Romney on Christianity

I've been wondering for some time now how Mitt Romney would finesse the point that few theologically orthodox Christians consider Mormonism to be a species of Christianity. Byron York kinda sorta got an answer to the question:

Sometimes one forgets that Romney was trained as a lawyer, but not on that day. I tried one more time. “Well, okay, if you have been told that by other people, what is your reaction to the substance of what they are saying?” “You know, the term ‘Christian’ means different things to different people,” Romney told me. “Jews aren’t Christian. That doesn’t preclude a Jew from being able to run for office and become president. I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world and is the son of God. Now, some people say, well, that doesn’t necessarily make you a Christian because Christian refers to a certain group of evangelical Christian faiths. That’s fine. That’s their view. Others say, no, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the Savior should be called Christian. That’s fine, too. I’ll just describe what I believe and not try to distinguish my faith from others. That’s really something for my faith to do and for the churches amongst themselves to consider.”

Basically, Romney seems to be trying to indicate that he believes he's a Christian (which is the Mormon view) without quite saying so, thus attempting to avoid getting into an argument with people who think that's wrong. Daniel Larison says "this attempt to have it both ways is going to dissatisfy a lot of Christian and Mormon voters alike." It certainly seems more like an argument that liberals would find appealing than one likely to persuade conservatives, but I have no idea how much this kind of thing bothers people. As a non-Christian myself, I'd kind of like to see Romney embrace the non-Christian label and try to break some barriers, but evidently he thinks trying to fudge the difference will work out better for him.

Comments

As a non-Christian myself, I'd kind of like to see Romney embrace the non-Christian label and try to break some barriers, but evidently he thinks trying to fudge the difference will work out better for him.

Except that our religion tends to take the position of those others who "say, no, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the Savior should be called Christian."

What's next MY -- are you saying that Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus are not practicing what really is Christianity? We'd have ta kick you out of the international Zionist conspiracy for that one, except for the fact that so many of our more "pro-Israel" Jews (e.g. Prager and Medved) seem to be sliding in that direction, we wouldn't have a conspiracy anymore if we decided to remain strict about the rules. ;)

Posted by DAS | November 20, 2007 4:37 PM

There is absolutely no benefit for Romney to take this issue head on - it is a non-issue. What people is Romney really going to anger with his answer that wouldn't dislike him for being a Mormon in the first place? Not getting sucked into theological disputes is the best strategy, IMO.

Posted by blah | November 20, 2007 4:38 PM

This is pretty sensible response. Why argue about a label?

Posted by Led | November 20, 2007 4:49 PM

I agree with blah. I think Romney is putting the best gloss on his Mormonism that he can. What's more, Romney doesn't want to discuss the details of Mormon beliefs because they sound so weird.

Posted by Jim W | November 20, 2007 4:50 PM

It's the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Can't get much more Christian than that.

Posted by gordon minor | November 20, 2007 4:55 PM

Yeah, I once heard a rabbi say that the Mormons have done to Christianity what Christianity did to Judaism.

Posted by Jose Padilla | November 20, 2007 4:59 PM

It's the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. Can't get much more Christian than that. - gordon minor

Ya can't go by that. The Church of God and Saints of Christ is pretty much Jewish, even if my shul doesn't count its members in a minyan.

Then again, Mormons do, like we Jews, call outsiders "Gentiles" ...

Posted by DAS | November 20, 2007 5:01 PM

I always wondered about that stress on 'personal'. It isn't good enough to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour? It has to be personal? Maybe Romney got saved in a big group deal.

Some people have personal trainers, but aerobics classes work too. Are the fundies saying that God can't do what Richard Simmons can?

Posted by Njorl | November 20, 2007 5:07 PM

Pew research, 31% don't think Mormonism is Christianity:

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=397

Must be the magic underwear.

Posted by WinSmith | November 20, 2007 5:14 PM

Almost 50 years ago, Kennedy had to assure Protestant leaders that he would perform the duties of his office strictly separate from the demands of his faith, especially obedience to Catholic hierarchy. Now Romney has to prove both that Mormonism is indeed a Christian sect AND that he will faithfully represent Christian beliefs in office. It's a sad state of affairs.

Posted by Clark | November 20, 2007 5:16 PM

I have yet to meet a Christian who acts on what he professes to believe.

