Signs Of Hope? – For Weekend Discussion
Michael Brendan Dougherty from the upcoming Feb 23 issue of the American Conservative:
Romney’s campaign was derailed when Evangelicals turned to Baptist preacher-turned-politician, Mike Huckabee. His enthusiastic reception at the Values Voters conference prevented Dobson and other Religious Right leaders from endorsing Romney. Huckabee poked at Romney’s faith, asking a New York Times reporter, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” His strong showing among evangelical voters in the South doomed Romney’s bid.
But evangelical hostilities don’t last forever. When John F. Kennedy ran for president, many conservative evangelicals believed the Pope was the antichrist. The president of the National Association of Evangelicals warned, “Public opinion is changing in favor of the church of Rome. We dare not sit idly by—voiceless and voteless.” But two decades later, as Catholics took the lead in protesting abortion, evangelicals gradually traded theological rivalry for political co-operation. The alliance has become so natural that evangelicals were willing to reject co-religionist Harriet Miers as a nominee for the Supreme Court in favor of the more qualified Catholic Samuel Alito.
The same process of assimilation into the social conservative movement may be taking place for Mormons. Soon after the California Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage constitutional, Catholic Bishop of San Francisco George Niederauer asked the LDS church to join a multifaith coalition against gay marriage. By June, Elder Lance Wickman, a top LDS official, called Prop 8 “The Gettysburg of the culture war.” Church members fell in line, ready for a fight.
Do you think he’s right? What factors, as we move forward, will make this true or not true? There are big differences between the Evangelical/Roman Catholic divide and the Evangelical/Mormon divide – what are they and how will they affect this process?
Call this an open thread post for the weekend. Comment moderation will be off until Monday morning – have at it.
Lowell adds:
This is just a quick thought; I hope to have more to say over the weekend. John’s right that the Catholic analogy is imperfect. One reason for that (and only one of many) is religious competition. We Mormons are vigorous and aggresive proselytizers. It’s central to our faith, as evidenced by those 50,000 young, clean-scrubbed missionaries all over the world. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that more Baptists leave that faith to join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than any other – by a large factor. To me, that means that many Evangelical pastors will always view the Mormons with suspicion and hostility, and not just for theological reasons. Their messages to their flocks will reflect that hostility.
There’s no parallel for that issue in the Catholic/Evangelical divide. Catholics aren’t trying to convert Evangelicals and are no competitive threat to Evangelical pastors. I’m not saying this is an insurmountable problem, but I do think it’s an issue.
I am eager to see what our readers think.
Posted in News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Proposition 8, Reading List | 22 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
K.G. on 20 Feb 2009 at 1:43 pm #
Comparing Catholics to Mormons in their respective relationship with Evangelicals is apples and oranges. As I related previously on this blog, I attended Pastor Jim Garlow’s Prop 8 rally. He began by citing how the traditional breach between Catholics and Protestants had been bridged as they worked together to advance social issues.
Ironically, over half the audience was made up of LDS, who stood unrecognized in the hot sun until one Catholic speaker naively made mention of the substantial monetary contribution made by Mormons.
I imagine Garlow was mortified that Mormons were lauded in his very own parking lot.
While there are some straight-thinking evangelicals out there (John S., Hugh Hewitt, the good folks at Evangelicals for Mitt, etc.), there is also a large hateful, hostile group of Evangelicals determined to keep Mormonism marginalized at all cost. They are relentless in this determination and see that giving Mormonism credibility in any way, ie. electing a Mormon as POTUS, VP, or a SCOTUS justice is equal to giving credibility to Satan.
Of course, evangelical pastors work like dogs to keep the hatred going for two reasons: (1) Religious competition and (2) Having a common enemy is a great unifying force within a group. (See Jan Shipps Forty Years Among the Saints.)
I live in a friendly, social gate-guarded community in SoCal. One of our most hospitable, gracious Southern belle hostesses has no problem stuffing the community’s mail boxes with anti-Mormon literature. As a former Baptist now non-denomination mega-church member, she is taking no chances that the three LDS families in our community can exert any influence on the others.
