The Christian Problem

Alan Wolfe and Ed Kilgore both have interesting things to say about Richard John Neuhaus' article on Mitt Romney, especially the way Neuhaus has constructed the problem so as to make it impossible for Romney to escape. In Neuhaus' telling, the issue isn't that Romney's Mormonism might lead him to implement bad policies as president. Rather, the issue is that Romney being president might enhance the social prestige and acceptability of Mormonism, "a new religion and, by the lights of historic Christianity, a false religion."

To me, though, the most telling thing about the article is simply that it gives voice to what's probably the one aspect of the Mormon issue that the press hasn't really raised which is that theologically conservative Christians tend to deny that Mormonism is a species of Christianity, whereas Mormons insist that it is. This raises some potentially awkward issues in the way that a Jewish candidate wouldn't. You can see that the Evangelicals for Mitt website adopts a posture of careful agnosticism ("we have explained numerous times that it is not our place to weigh in on the questions of whether Governor Romney or any other Mormon is a Christian") about the issue but I assume that Romney, if asked, would say that yes, he is a Christian, which is an assessment a lot of Protestants and Catholics will disagree with.

Comments

The operational question is: what can we, as atheists, do to maximize strife between Christians and Mormons?

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 9:27 AM

The Book of Mormon is not even vaguely canonical. In that way, Mormonism has origins akin to Islam. They are both "Abrahamic" but the new beliefs are grafted onto the tradition rather than spring organically from them. The new beliefs are so alien to the old that even referring to them as heresies is inaccurate.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 3, 2007 9:37 AM

theologically conservative Christians tend to deny that Mormonism is a species of Christianity, whereas Mormons insist that it is.

As a Catholic, I agree that the LDS isn't a Christian church. However, I also believe that Fr. Neuhaus' conflation of what is an internal Christian debate over the nature of orthodoxy with the larger political issue of what, if anything, constitutes acceptable religious expression (or the lack thereof) in the public square is disastrous -- for Neuhaus, that is.

I'd previously rejected labels like "theocrat" or "theocon" when applied to RJN by folks like Andrew Sullivan or Damon Linker. Now, he wants to turn the presidential election into a kind of ecumenical council.

It's one thing to say that there is a place for religion in the public square -- it's quite another to make the public square the place where religious questions are decided. Father should know this.

Posted by Roberto Rivera | July 3, 2007 9:45 AM

99.9 % of all Christian denominations, be they Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Mainline Protestant or Wingnut Fundie evangelicals all believe in the Nicean Creed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicean_creed

One God, three persons in the one God, not made, but 'begotten'.

That bulk of that 0.1 % not following the Nicean Creed would be Mormons.

In fact, even the group once known as "the re-organized church of latter day saints", now calling themselves "Community of Christ" has adapted its theology to embrace the Nicean creed.

The mormons like to call themselves Christians because it's more socially exceptable. People wer e more likely to accept Mormons and not stone them and chase them out of town if they said that they were Christians. It's a borderline PR stunt.

What they really believe, would make most adamant Christians toes curl - from a theological perspective. But I'll let Romney explain that one.

Posted by Tim | July 3, 2007 9:50 AM

I would love nothing better than to see the Republicans engage in a veritable orgy of accusations about who and what is, or is not, a true religion or true Christianity. Maybe then the country will see what lies down the dark path of injecting religious beliefs into government.

On the other hand, who am I kidding? The religious nuts will always assume that, however messy it gets, their God will prevail and they will conquer the Infidels. Religious fundamentalists are, by nature, impervious to logic or empirical evidence.

Posted by Glenn | July 3, 2007 10:07 AM

I realize that as lapsed Catholic unbeliever they aren't my hairs to split, but wouldn't believing that Jesus Christ was the son of God and that He died for our sins and was resurrected be a better mark of who was a CHRISTian than the Nicene Creed, which brings in other issues like the trinity?

Posted by witless chum | July 3, 2007 10:09 AM

a new religion and, by the lights of historic Christianity, a false religion.