Posted by Bill | November 20, 2007 5:27 PM

Njorl: The emphasis on personal is that you, yourself, have to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. You're not automatically a Christian because your parents were (even though that's what actually happens for a lot of people)or because you live in a "Christian" country. This is different from some other religions. But you could make that commitment while in a group with a bunch of other people--as is the case for numerous converts in the Bible. Now, obviously, this is a much bigger emphasis for some evangelical protestants that for some other types of Christians (it's also why most evangelical protestants don't baptize infants, while, for example, Catholics believe it's very important to baptize newborns).

I think Romney did a pretty decent job with this. He can't say "Well, people who say I'm not a Christian are wrong," because then he'd be saying their theology is wrong. That not only wouldn't persuade people who don't like him because he's a Mormon, it would also turn off people who think he's not a Christian, but can accept him as a candidate despite that, because by saying they're wrong to think he's not a Christian, he'd be attacking their theological beliefs. It would also annoy a larger segment of people who don't want to see a political debate about theology (which is different from "faith" and much more problematic).

It also seems smart for him to emphasize that being a Mormon means he believes in Jesus Christ as his savior. A lot of people know very little about Mormons beyond that they used to practice polygamy. So this may be new information that makes Mormonism seem less scary, or at least gives a frame of reference, to some of Romney's target audience.

Posted by flippantangel | November 20, 2007 5:28 PM

Nothing in the quote from Romney would make a Mormon at all concerned. I have no idea how Evangelicals would respond.

Posted by Dr. Eckhart | November 20, 2007 5:50 PM

he emphasis on personal is that you, yourself, have to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. You're not automatically a Christian because your parents were (even though that's what actually happens for a lot of people)or because you live in a "Christian" country.

It is my understanding that the older Christian groups - Catholics, the eastern churches, Lutherans, Anglicans, perhaps Reformed - tend to take the position that everyone who has been baptized is a Christian. Evangelicals perhaps disagree, but theirs is not the traditional Christian position.

Posted by John | November 20, 2007 5:51 PM

You're missing the point of Romney's response. He's arguing that Mormonism is as Christian as Catholicism. He focuses on evangelicals because they have an exclusive view of who is a Christian. Many evangelicals do not accept Catholics and even many other Protestants as true Christians.

Romney's argument has the inconvenient difficulty that Catholics and many other non-evangelical Christians don't accept that Mormons are Christians. From the LA Times, 7/20/01, http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news1/an010723-05.html:

"The Roman Catholic Church declared Thursday that Mormon converts [to Catholicism] must be rebaptized, a setback to the Mormon Church's effort to characterize itself as a Christian denomination...

"The ruling was a departure from the Catholic Church's usual practice of recognizing the baptisms of converts from most other churches. The Vatican held that the Mormon view of the nature of God was too different from Catholicism's.

"It was the second time in as many years that a major Christian church had ruled that Mormon converts must be rebaptized. Last year, the United Methodist Church, the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination, took a similar stand."

So Romney is making a dog-whistle argument that will be understood by non-evangelicals. "I'm as Christian as you are," he's saying - but according to church doctrine, he's not.

Posted by bloix | November 20, 2007 6:12 PM

"He's arguing that Mormonism is as Christian as Catholicism..."

And that's going to be a really hard sell, because it isn't even close. Catholicism IS the "Christian religion" because it's where it all started. All later schisms by definition are going to have problems declaring themselves "more Christian" or "equally Christian" than Catholicism. Over time, they may be so accepted - but he's running for office now.

He can make the statement he's made, but it won't fly with the fanatical Christians. However, the real issue is how much will that actually affect him - and I haven't seen anything quantifying that in terms of polls.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 20, 2007 6:20 PM

It's understandable that Romney would try to finesse this--after all, we haven't had a non-Christian president since Abraham Lincoln . . .

Posted by rea | November 20, 2007 6:33 PM

rea: William Howard Taft was a Unitarian. He once wrote his brother, "I am a Unitarian. I believe in God. *I do not believe in the Divinity of Christ*, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe. I am not, however, a scoffer at religion but on the contrary recognize, in the fullest manner, the elevating influence that it has had and always will have in the history of mankind." (Emphasis added)

Taft's biographer Henry Pringle thinks that "it was well that political enemies did not have access to his private files" because the phrase "I do not believe in the Divinity of Christ" if made public "would have been more than enough to send Bryan to the White House in 1908." *The Life and Times of William Howard Taft*, vol. 1 , p. 45.

Sitll, though the public did not know of the letter, they did know that Taft was a Unitarian, and some preachers urged that he be rejected for the Presidency for that reason.