I listen to her very influencial pastor on TV. He’s actually terrific and I learn a lot. However, he has no problem talking about how you can “smell the stench of cults when you get near them.”
This same pastor refused to work with LDS on Prop 8. We were free to join with him behind the scenes. But no way, no how was he going to seen working hand in hand as equals. Professional suicide, I guess.
While Mitt was in the race–and again with he was being considered for VP, the anti-Mormon hate on the blogs was astounding. One poster said that every time he hears the word Mormon, it’s like stuffing a pair of dirty (I cleaned it up) underwear in his mouth.
I would love to think these pastors will come to their moral senses, but I am doubtful. IMO the anti-Mormon movement is Satan-inspired. And we all know, he’s not going away until he has to.
The naivete of some Mormons is so sad, –Mormons who believe if they step up and show the evangelical community how faithful and effective they can be in “Christian” causes, they will be accepted and even welcomed with open arms.
I don’t think so. The more impressive the Mormon effect, the more determined many evangelicals will be to stomp us down. Keeping Mormonism demonized trumps any help LDS might give to a cause.
Jerald on 20 Feb 2009 at 6:08 pm #
John, the work you and Lowell are doing here is very important for the future of religious cooperation in America and you will no doubt influence many fair-minded people.
However, Lowell and K.G. came right out and said what most Mormons feel–that Mormon bashing using any and all means including lies, deceit, misinformation, and false witnessing is standard practice for many Evangelical preachers and writers because it creates an easily identifiable common enemy and fills bank accounts. It’s far easier and more profitable to demonize Mormons and rally a congregation to “go get’em” than it is preaching adherence to commandments. You don’t make money and fans telling people what they don’t want to hear, but you can get a whole boat load of both by giving their personal lives a free pass as you send them out after the Mormons, homosexuals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims or whoever else is not worthy of “Christian charity.” So instead of taking the hard but true road of evangelizing—first practicing what you preach and then lovingly persuading others to change their lives in tune with God’s will—they are going for mobocracy where they whip up less than exemplary people into a frenzy to go attack the “enemy” with any means available.
Often Mormons are accused of being “over sensitive” or of having “persecution mania,” but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to walk into an Evangelical book store, look at Evangelical-produced anti-Mormon materials, or listen to the sermons by some preachers to realize what’s going on.
And the disagreement over doctrine argument doesn’t hold water in many cases either. If it was a disagreement over doctrine, then such Evangelicals and their preachers would focus on what the LDS Church really believes and preaches. They would not have to twist, invent, misrepresent, or otherwise use deceptive methods to demonize, dehumanize, and “de-Christianize” Mormons.
These positions by a certain segment of the Evangelical movement are readily picked up by the general public and the liberals and used to “divide and conquer” conservatives as you have often mentioned. But for this brand of Evangelicals, that is something they welcome. The Prop 8 drama was a good example of this. The Catholics asked the LDS Church to lend strength to the Pro-Prop 8 coalition and it did. This was not welcomed by some of the Evangelicals, but they allowed it to become a “kill two birds with one stone” scenario. First, take the help from the Mormons to pass the measure while doing their best not to recognize the Mormons and then standing by as the anti-Prop 8 forces single out and attack individual Mormons and businesses, picket and otherwise disrupt Church and Temple services, and gleefully watched the MSM pick up the “Mormons are hypocrites, dishonest, weird, loony, and incapable of sound judgment” themes propagated by this segment of Evangelicals. Although there was some much appreciated support for the LDS members at this time, I saw far more gleeful posting and preaching about how great it was to see the Mormons taking the hits and getting all the bad press.
It reminds of radical Islamic families that send their members out on suicide missions. They will certainly lose one of their own, but if they can kill an Israeli, America, or Muslim from a different sect then it is all worth it and praised by God Himself.
So, for some Evangelicals, taking out the Mormons or at least making sure they are marginalized or ostracized is more important even then cooperating on social causes and political issues.