Religious tolerance does not immunize the claims of religion from critical examination. Mormonism is based on some particularly looney claims about the course of world history (American Indians are Jews). We ought to lack confidence in the intellectual abilities of anyone who thinks these claims are true.

Christianity makes some equally looney claims (Noah's Ark, for example) but it is possible to be a mainstream Christian without accepting that stories like Noah's Ark are more than parables . . .

Posted by rea | July 3, 2007 10:12 AM

Evangelical Christians are just as loony as Mormons, believing in Noah's ark, and that people used to routinely live into their 900's.

What is great about public discussions of the fine points of Mormonisms vs. mainstream Christianity is that it exposes the looniness of both beliefs. So, I have no problem with politicians being asked which of the crazy things they actually believe, and which they think are merely parables.

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 10:19 AM

Are the Mormons Christians? Sure!--just like the Taipings, and the Moonies . . .

Posted by rea | July 3, 2007 10:20 AM

American Indians are Jews

Nu? Some American Indians are Jews. Indeed, we're both groups "members of the tribe".

Anyway, all of us Jews have a soft-spot for Mormons. We go to Utah, and suddenly we're Gentiles! ;)

*

Seriously, following up on Roberto Rivera's point about for whom a public theological debate as the presidential campaign would be disastrous, doesn't Fr. Neuhaus know the history of Catholicism in the English speaking world enough to want to make sure there is no religious test for leaders? And yet he's proposing just that ...

*

That bulk of that 0.1 % not following the Nicean Creed would be Mormons.

I dunno -- I know more than a few Congregationalists and Quakers who are not, um, real big into the Nicean theology. I dunno how numerically important they are, but historically in terms of our country, these denominations sure are important.

Posted by DAS | July 3, 2007 10:28 AM

Christianity makes some equally looney claims (Noah's Ark, for example) but it is possible to be a mainstream Christian without accepting that stories like Noah's Ark are more than parables . . .

I'm sure there are plenty of Mormons who consider themselves good Mormons but don't believe every word of what's in their various texts.

And what's "mainstream" or not is highly contested, no? Plenty of Christians would say you're not a Christian if you don't accept the truth of the Bible.

But let's take something not so far away from the heart of Christianity. I think it's pretty looney to suggest that Jesus turned water into wine, or that he fed multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, or -- the craziest suggestion of all, by any rational standard -- that he rose from the dead 3 days after being buried. Can you be a "mainstream" Christian and not accept the truth of these facts? I don't think so.

Hey, I'm an atheist -- a former Christian -- and I find the notion that Mormon texts are somehow particularly ludicrous, compared to Judaism and Christianity, to be just laughable.

Posted by Glenn | July 3, 2007 10:30 AM

The kicker is that to ask of a candidate "is he a Christian?" is not a thing that a real follower of Yeshua bin Yosef Moshiach would do.

The point of the good rabbi's story of the Road from Jerusalem to Jericho is that it is better to be a heretic who loves his neighbors than a cohen pure in theology or a levite pure in ritual who does not.

Richard John Neuhaus is considerably less of a Christian than Mitt Romney.

Posted by Brad DeLong | July 3, 2007 10:35 AM

I think that Mormon texts seem more ludicrous because (a) we're less familiar with them, and (b) crazy claims about recent history seem less plausible to people than crazy claims about ancient history. Therefore, I agree that they aren't really that much more crazy, but I do understand why they seem more crazy.

Finally, I think Mormonism adopts all the crazy mainstream Christian beliefs, and then piles on a whole new layer of craziness. Therefore, I guess you could say it is craziness squared.

Posted by Jim W | July 3, 2007 10:38 AM

The point of the good rabbi's story of the Road from Jerusalem to Jericho is that it is better to be a heretic who loves his neighbors than a cohen pure in theology or a levite pure in ritual who does not. - Brad DeLong

It is a general feature that we can never fully appreciate the revolutionary nature of any work that has had success in creating a revolution.

