Greeting From Bed!
So, While I Was Away…
Not that much happened really, and I am not completely back either, but ain’t technology grand. I can blog from my recovery bed and since this is not a paying gig, I can risk incoherency. But there was some interesting discussion.
“First Things” broke out all over about whether Mormons are Christians or not. I know I will be accused of saying this just becasue I like Romney for POTUS, but that is a huge distraction of a discussion from a web site/series of blogs dedicated to Christian engagement with culture. Precisely how does the question affect culture – it deeply affects religious truth, but stopping abortion is stopping abortion. Although, this does matter, people should at least be allowed the honored of being quoted properly and names as they wish to be named,
Joe Carter opines that Evangelicals are like a “herd of Unicorns.“ I am going to agree with Joe to an extent here. Frankly, I blame Evangelicalism. Says Carter:
Forty years later, we evangelicals still haven’t caught up on issues of the sanctity of life. Come to the annual March for Life held in Washington, D.C. every January and you’ll find fifty Catholics for every evangelical. For Catholics it is a moral, spiritual, and political issue. For evangelicals it nothing more than an emotional issue that we aren’t really dedicated to doing much about.
That, in a nutshell, describes the difference between Catholic and Evangelical approaches to most everything. But one important thing to note – it makes Evangelicals persuadable and swing voters. Think about it.
Candidate News…
Pawlenty in the Huckabee role? Not happening – I actually like Pawlenty a lot better than I like Huckabee, but it takes real charisma to pull that off and Tim is a little low in that department.
Speaking of Huckabee, seems he has been spinning a little hard lately. Here it is from Taegen Goddard and from the AJC. Wish I could say I was surprised.
I don’t get this. EFM are our friends, I have asked many of my friends to vote for Romney. I know people close to Romney, heck I even know Romney. What’s wrong here? Or is writing with conspiratorial overtones all that matters anymore?
Religion News…
Yes, as religious people we are under attack. some of it is silly, and some of it is heinous. The latter matters – a lot.
This is a sober approach to a real problem. We all have problems, it is best to face them straightforwardly.
OK, back to recovery.
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 19 Apr 2010 at 6:30 pm #
The notion that some church that claims allegiance to the Christ of the New Testament, resurrection and all, is somehow not “Christian”, raises the question of what the purpose of making the distinction is. Catholics should recognize that many Evangelicals think that Catholics fail the same test! And Protestants should recognize that Catholics do not agree with the Lutheran doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers” as being a full substitute for affiliation with the Universal (“Catholic” Church. There are all sorts of doctrinal dividing lines that can separate one’s own church from others, including the disagreement over one word in the creeds that is at the bottom of the split between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Why a formulation of the Trinity as an aristotelian impassable Unmoved Mover has been chosen as significant has only one thing to recommend it: It separates Mormons from most of the others (though some Evangelical theologians are calling for a rethinking of the whole claim that God is impassable and without emotion to be contrary to the plain words of the bible). If the dividing line were chosen to be, say, the form or need for baptism, many churches would be on the same side as the Mormons. If one chooses the doctrine of theosis, the Mormons are aligned with the Eastern Orthodox. And so on.
Is the social trinitarianism taught by Mormons (and other denominations) so at odds with other formulations that it must be the basis for rejecting association or communication with those on the other side of the divide? Why don’t the other divisions on doctrine count just as much? On the other hand, if those other divisions can be overlooked in the interest of a broader Christian community, why shouldn’t a teaching that dates to a very post-Biblical 325 AD not be subject to the same deferral? After all, it was never insisted on as a belief by Paul, Peter, or John when preaching or baptizing. Paul’s many admonitions about false teachings in his epistles never bother with describing the precise nature of how the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are, on the one hand, unified while, on the other hand, distinct persons. That was a preoccupation only two centuries later.
On the other hand, there are very real dividing lines among Christian denominations or congregations that have very real consequences for public policy, such as issues about protecting babies from maternally exercised homicide, and the preservation of standards of sexual morality and the male-female couple as the basis for the family. Indeed, there are some “Christian” denominations which don’t care much whether a pastor actually believes in the divinity of Jesus or his actual resurrection. How those rejections of the message of the Bible can be called “Christian”, while the Mormons who accept the Bible teaching are rejected as “not Christian”, is a mystery even more puzzling than the formulation of the Nicene Creed itself.
On point after point, Mormons take the positions on issues of social concern that have been identified as “Christian” by most churches, yet they are rejected as “Christian” over a doctrine that has absolutely no effect on issues of public morality and freedom of religion. In politics in a democracy, anyone in churches that have any sense about the need for unity among Christians should realize that Mormons are much more “Christian” than gay-bishop-embracing Episcopalians, and “God d*** America” Church of Christ ministers. Mormon belief on the Trinity has absolutely no effect on gay marriage or abortion. Why should any Christian pastor focus on that distinction without a difference, when REAL differences of belief that threaten to take away the freedom of their own churches are coming from denominations that subscribe to the Trinity but not in a way that distinguishes them from a totally secular political group.