Will things get better? I’m sure they will on an individual basis as fair-minded people gain greater understanding. Over all? I doubt it. This “Jim Crow for Mormons” is just too powerful a tool for some Evangelical preachers and businesses that benefit from it to resist and it is condoned and propagated by the MSM and liberals to generate “entertaining news” and disenfranchise conservatives.
I would like to see some comments by Evangelicals about this, but I have a feeling all we will hear is the sound of crickets…
pdale on 20 Feb 2009 at 8:35 pm #
My thoughts went to the religious competition issue before seeing that that’s where others went. I used to listen to Dr. Walter Martin, “The Bible Answer Man” back in the early eighties. His favorite targets were the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. What a coincidence that they both happen to send out a good number of missionaries. The strategy is simple for certain Evangelical pastors: Demonize those you don’t want the flock to listen to. It has little to do with doctrine. If doctrine was really the concern, any honest Christian knows there are all kinds of things you could bring up about past and present doctrines and practices of several major religions. Plenty of non-Biblical, illogical beliefs and practices that bear no resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. But they get a pass because they are not a threat. Their missionaries aren’t seen in your town…they have never knocked on your door. But when a pastor’s annual income could possibly be reduced because of a Mormon missionary, the Mormons become the enemy and must be demonized. So what we Mormons believe will be taken out of context and twisted a little (or a lot) in order to create the whole cult image thing. The Bible Answer Man was often way off base, but the lies and distortions are still taught in Sunday School at a few churches today. I want to believe that many of the pastors who warn their flocks about the Mormons are sincere about what they’re doing. But I wish they would consider if their “concern” about doctrine is more of an excuse to create fear. And just how accurate is all that anti-Mormon stuff they teach, anyway? If Dr. Walter Martin was the source of some of it, it might be a good time to check your sources.
Doug King on 21 Feb 2009 at 11:04 am #
The sheer numbers of Catholics as opposed to Mormons makes the analogy to the Catholic/Evangelical divide questionable. Since Mormons are a tiny minority outside the Intermountain West, other groups can run roughshod over them unless the stakes are high and the contest is close, like Prop 8.
Not all Evangelicals hate Mormons, but a very vocal segment does. It’s going to take the risk of losing precious rights and institutions such as marriage and church before these people start accepting Latter-day Saints as fellow Americans. That time may come sooner than we expect. As the Prop 8 contest showed, the forces opposing traditional values are organized, well-funded, and motivated.
Jerald on 22 Feb 2009 at 2:58 am #
John, maybe we Mormons just “let it all hang out” too much on our posts here and killed off any hope of discussion in this thread.
Of course, the many good-hearted and fair Evangelicals out there are not the problem and so nobody is talking about them. As already mentioned, the hardcore anti-Mormons probably won’t be changing their views any time soon. So that leaves us with misinformed or uninformed Evangelicals and overzealous Mormons to work on.
I think a lot of progress can be made in this area but it will take time. First of all, Mormons and Evangelicals must respect each other as children of God and fellow Christians. Your suggestion to classify the type of Christianity as “Creedal” for Evangelicals and some other appropriate classification for Mormons is a good idea. The anti-Mormons won’t like that at all, but it may help other Evangelicals to understand the differences and appreciate the common ground. All Mormons should do a better job of respecting Evangelicals for all the good they are doing and as sincere Christians. There must be acceptance by both sides of sincere sharing of doctrine without condemning the other party. We must strengthen the understanding that the real enemy is evil and that there is nothing wrong with working together to fight evil.
I also agree with your principle that Evangelism must be depoliticized to keep the religion unadulterated by politics and politicians while standing firm for principles. There will only be problems when the discussion is Mormon vs. Evangelical instead of good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, principled vs. unprincipled.
Judging from the posts I have read here over the past year an a half, many people do not understand the necessity of agreeing to disagree on differences while working together on the areas with which we agree. It is important to get the message across that this is not compromising our values but is increasing the sum total of good in the world. That is to say, increasing the good through cooperation is better than no increase in good to make a moral statement—especially if we already know where each other stands.