Consider the works of Wagner: when they were premiered, they were revolutionary and shocking, but due to their very success, Wagner's tropes have become so commonplace (in musical theatre, film scores, etc.), the once shocking Wagner now seems sometimes trite in hindsight.

Similarly, the parable of the Good Samaritan, due to its success in demonstrating the importance of deeds (over faith) has spawned such a collection of hospitals, etc., seeking to honor the Good Samaritan that, rather than being viewed by those who hear the phrase as an oxymoron ("a good Samaritan? I didn't know there were any good ones") it is heard as a redundancy; I bet you could ask many so called Christians what is a Samaritan and they'll say a "good person" ... which totally misses the point.

Of course, part of it is likely that those who sought to differentiate Christianity from Judaism had political reasons to play up a pro-Samaritan message in that parable. And those who sought to invert the teachings of Jesus and turn Christianity into a "faith" had reason to play down the "deeds before faith" moral of the story. But it's still there for anyone to read even if so few appreciate its meaning ...

Posted by DAS | July 3, 2007 10:53 AM

Neuhaus is presumably unaware that for the first four century of the Christian era no one used the terms true/false religion (apparently first in Augustine's de vera religione, a book I haven't read, so no Augustine bashing here).

Certainly with Professor DeLong's reference to the Good Samaritan story we should be put on the road to wondering just what the point of fussing about the truth or falsehood of religious assertions or stories is.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | July 3, 2007 10:58 AM

I tend to think that the number of fundies who will shy away from Romney due to his Mormonism will be relatively insignificant--the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe. To me, the real problem for him is the questions surrounding his socially conservative bona fides. If he can convince the Christianists that he's solidly anti-choice and anti-gay, I can see them siding with him at least over someone like Giuliani and certainly over any Democrat.

Let's not forget that the religious right's political coming of age was marked by a groundswell of support for a divorced Hollywood actor with little genuine interest in religion (Bonzo) over one of the most devout born-again Christians ever to occupy the White House (Carter). I'm loathe to give fundies too much credit for being politically rational, but I think they have demonstrated that, for most of them, support for their policy agenda trumps concerns over the actual particulars of a candidate's religious beliefs. Atheists and Muslims need not apply, of course, but beyond that I think they'd hold their noses even for a conservative Jewish candidate.

Posted by Jake H. | July 3, 2007 11:00 AM

Um, it seems that the real point usually gets lost in comment threads about this topic, and it gets into theological and philosophical debates about "What is really a Christian?" That's not what's relevant. Do the fundamentalist religious Republican footsoldiers think Mormons are Christians? That's the truly important question for Romney's campaign, and it's unfortunate, because as a former fundamentalist I can say the answer is "No." I'm glad Professor Delong thinks that Fr. Neuhaus isn't much of a Christian. By similar lights, neither are the homophobic misogynist religious powerbrokers of the modern Republican Party. But that doesn't change the fact that they're still powerbrokers. Giuliani recently spoke at Regent University, for fuck's sake.

Posted by mds | July 3, 2007 11:04 AM

Awesome. Now everyone can get into the finer points of theological group definitions! I'm not an active member any more, nor do I believe, but good God does this whole line of argumentation piss me off.

Posted by Jackmormon | July 3, 2007 1:39 PM

What is missing here in this discussion is the word "heresy". I think the word has been dropped because it has some bad old associations with the Inquisition and auto-da-fe atrocities. However, if we look back in Christian history it was perfectly possible for people to be Christian, but also to be heretical. Someone else mentioned the Nicene Creed, which was written to refute Arianism. No one however denied that Arians were Christians; they were however heretical Christians. The same (from the orthodox POV) should apply to Mormonism. Yes, it's Christian, but it's deeply heretical, at least as much so as Arianism was.

Posted by JonF | July 3, 2007 1:53 PM

Boy, I have to thank you all. This whole thread is hilarious.

I am a Mormon and I guarantee I could argue any one of you into stupor regarding religion and truth, but here's the problem: you don't care about truth, you only care about being "right" at all costs, even to your own spiritual peril.