Posted by David T | November 20, 2007 6:53 PM

The big sticking point is this: Mormons don't just believe they are Christian, they believe that they're "The Church of Jesus Christ"; i.e., they are the only authentic Christians and every other denomination (even the Catholics....especially the Catholics!) is corrupted. In the Mormon view, Christianity got so messed up that God & Jesus needed to come back to Earth and have Joseph Smith start everything over from scratch.

Posted by C.L. | November 20, 2007 7:28 PM

You want him to say something he doesn't believe so you can feel better?

The reason he is "fudging the difference" (telling the truth for those of you who don't speak Yglesias) is because he thinks it will work out better for him?

Not very intellectually honest of you.

Posted by fahs ibair | November 20, 2007 7:36 PM

"Yeah, I once heard a rabbi say that the Mormons have done to Christianity what Christianity did to Judaism."

A better (though imperfect) analogy might be that the Mormons have done to Christianity what the black Muslims did to Islam. Christianity superseded Judaism, and Islam superseded Christianity in similar ways; Mormonism didn't quite do that with Christianity -- it didn't elevate its Mohammed (John Smith) above Jesus.

"The Church of God and Saints of Christ is pretty much Jewish, even if my shul doesn't count its members in a minyan."

"Shul", DAS? I never understood the desire to cling to shtetl terms, though I know these are pretty common. When you sprinkle the gratuitous Yiddish into your Jew-oriented, it cracks me up. It makes me think of that scene in Annie Hall where Annie Hall's soused mother looks at Woody Allen across the dining room table and we see him as she sees him: with a Hassidic getup and beard.

Posted by Fred | November 20, 2007 7:48 PM

I have a strong belief that voters are getting sick to death of media and pundits obsessing on candidates religion. They want to know if the candidates have plans to clean the mess up, what they will do overseas, how strong a leader they are, are they capable of creating and bringing forth constructive change to the present, poorly functioning polity.

I could care less how deep Hillary's faith is.
Or the nuances of Obama's church.
Or Romney and Mormonism.
Or Lieberman being a Jewish VP and Goldwater 1/2 Jewish.
Or Kuchinich being aetheist and Vegan though I think he's nuts.

I didn't care that Reagan and Clinton did not have deep, pure faith.
Or that Carter and Dubya laid their Jesus-love on us.

Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, and Lincoln were Deists.
Both Adamses, Fillmore, and Taft were unitarians that did not believe in separate divinity of Jesus.
Andrew Johnson never belonged to a church in his life.
Eisenhower was born Mennonite, his family converted to Jehovah's Witnesses, and he was sworn in with a Watch Tower Bible before going and converting as President to Episcopalian.

That Goldwater was half Jewish was just a small point of interest. Mormons George Romney and Mo Udall ran for President in 1968 and 1976 without
any comment other than they likely had Utah locked up.

The media obsession over religion is artificial. If the polls show people concerned about Mitt Romney, it is coming from a small number of theocrats pushing it and the media trying to make it a feared thing in the public eye.

This crap was supposed to be over as of JFK's day, as long as a candidate assures us that his or her faith will not compromise their duties to put the requirements of the Constitution and the American People 1st.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 20, 2007 9:24 PM

Re: The emphasis on personal is that you, yourself, have to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. You're not automatically a Christian because your parents were (even though that's what actually happens for a lot of people)or because you live in a "Christian" country.

This is a red herring. No one ever taught that about Christianity.

Re: The Roman Catholic Church declared Thursday that Mormon converts [to Catholicism] must be rebaptized, a setback to the Mormon Church's effort to characterize itself as a Christian denomination

That isn't about Mormons being Christian or not. It's about whether a Baptism was sacramental; or not. A Baptist or Methodist baptism is not valid in a Roman Catholic Church either, while a Lutheran or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican one is. Those churches believe and teach that God's Grace is delivered through Baptism (among other rites). Many other churches see baptism as nothing more than a membership rite of passage and those baptisms are not valid.

On the larger question, I easily accept that Mormons are Christians, but that the LDS is a deeply heretical Christian Church, not unlike the ancient Arians or perhaps the Gnostics. Evangelicals, who think that Peter and Paul passed their mantles directly to Billy Graham, may lack the historical perspective to see this, but the term "Heretical Christian" is not an oxymoron.

Posted by JonF | November 20, 2007 9:29 PM

Sorry, John. Roman Catholics and mainline Protestants do not consider Mormons to be Christians.

I agree with MY. Romney should run as a non-Christian. Having lived in Utah for a couple of years, it always amazes me that Mormons try so hard to convince you that they really are Christians "just like you". However, the basis of their faith is that all other Christian faiths are apostate and that John Smith reestablished the true Christian church on Earth.