Maybe then more Evangelicals will be comfortable voting for a qualified Mormon as Mormons already are comfortable voting for a qualified Evangelical.
John Schroeder on 22 Feb 2009 at 7:40 am #
Let me throw a new question into the mix then. And let me preface it with a bit of an apology. I know how incredibly important it is to Mormons to be consider Christian, and I hope all our readers here understand that I, personally, am willing to do so, provided there are adjectives attached. So I do not advocate with this question – it is pure inquiry.
The word “Christian” – rightly or wrongly creates a huge territorial issue in the entire debate, one incredibly difficult to overcome and one that most people, as the comment just previous points out, cannot seem to get past. If adjectival differentiation is insufficient, how about phraseological. What if Mormons, rather than insist on being called “Christian,” said something like “followers of the historical Jesus?” Or maybe there is something better?
Or is the animus so deep that no turn of phrase or choice of words can overcome it?
Lowell Brown on 22 Feb 2009 at 8:40 am #
I have just a couple of comments to add to John’s.
First, I spent some time with Jim Garlow during the Prop 8 campaign. He was always very warm and complimentary about the crucial Mormon involvement in the Yes On 8 campaign. He always said the theological divide was unbridgeable (which is true), but that the Mormons were great allies and deserved tremendous credit for their role. (Garlow was very instrumental in in fund-raising, by the way.)
The fact is that Evangelicals and Mormons will never agree on matters of religious doctrine. We don’t want to agree, because we both think we’re right. Nothing new there – it’s been that way since the beginning. We should all accept and be comfortable with that.
The question is whether we can cooperate on matters in the public square (keeping in mind that there are plenty of politically liberal Evangelicals and Mormons). This is a matter of great importance, because in many situations the public policy results we would like to see will never come to pass unless we do cooperate. Prop 8 is Exhibit A in that regard. The Huckabee-Romney “zero-sum game” is Exhibit B. We got John McCain out of that one.
The problem won’t be solved without Evangelical leaders stepping up and actually leading on the issue. That will take some courage and I am not sure it will ever happen. I am hopeful.
As for the “Christian” debate, I remain convinced that Mormons will, and are entitled to, insist on being called Christians. I base that on the common dictionary definition of the word, which is what the word means to just about everyone outside seminaries. I don’t think it is acceptable for Evangelicals to appropriate the word and exclude Catholics, Mormons, and whichever other faith does not believe in certain creeds that are not found in the Bible, or in certain doctrines that are at least debatable.I just don’t think fair-minded people can stand for that.
The reason this is important to Mormons is simple: Not to call us Christian causes us to be misrepresented, whether intentionally or not. When most people hear the words “not Christian,” they interpret that to mean “don’t believe in Jesus Christ.”. To believe Mormons don’t believe in Christ is grotesquely, ludicrously wrong.
Now, when some extreme Baptist minister says Catholics are not Christian, most people say, “Huh?” Everyone knows Catholics believe in Christ. But when someone says Mormons are not Christian, a great many people will think we’re like Bhuddists or Scientologists, because Mormonism is not nearly as widely known as Catholicism.
And that is what drives us crazy about being called non-Christians.
I do think that within religious circles, using the terms “orthodox Christianity” or “creedal Christianity” makes a lot of sense. I also like the idea of calling Mormonism “heterodox Christianity” or “restored Christianity.” Those are accurate terms for both sides.
“Christianity” is a broad term. There are sub-sets within Christianity. But anyone who believes in the Jesus Christ of the Bible and accepts Him as the Son of God and Savior of all mankind, and the only way by which redemption from sin is possible, deserves the title “Christian.” We can break that down into sub-categories like orthodox, creedal, heterodox, and the like, but a Christian is a Christian.
Anyway, that’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
David Steele on 22 Feb 2009 at 8:41 am #
John, why can’t Mormons just be called “Christian”. You look at any English dictionary and the definition given is generally ‘…one who follows Jesus Christ’. There is no reference to what the Evangelicals demand as being “Christian”, i.e. following THEIR definition of who Christ is.
