You Know It Ain't Easy
With Mitt Romney running for President, I've been seeing some pieces here and there on whether Mormons are Christians. I'd guess this has been going on since the beginning of that religion. It's no big deal either way, but most arguments seem to fall into one of three categories:
1. If you call yourself a Christian, you're a Christian. Case closed.
2. If you believe Jesus is divine, you're a Christian.
3. There are many beliefs associated with being a Christian, and while different sects may believe different things, the Mormon are just too far out to be a sect of Christianity.
What do I think? I think the first two arguments are better than the third.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:12 AM
8 Comments:
Is there a Monty Python sketch about an apartment building levitating, but it can only levitate if everyone believes it is levitating, and the new guy is having trouble?
Only in this case it might be that the new guy is too enthusiastic, but whatever.
Good thing they aren't called the Moroni's.
Adopted names of religions have always fascinated me - the big churches are known as Christians not Jesusians (or Joshuans).
There are no Godians though that would seem to be a keeper.
The Mormons are named after the guy who wrote the book but the Lutherans (not called Martinis which would have been more fun)are named after a cranky theologian.
Anglicans, after an ancient invading Germanic tribe (not Albionians or Britannicans).
Methodists are not Formulists, Checklistists. Baptists were occasionally Dunkers. Quakers outlived Shakers, Ranters and Levellers.
I think the Romney Campaign should publish little pamphlets from the last chapter of C.S. Lewis's "The Last Battle." In it, Narnia is coming to an end, and Aslan is judging the quick and the dead. A soldier in the army that opposed the Narnians (you know, hedgehogs, and fauns and marsh-wiggles) falls before Alsan (God) and weeps because he never believed Aslan was real. Aslan comforts him and says something to the effect, "you knew me if only by a different name" and he moves on to paradise.
C.S. Lewis is a pretty big name in Christian circles, maybe that will blunt the criticism. On the other hand, the best argument Romney needs to make is this is America, and he should be judged by the content of his character, not the religion he professes.
The Python sketch was about Mystico and Janet--Flats Built by Hypnosis. Works fine as long as everyone believes.
I don't know who named the Mormons, but it stuck. Don't they prefer The Church Of Jesus Christ Of The Latter-Day Saints?
When Romney's father ran for President in '68, no one cared about his religion. Since then, I guess religion has gotten big in politics. Too bad. We can look at Mitt's record (or any Mormon's record) and see that it's about politics, not religion. (Though I'd like to have someone ask if the White House will serve alcohol.)
I think a better name for Christians would be Jews For Jesus.
DG: In The Last Battle, Lewis was making the point that many who do not consciously believe in Jesus may in fact be following him in their hearts without knowing it. In his theological writings, he states this as well. (A view also held by the majority traditions within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.) At the same time, he makes it clear that it is wrong to use the word "Christian" for such people. A person who disbelieves Christian doctrines may be saved when Jesus Christ judges every person at the end of time, but until that moment, if he doesn't consciously believe Christian doctrines, then Lewis argues that it's not correct to call him a "Christian".
LAG: I agree with you that of your options 1, 2, 3, the first two seem the most sensible.
Note, however, that if you choose # 2, then the status of the LDS church is still not solved. Mormons believe that Jesus is one of many Gods, and they believe that these Gods are perfectly good, and knowledgeable and powerful beyond human comprehension. Yet they also believe that none of these Gods is omniscient (inter alia, they do not know the future), nor did any of these Gods create the universe itself, which pre-existed all of them. Therefore, while Mormons do profess that Jesus is God, they do not profess that Jesus is the kind of being that Jews, traditional Christians, Platonists, Enlightenment Deists, or Muslims understand God to be.
There is also an option #4: In cases of semantic disputes, you rely on taxonomy. Suppose we found a creature that resembles a Labrador in every way, except that it lays eggs instead of live birth. Would a biologist classify it as part of the genus canis? No, because there is an accepted taxonomy used to classify Earth's life-forms, and by that taxonomy, nothing can ever be part of the genus canis if it isn't part of the class mammalia.
Just so, most people who write about comparative religion have a taxonomy, in which Christianity is a subset of monotheism, which is a subset of theism. Since Mormons are not monotheists (this is not a slur; they fully admit this fact) they can't be Christians by this taxonomy.
For purpose of public politeness, I think your option # 1 is the best. But in theologial analysis, # 4 is the most valuable. Your option # 3 is similar but too subjective.
Anon # 2 wrote, "Quakers outlived Shakers, Ranters, and Levellers."
True, unless you accept
Billy Bragg's claim that today's Communists are the progeny of the Levellers....
Post a Comment
<< Home