religion is so irrational as to preclude the believer from the public forum. “After all,” goes the mantra, “how can we allow people whose thought is so stunted to participate in reasonable public debate?” And then, of course, the “wall of separation” comes up, completely neglecting the fact that the wall is between religious and government institutions, not between religious citizens and their government.
The traditionally Christian use a variation of this argument, claiming that while their faith is certainly rational enough to allow them participation in the public forum, that Mormonism is so irrational that it must be excluded. For some reason such people are completely blinded to the similarities in their argument to their opposition’s argument that they fail to see the self-negating nature of using it.
Perhaps the problem lies in the arguments so often used by traditional Christians to refute the argument from the irreligious. In general, traditional Christians talk about worldviews in order to escape religio-speak in public debate. Such is a reasonable and important distinction. Worldview is essentially ones basic philosophical principles used to make decisions about things. But after establishing this, they take things a step too far. They equate, mistakenly, worldview and religion. The mistake is made in a good faith effort to demonstrate that the left hold their worldview with as much fervor, and as little or less supporting evidence, as the religious right. In other words, the left worldview is a religion too.
But once one does that, equates worldview and religion, it creates a means by which religious discrimination in the public forum becomes justified. Rather than worldview as a philosophical viewpoint (shaped in part by religion) becoming a flag behind which people of similar viewpoints can rally – it becomes a basis for distinction and factionalizing. It creates enemies rather than allies.
And thus, despite the fact that Mormons are natural allies of the Evangelical and otherwise religious right in the political arena, there are excluded. The result is inevitable political defeat. Political success in out nation requires the building of coalitions, not tearing them apart over issues that are, at least in the political sense irrelevant.
Why Shouldn’t It Matter
Among the many genius’ of our founding fathers was that politics and governance was about expediency, not philosophy. They were men of quite different philosophical and religious viewpoints. There were the very religious (John Jay for example) and the nearly anti-religious (Thomas Jefferson). They sought to find a way to govern ourselves without the impediment of religious parochialism bringing governance to a standstill, or worse, civil war.
They arrived at a means of doing so by first separating ecclesiastical institutions and governmental ones. They finished the task by equalizing the voice of religion in the public forum with all other voices. Please note – they DID NOT exclude the religious voice, they simple gave it no more or no less significance than other voices. The religious voice had greater influence only in that, and if, the majority of the populace shared in that voice. But all voices were welcomed to the debate.
Historically, the traditional Christian voice has constituted a majority of the nation, thus it was fair to describe this as a “Christian nation.” While most citizens of this nation still claim to be “Christian” they do so from such a breadth of political and philosophical viewpoints that even that banner has been rendered virtually meaningless in any political sense. I personally go to church with people every Sunday whose politics, and for that matter worldview, are almost directly opposed to my own. Does this mean one of us is more of less “Christian” than the other? Maybe, but under the American system it is not government’s job to make the distinction – it is government’s job to set aside such argument for the sake of doing the necessary work of governance.
It is important to remember that the constitution starts by listing what is, and is not, the job of government. If something is not the job of government, then government is supposed to leave it alone. Religion is among the things government is supposed to leave alone. But that also implies that we, as voters, should leave those concerns at the door of the voting booth, if we do not we embroil the government in areas the constitution specifically excludes it from. Our voting booth decisions are to be made within the context of what government is specifically charged with doing.
None of this minmizes inter-religious competition, or religious/irreligious competition, it simply moves the battleground to somewhere other than governnance.
And So We Conclude…
…a couple of things.
The first conclusion is that those that sought to introduce the question of whether Mormons are Christians, or proclaimed Mormonism a cult, in the context of of the elections did so solely for the purpose of labeling and using said label as a disqualifier. Not relaizing that sucha tactic would, i the end be self-defeating, for such tactics, once used and justified could be as easily turned aginst those that did it, as they did against others.
The second conclusion is that by introducing such factors into the election debate, we bring governance into areas and arenas where it was not, in this nation at least, every intended to go. This likewise, is a move that could create as many problems as it solves.
From Here
In our next few “Telling the Story” posts we will begin to chronicle the debates and attacks that happened along the philosophical lines that we have laid out in this post.
Posted in Telling The Story | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Article VI Blog » Telling The Story – Part II – Why Did Mitt Romney Lose in ‘08? on 15 Sep 2009 at 11:15 am #
[...] Way back last October we started a series we called “Telling The Story.” We are finally getting around to the second installment. The idea here is to collect a narrative on ‘08. Before we get into all the details and long grass, it is probably best to establish a “meta-narrative.” From our perspective as Romneyites in ‘08, the essential question is “Why did Mitt Romney lose?” Was it The Question? [...]