I guess I am just marked by unaffected simplicity…or in other words I am “naive”. I follow Jesus Christ, therefore I am a Christian. I extend my “naive” definition to ANY who believes in Jesus Christ.
My belief is that the animus lies on the side of the Evangelicals. Mormons, as a tenet of their faith believe the following:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Back to your question about using adjectives to clarify Mormon’s Christianity – I for one will not use an adjective to define my Christianity, because I believe I am a Christian. As you have stated, you accept my Christianity if an adjective is added. Therefore, instead of having Mormons use the adjective or other phrase, let the Evangelicals use the word Christian and then add the appropriate adjective to define in their minds the Christ that we follow.
As history has shown, some of those adjectives will be despicable. [I know, I am showing my persecution complex with that last sentence : )],
John Schroeder on 22 Feb 2009 at 9:08 am #
There are, as Lowell points out, differences between Mormons and traditional Christianity. No one can deny that. Language must reflect the differences in some fashion. What we are looking for here is language suitable for civil, political discussion, that minimally satisfies our theology, but leaves it on the sidelines.
My point is this – debating over the word “Christian” injects the theology into the political, it violates the stated goal of achieving political unity. My inquiry above was based on trying to remove the debate. Now first of all – adjectives run both ways – both sides would need adjectives for clarification.
But as to the suggestion in my inquiry, I made it based on two facts: 1) traditional Christian expression has been at it longer and therefore it is harder to get them to budge, and 2) I have found Mormons far more reasonable on the topic.
The last thing we need is a debate about this when it comes to political cooperation. We are trying to do good here, not justify ourselves or our faiths. I am looking for language that quells the debate, not enlivens it.
The last thing we need is a debate about whether “the toilet seat should be left up or down.”
K.G. on 22 Feb 2009 at 9:59 am #
Jan Shipps is careful to call Latter-day Saints, “Saints.” That is, after all, how we define ourselves. Saints is the English word used over 50 times to describe believers in the New Testament.
Call us Saints, Latter-day Saints or Mormons. In the political or social realm, there is no need to debate whether someone is or is not a “Christian.” In fact, such a debate is highly offensive. Kind of like declaring a Black man 2/3 human.
To call a person by the name they ask you to call them is a sign of acceptance, good will and respect. To intentionally call them them something derisive in order to marginalize them seems so-not-Christian.
If there is a need to make distinctions, Catholics are happy to be called Catholics, LDS are happy to be called Latter-day Saints, Saints or Mormons and I am happy to call Protestants creedal Christians, evangelical Christians, just plain Christians or any other appellation they desire.
Keep the religious debate and hate out of the political arena. We need to stick together.
jmh on 22 Feb 2009 at 12:23 pm #
I have never had any problem with Evanagelical Christians…until recently. You could have knocked me over with a feather when my daughter came home one day and asked me if we were Christians. I replied that of course we were…and then found out that a Baptist “friend” had informed her that we were not.
I do not feel that I need the permission of any other faith to call myself a Christian, and it offends me deeply to suggest that the power to confer that title lies in another faith community.
I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree, unfortunately that latitude is not forthcoming from many in the Evangelical community. Hard to imagine that Evangelicals in the main were more afraid of whatever they think Mitt Romney could have done as President, than of a man who does not seem to have been raised in any consistent faith tradition. Indeed the faith that most informs him came from Jeremiah Wright. If we are good enough to find common cause with Evangelicals in the public square on political issues such as prop.8, then we should darn well be good enough for public office. Disagree ( or not) with political positions, and agree to disagree on the religous.
I will say it left a bad taste in my mouth to see how Mormon supporters of prop. 8 were left hanging in the wind to take all the hits, while many Evangelicals were content to do nothing to speak out. Personally, I did not think that was a great example of their religous values.
You know…the injunction about what ye do to these, the least of my brethern.etc,etc,etc. I guess if we are not considered “brethern” it doesn’t count. ?
patb on 22 Feb 2009 at 7:03 pm #
I have been reading this blog for over a year and have never commented until now. It is a little intimidating to mix-it-up with people who are smarter and better scriptorians than I, but here goes.