Yes, that is me judging you, as any discerning, thinking person must do (as opposed to condemning you, which I am not doing).

Thanks for a good laugh, though. It's always amusing to see how the self-proclaimed experts characterize things of which they know next to nothing.

Posted by Ryan | July 3, 2007 4:09 PM

The Book of Mormon is not even vaguely canonical. In that way, Mormonism has origins akin to Islam. They are both "Abrahamic" but the new beliefs are grafted onto the tradition rather than spring organically from them. The new beliefs are so alien to the old that even referring to them as heresies is inaccurate.

Really? I'm sure there's a large contingent of Jews who would find the whole of the New Testament to lack canon status. Its a matter of perspective: while Joe Smith's religious adaptation of Rip Van Winkle may seem blasphemous to your average Christian, I'm sure many a Talmudist would find the strongarming of Jesus' escapdes to fit the Messiah role to be just as grating.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 3, 2007 4:30 PM

@Ryan: I dunno if you should be so sweeping in your claims, brother - seems you've many a thing to learn about humility, one of the LDS' fave 'do as I say, not as I do' virtues. Hell, you folks give the Catholics a run for their money in terms of ostentatiousness:

http://www.greaterthings.com/Topical/LDS_Conference_Center.htm

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 3, 2007 4:39 PM

Quaker: so you're suggesting that the LDS Conference Center, which was built specifically to accommodate a larger part of the ever-growing population of members of the church who desire to attend General Conferences and other events, is some kind of monument to Mormon hypocrisy because it cost a lot of money?

Nice try. But thanks for making my point for me.

It's always amusing to see how the self-proclaimed experts characterize things of which they know next to nothing.

Posted by Ryan | July 3, 2007 6:19 PM

I'm sure many a Talmudist would find the strongarming of Jesus' escapdes to fit the Messiah role to be just as grating.

Sure. But Jesus and the early Christians were Jews first.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 3, 2007 6:39 PM

We need to remember that the issue in this discussion is not the truth of the claims of particular religious communities, but how those claims are viewed by potential voters.

I am not an expert in LDS theology or history, but I think there is no doubt that its theological teachings differ significantly from those of traditional Christianity. In a recent PBS special on Mormonism, some of the scholars who were interviewed indicated that the church had sought to obscure those differences by emphasizing the "Church of Jesus Christ" part of its name, rather than the "Latter Day Saints" part of its name. I recently saw an example of this approach carved in a stone wall in front of a Mormon church in a DC suburb; the Jesus Christ phrase was several times larger than the Latter Day Saints part. (One would think that this proselytizing community would want to emphasize its uniqueness.)

We will soon see whether the effort to obscure theological differences has been successful enough to overcome the views of voters for whom Christian orthodoxy is a "litmus test" in determining which candidates to support.

Posted by THS | July 3, 2007 9:07 PM

there is no doubt that its theological teachings differ significantly from those of traditional Christianity. In a recent PBS special on Mormonism, some of the scholars who were interviewed indicated that the church had sought to obscure those differences by emphasizing the "Church of Jesus Christ" part of its name, rather than the "Latter Day Saints" part of its name.

"Jesus Christ" was already part of the name of the church, it was right there in the title, but I see that a design change intended to emphasize the central guiding principle of the faith in order to clear up persistent "misunderstanding" (read "bigotry") is now an "effort to obscure theological differences." Those scheming Mormons, always pretending to believe in Jesus Christ when everyone knows they don't.

I'm trying to figure out why this issue pisses people like me and Jackmormon off so much, even though I left the church years ago and strongly disagree with pretty much every social or political principle held by the church or the majority of its membership.

To me, telling a Mormon she is not really Christian is akin to telling a light-skinned Hispanic that she's "not really white" or a gay person that he is mistaken about his sexual orientation, that it's all a big mix up and he'll realize he's actually straight if he'll just read the Bible and pray.