Mormon participation in the defense of traditional Christian morality is not going to turn anyone into a Mormon. But an irrational response to Mormon offers to help fight the good fight will lead some observers to think less of the denominations that act so irrationally, against their own interest and the interest of society as a whole, whose sense of exclusivity and “you will all be damned” attitude toward their fellow citizens will make them losers in the marketplace of ideas, both on political issues as well as in the competition for the religious devotion of their neighbors.
CarlH on 20 Apr 2010 at 4:26 pm #
Welcome back and best wishes for a speedy and full recovery, John!
Lest anyone think that there isn’t a political angle to the First Thoughts blog dust-up about Mormonism and Christianity noted by John’s post above, David Mills’s post begins as follows:
My jaundiced view is that it appears that this rather shop-worn “debate” has been dusted off as a way to attack Glenn Beck (or at least disqualify his comments about the “social gospel” from serious consideration) simply because of his religion, and thereby avoid having to actually discuss what he actually said and whether it has any merit–i.e., religious bigotry dressed up as “theology” in service to ad hominem arguments. A fine kettle of fish we’re in now!
But the post may have plumbed a new low (or reached a new high, depending on your point of view) by arguing that Mormonism is SO far out there that it can’t even be accorded the “dignity” of qualifying as a heresy–and the first commenter out of the chute (a reader of Article VI Blog perhaps?) pre-emptively declares “heterodox Christianity” to be an oxymoron. The contortions some people are willing to go through!
Doug King on 20 Apr 2010 at 6:51 pm #
Shakespeare famously asked, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” I don’t worry about my neighbors’ theology but I do care about how they treat others. I hope they consider me the same way. If I do not qualify as a “Christian” according to their theology, I would hope that my honesty, kindness and charity would allow me (in their judgment) to “smell as sweet.” After all, that is the rule by which I judge my neighbors. Everyone has a right to be judged by individual character independent of professed faith.
I know many religious people have deep objections to Mormon theology, and I fully respect their God-given and Constitutional right to publicly voice their views. But they should recognize that the manner and forum they choose for doing so says much about their character. The same is true for secular activists using religious aspersions to achieve political ends. Shakespeare’s logic about misnamed, fragrant roses is just as valid for a plate of rotten eggs.
Things smell really bad when people start using religious stereotypes and theological labels to manipulate votes. Such promotes the worst of American traditions. Since seeing Romney’s (and my) church repeatedly smeared in ’08 Campaign, I’ve come to putting quotes around the word “Christian” when discussing those who claim to represent the religious mainstream of America. I might do likewise for those who advertise themselves as “tolerant.” Doing so allows me to refer to people by their claimed affiliation while reserving judgment about what they really are.
John Schroeder on 21 Apr 2010 at 7:04 am #
Carl:
Just a quick reminder, “First Things” was originally very Catholic though some of its blogs are tiling other directions. “Heresy” is a very strictly defined term for Catholics having to do with how they operate their eccelesiological court system, etc. It is a crime, punishable by death. They have made it so because it is a sign that their own have “strayed” – they have no jurisdiction for those they cannot claim as their own at some point.
I did not call out the writer about that because technically, under Catholic doctrine, he is correct, if poorly written. I for one would rather have Mormons considered “other” and therefore a power to be reckoned with than to simply be condemnable.
I know how badly you all want to be considered “Christians” but think about this for a minute and I think you’ll see my point.
TVHall on 21 Apr 2010 at 8:49 am #
It isn’t that we want to be “considered” Christians, John. It’s that we know we are Christians, and it grates a little when someone attempts to completely exclude us from that classification. When qualifiers are used, such as orthodox or creedal, then we are happy to agree. As I write this, it occurs to me that this tactic runs along the same lines as referring to conservative African-Americans as “Uncle Toms” or “Oreos.”
As for myself, I tend to view it similarly to Doug. How others treat this issue says more about them than it does about me. And I am content to leave the determination of who is a Christian in the hands of the only One with the authority to discern it.
In closing, I wish you a speedy recovery and thank you for your noble efforts in this cause.
CarlH on 21 Apr 2010 at 9:46 am #
John,
I appreciate your nuanced reaction to the “heresy” issue, but again this becomes a matter of “deep theology” for a discussion arising out of casual/informal conversation.
And “we all” have no problem with being theologically distinguished from “orthodox Christianity” and even “orthodox Christians.” What so exasperates us is the use of the unmodified, uninflected term “Christian” as a short-hand way of marginalizing (or worse) our theology (which, however inconvenient it may be to the guardians of “orthodoxy,” happens to center in Jesus Christ) in a way that is misleading (or, again, worse). We would have no problem with being cast out for not being “orthodox.”
One of the great contributions of Article VI Blog, IMO, has been the suggestion of the use of the term “non-creedal” or “hetereodox” as possible appropriate modifiers. But it appears that Mills and many others within orthodox Christianity seem unwilling or unable to reach even that far across the divide.