Before the presidential campaign, I as a committed member of the church (LDS) felt a kinship with Evangelicals because of a shared purpose. However, I am sad to say that my eyes were opened to the hostility expressed towards me and my fellow believers. In a way, I wish that I hadn’t been made aware of this. Kind of a Bob Seeger “wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then” kind of a thing.
Most surprising is the attitude that we (LDS) will change our doctrine, posture, positions, etc. if they (Evengelicals) express their disapproval. It wont happen. We care about what God thinks and not what the people in the great and spacious building think.
So yes, I am happy to donate time and money to worthy causes and am happy to work shoulder to shoulder with whomever wants to stand beside me. But I am a Christian. Period.
Jerald on 22 Feb 2009 at 7:58 pm #
An adjective that would be acceptable to Mormons is “Restoration Christians,” but I have a feeling that will send some of our Evangelical brethren into a tissy fit .
As is implied by others, I think the whole “Mormons aren’t Christians” thing is a ploy to prejudice and scare the uninformed to shy away from Mormons. That is why it also becomes a political issue. The MSM and liberals pick it up to use against the conservatives and some individuals play on it for personal gain.
Look at Romney’s campaign. How much discussion was there in the press about what the guy can do? And how much discussion was there about reasons his religion made him unelectable? And what were those reasons? It was almost like the MSM was taking notes from anti-Mormon publications—misinformation and all. Also interesting was the “flip-flop” drum beat. All the time McCain, Huckabee, and Hillary were repositioning their statements, positions, and history DURING the campaign, Romney was being lambasted about position changes he had made OVER YEARS. A segment of the social conservatives used the backdrop of “you can’t trust those devious Mormons” to make the flip-flop thing fly. One of the things I often heard and read was that, “If Romney and the other Mormons would come clean about not being Christians, than we social conservatives (Evangelicals?) would trust and respect them more.” Boy, what a Catch 22. Obviously, Mitt and other Mormons aren’t about to bite on that. Sadly, the Left gladly picked up where the Evangelicals left off and kept the flip-flop drum beat going loud and strong.
I think the damage has been done for awhile. The SSM crowd learned a lot from the anti-Mormon social conservatives and expanded on it. They found out they can get away with lies and misinformation about Mormons and the MSM in general won’t expose them for it. With Huckabee and his army in full “Huh, what’d I do?” mode and declaring Romney never had a “Mormon problem” but was just a liberal in sheep’s clothing and therefore unsupportable (it’s funny how they state they would support a true conservative Mormon like Utah Governor Jon Huntsman) and the Evangelical interest turning to what to do about Obama and what to do if both Palin and Huckabee enter the race together, I think this festering problem is just going to be left to fester.
If Obama messes up and the economy is still in bad shape, Romney’s name might come up again, but I don’t expect very many liberals or anti-Mormon types will ever get on a Romney or Huntsman bandwagon. So either Romney is supported by independent and moderate voters from both parties or a strong non-Mormon candidate will appear. I suspect that the “Huckabee Evangelicals” don’t feel any need to deal with the festering “Mormon” problem.
So, my question is, if no viable Mormon candidate is running for high office, will the Evangelicals be more willing to work together on social issues? Or are they really afraid they will catch something nasty from the Mormons? Would more and better PR by the Mormons make any difference?
VB on 23 Feb 2009 at 8:21 am #
Doesn’t the insistence on adjectives to the word “Christian” create or (more accurately) maintain a highly visible wedge between the two parties?
It sounds like you want some unity or cooperation while maintaining the high wall between the two communities.
I am a Christian!!!! No adjective needed thank you. If you want to claim that you are a Christian also, then I will accept that, no adjective needed, thank you.
CarlH on 23 Feb 2009 at 9:25 am #
John’s post adverts to the solution to (as well as the root of) the problem.