A core, essential part of the identity of any faithful Mormon is belief in Jesus Christ as his personal Lord and Savior. When you tell someone whose sense of self is premised so thoroughly on this belief that he is mistaken, or lying, or confused about that central point, you are insulting that person and demonstrating your own ignorance.

So no, for Mormons it's not simply an intellectual debate about public perceptions or fine points of theology, and this is the reason you get such strong reactions from some Mormons on this issue. Many Mormons will refrain from expressing those feelings since they are essentially proselytizing all the time and don't want to make a bad impression, or because they don't like confrontation. But I'm bound by no such restraints, so to all the naysayers, go Cheney yourself.

Posted by yave begnet | July 3, 2007 10:41 PM

Well, duh!?

The whole basis of contemporary Christian fundamentalism is the belief in Biblical inerrancy and in the comprehensive nature of the Biblical narrative. If it's in the Bible it's true, if it ain't in the Bible it's not true -- period, end of discussion, no discussion.

So you have this Joseph Smith stroll in two millenia after the Bible with his Book of Mormon, which purports to also be the inerrant Word of God, but some chapters of the supposedly comprehensive Truth the Christian fundamentalists didn't know about until Smith dug up those golden tablets in his back yard. If you can admit that a big chunk of the Way, the Truth and Life could have gone missing two millenia and no one noticed its absence, you can hardly claim that evolution or gay rights can't be right just because they're not in the Bible. Maybe they're right but God just didn't see fit to mention them in Scripture, just as he left out the bits about the angel Moroni, and the Lost Tribes in the New World, etc. Hey, the angel Bostoni appeared to me in a vision last night, and revealed to me the location of a platinum DVD, which I alone have seen on my wide-screen in the basement, which subsequently ate the damn thing, and wherein it is revealed that Christ visited the Red Sox last year and preached a hitherto secret gospel of ...

Compared to this assault on the fundamentals of their belief system, this kidnapping of the Word of God by a mountebank, Darwin and Gay Pride are mere trifles. Not that politicized so-called Christians aren't capable of worshiping the stray Golden Calf or two if that will win an election for them.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | July 3, 2007 10:41 PM

Boy Glen, for attempting to sound educated on the subject of Mormonism, you sure know very little of the actual details.

Don't argue what you don't know. You end up making one big straw man argument.

The Book of Mormon authors freely admit to making mistakes. They never claim innerrancy. Neither does Joseph Smith. Furthermore, the word used to describe the pretranslated Book of Mormon is "plates," not "tablets". There is a difference. And the plates were located in a hillside some distance from the Smith home, not in his "backyard."

These may appear to you to be just unimportant details, but your refusal to acknowledge the correct details means you don't care to honestly discuss the subject.

Posted by Trenton | July 4, 2007 12:49 AM

Furthermore, the word used to describe the pretranslated Book of Mormon is "plates," not "tablets". There is a difference. And the plates were located in a hillside some distance from the Smith home, not in his "backyard."

*Must not laugh or Jackmormon will get pissed*

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 4, 2007 1:02 AM

And Tim,

Mormons do not claim to be Christian to be more socially accepted. We claim to be Christians because we believe in Jesus Christ, that he was the Son of God, that He was crucified as an atonement for the sins of the world and He was resurrected three days later. Those who argue that we are not Christians do so out of ignorance and bigotry, with an attitude that they somehow have ownership over who may be called Christian. They have no right to deny anyone that claim. "By their fruits ye shall know them," and not by whether or not they subscribe to a man-made creed, which is nothing more than theology-by-committee.

Posted by Trenton | July 4, 2007 1:12 AM

Just out of morbid curiosity, Trevor, what are Jehovah's Witness? Hell, for that matter how about the Lord's Resistance Army, you just *can't* tell someone else they aren't Christian? Because I can't imagine you are so ecumenical.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 4, 2007 1:21 AM

Trenton, also.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 4, 2007 1:23 AM

o0o0o0o, how about Unitarians?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 4, 2007 1:24 AM