Indeed there are differences between LDS doctrine and “traditional Christianity”–and Mormons would point out that is precisely the point of Mormonism’s restoration message. The problem, however, is that many within Evangelicalism (and frankly elsewhere) simply drop the “traditional” and rather disingenuously attempt cast Mormonism entirely out of the fold of Christianity, and then when called on to explain, all of the appropriate adjectives (whether “traditional,” “historic,” “creedal,” or “orthodox”) suddenly appear. Perhaps, for me at least, the most notorious example of this phenomenon is the essay that the late Richard John Neuhaus published in First Things in March 2000 under the title “Is Mormonism Christian?” (precisely because the title and his conclusion invoke the unmodified term, but everything in between is full of the more nuanced references).
What Mormons see as evidence of the bad faith of these types of “argument” is that the adjectives aren’t applied from the outset. And the follow-up question to which other posters have posited their own, not unreasonable, answers is: “Why not?”
K.G. on 23 Feb 2009 at 10:52 am #
I have a question:
For much of my life (California), I never heard a person call themselves “Christian.” Everyone declared a denomination: Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc. And I never heard LDS as declared “not Christian.”
When did the label “Christian” first hit the scene? I was very surprised the first time I heard it sometime in the early ’80′s.
And when were Mormons (and others) declared “not Christian.” I was surprised about that one too.
BTW: My husband (also LDS) had a recent conversation with a Catholic guy who claims to attend weekly mass. In the discussion, it came up that LDS believe that the Godhead consists of three separate Beings.
Oh, I believe that too, said the Catholic. My husband responded, I thought Catholics believed in 3 Gods in One. The man answered: They do, but that’s stupid.
My evangelical friends are all over the place in their understanding of the doctrine of salvation. Like the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, the notion of saved by grace alone is counter-intuitive for many people.
My point: There are so many variations of belief among individual “Christians,” the imposition of exclusive and inclusive definitions is worse than stupid.
There is no good faith rationale to declare this person who believes Christ is their Savior is a Christian and that person who belives Christ is their Savior is not.
Where, and when did this practice get started? We know why.
John Schroeder on 23 Feb 2009 at 11:14 am #
We really do not want to get into theological debates in this forum.
The “christian” distinction is, as the prior comment points out, reasonably recent. It marks the move from denominationalism to Evangelicalism. Evangelicalism has moved the traditional Christian from institutional identification to theological identification, because so much of Evangelicalism lacks institutional identity beyond the local congregation.
coltakashi on 23 Feb 2009 at 11:16 am #
Underlying the “Christian” definition struggle is the fact that many people in Protestant churches in the 21st Century are no longer concerned with the doctrinal distinctions that exist between various denominations, over things like the age or even necessity of baptism, or exactly how one obtains salvation. In particular, those ministers who have adopted what other Protestants deride as a theology of “cheap grace”–salvation without change in behavior–have no theological grounds to tell people they can’t get that same level of grace as Mormons–UNLESS they claim that Mormons don’t REALLY believe in Christ, or that the Christ they worship is not REALLY Jesus. By lowering the interdenominational boundaries, they have discovered the need to create an artificial superdenominational boundary in order to keep people within the “family” of churches that support professional ministers, among whom there is a mutual non-aggression pact against “sheep stealing”.
When it was reported in 2008 that the Southern Baptist Convention lost a net 40,000 members in 2007, a national leader of the SBC said that Southern Baptists had an unfortunate repuration of being very judgmental of others. Evidently, the strategy of promoting exclusion and enmity is, in the long range, counter-productive. People who are more intelligent, think for themselves and really try to exercise Christian charity for others are going to be disillusioned about pastors who lie to them about the Mormons. The pastors of the SBC and similar anti-Mormon denominations are sifting through their people, sending the honest in heart to the Mormons, while they get to keep the people who are easily misled and fond of hatred of their neighbors and are blind to how un-Christian they are being. They are welcome to them.
As for the LDS Church, I think the Church’s goals are being advanced far more by gaining tens of thousands of converts from Evangelical churches every year than they ever would be by having a Mormon elected president for a few years.
If insanity is defined as continuing to do something that doesn’t work, the ministers who promote anti-Mormonism are crazy. They might try focusing instead on making their own churches more successful in actually building their members into good Christians.
K.G. on 23 Feb 2009 at 12:11 pm #
Thanks, John
And of course the whole discussion is not about theological differnces per se, but how theological differences come to bear on political differences.
During the Iowa primary I heard an on-air snippet of a conversation between Huckabee and a lady, who said she was voting for him because she could never vote for a candidate who “didn’t have the Holy Spirit,” meaning, I assume, that she would never vote for a Mormon because a Mormon by definition, cannot have the Holy Spirit.
Huck laughed and said: I’ll take your vote any way I can get it.”
I don’t know how many voters feel this way, but if there are very many, the conservative movement, as you continue to point out, is in deep trouble.
pdale on 23 Feb 2009 at 12:19 pm #
I agree with CarlH. If Evangelicals were OK starting the conversation with “Are you an Evangelical Christian?, Baptist?, Creedal Christian?, Historical Christian?, etc.”, then that would be a better start. I guess we Mormons could respond that we are Mormon Christians, and hopefully, if it was important to make these distinctions in the first place, we could then go forward respecting each other as the friends we should be.
But we Mormons have been raised with the idea that even though there are doctrinal differences between us, no one group can claim the word “Christian” as intellectual property. It is the Evangelical insistence on doing so that is a little hard to take.
One thing I’ve always been grateful for in my LDS upbringing is that I am personally responsible to get my own spiritual answers and testimony. I have attended Jewish, Catholic, and several Evangelical denominations when invited, and I don’t have to hide that from my LDS bishop. I’m trusted to take in any viewpoint, study it, pray about it, and make my own decisions. My bishop doesn’t warn me about what other churches teach, and we don’t have tables in the foyers of LDS chapels that offer pamphlets that label other churches as cults. Part of this may be due to the fact that if one of us ever did decide to join another church, not a single leader or member of the congregation would suffer a loss of income. It would stay right at zero.
I believe that the majority of Evangelicals who demean Mormons believe they are doing a good thing, just defending “traditional Christianity” and what they have been taught as the Gospel truth. They are good people and certainly have good values and good families. But they’ve been taught to distrust and dislike (and not vote for) another group, one that also has good values and good families.
No question about it, Mormon doctrine is different. But that’s what you would expect to see in a restoration. It’s powerful information that occasionally can lead to conversion when the listener is sincere and willing to study and pray. Hmmmm…but that wouldn’t be good for business if you’re an Evangelical pastor. However, when taken out of context and tweaked a little….some of it can easily be turned into the sensational and raise a few eyebrows. That is what a few Evangelical pastors have done very effectively over the years. The misinformation has made its way to millions in the form of radio, sermons, videos, books, pamphlets, etc. The authors got a lot of money and the listeners got a lot of half-truths. The resulting distrust of Mormons was conveniently tapped by the good and clever Mike Huckabee to shake up the primaries.
I’m not sure anything will ever change unless more Evangelicals start telling their pastors to do away with the anti-Mormon slams and propoganda and focus 100% on teaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Then trust the congregation to do its own research and get its own answers.
Doug King on 23 Feb 2009 at 12:36 pm #
Unfortunately, labels seem to matter. I don’t care much if my Evangelical neighbor refuses to recognize me as a Christian. I certainly consider myself one, but that is between me and God. I will never try to force or intimidate them into changing their religious beliefs or dictate the language they use when discussing theology.
But I am very much bothered if my Evangelical neighbor refuses to recognize me as a full-fledged American because of my faith. The problem — and I recognize that the vocal anti-Mormons may be a relatively small minority in the Evangelical community — is that they use their theological labels to manipulate politics and limit opportunities for “non-Christians.”
Their narrow-minded vision of America is very different than mine. I must be naive, but I thought the concept of “E Pluribus Unum” was fundamental to this country.
Jerald on 23 Feb 2009 at 6:37 pm #
Doug King said it as it is. We don’t want to debate the theology, but the theology is being used to keep Mormons out of the political debate (or high office).
Unless this dynamic is willfully changed, the vicious circle will remain.