Posted by HS | November 20, 2007 9:34 PM

I can't think of any Christian church besides the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that recognizes Mormons as Christians. Even more liberal churches like the Episcopal Church of the United States claim that Mormons are essentially not Christians. Which is fine. There's nothing inherently intolerant about that particular exclusion. Saying that Mitt Romney should not be President because he is a Mormon is what's intolerant.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | November 20, 2007 10:07 PM

Mormonism is lunacy, just like the rest of the superstitions. Religion with a big R only benefits the priests. This splitting of hairs is ridiculous. Romney is correct to shut up and try to let it slip by. But the other should nail him to the cross -- so to speak -- on it. John Smith was walking in a field in Upstate New York when some angel spoke to him in the early 1800s . . . that's rational?

Posted by Cal | November 21, 2007 12:01 AM

I'd kind of like to see Romney embrace the non-Christian label

Seeing as Mormons think of themselves as Christians, I do not see how he could do that.

The real argument in terms of Mormonism is that Mormons believe themselves to be the true Christian church, and most other Christians think of Mormonism as a pseudo-Christian religion, that is, one that has the pretense of Christianity although it is not Christian.

For Romney to embrace the non-Christian label would mean he would have to reject his faith, which considers itself to be Christian.

Posted by Glaivester | November 21, 2007 1:50 AM

Many people have been making comparisons between Romney and JFK on the religious issue, but they’re completely different matters.

People were concerned about JFK because they believed he would be a puppet to the Catholic Pope (like so many Catholic leaders in other countries). JFK’s burden was to reassure the American people that he would decide policy independent of the Catholic Church’s influence. That was an issue of separation of Church and State, and little else.

Romney on the other hand does not face the same issue. Few people feel that the Mormon Church would have any influence on his political leanings. This is largely because the Mormon Church is one of the least politically active religions in the country. But it also stems from the experience that we have had with other Mormon leaders, such as Orrin Hatch or Harry Reid, who have proven their independence. Romney himself has done as much in the past when he supported abortion rights for women or implied his support for civil unions for gays and lesbians.

For Romney, the issue is whether or not he can reassure people that he doesn’t belong to a crazy cult. And that is a far more dangerous land mine than proving his independence from the Mormon Church. Explaining his religion to people diverts time and attention away from the political issues, which he is running on, and places him under more scrutiny that is less logical and more radical, which is the necessary byproduct of any discussion about religion because of the very nature that it requires people to discriminate based on unconfirmable, but feel-good sounding, answers.

If Romney went into a detailed oration about his faith he would be castigated in two ways. The first would be on the Right, where people who might otherwise support his politics shy away from him because of his religion. The second would be on the Left, where they would use anything Romney said to paint him off as a religious nut job. In a country where people have grown weary of all the religious politics, the attack from the Left would be far more devastating than anything on the Right.

Thus, Romney should continue to play the card he always has: keep to the issues and let the Mormon Church explain their dogma. Yes, it’s not a perfect answer, but it’s the best one in such a bad situation.

Posted by Logan | November 21, 2007 3:16 AM

John Smith reestablished the true Christian church on Earth.

Was that before or after the Pocahontas thing? Oh, I get it, it's the latest revisionist history from the Mormon hierarchy: "sure, Joseph Smith was a polygamist, but we were actually founded by John Smith!"

Posted by The November Fool | November 21, 2007 5:22 AM

I've known many Mormons and, as a person who had to track faith like it was a fugitive, I've read the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price. I've never met a devout Mormon who wasn't willing to give me the benefit of the doubt and respect the fact that my beliefs are different than theirs. If a Mormon candidate held the same political goals as me, I'd have no problem supporting a Mormon's candidacy for president.

Right wing fundamentalists, however, have built a political wing on the belief that they should be voting for people who share their religious beliefs exactly. When it comes down to it, there is bloc of religious conservatives who will not vote for a Mormon

If Romney were to be completely open about his faith tell Southern Baptists and "nondemoninational" fundamentalists the Mormon version of the Trinity is more like a three-person council, there will be recoil. The right wing God Machine also won't look too kindly on the Mormon belief that no one got Christianity right from the time of Christ's death until Joseph Smith was directed by the angel Moroni to transcribe the golden plates which became the Book of Mormon.

Romney's doing his best to appeal to conservative Christians--especially by showing that he can really, really hate gays--but I just don't think it's going to work. A community built on a single-minded adherence to a restrictive view of faith won't bend without also threatening to break altogether.

Posted by nitpicker | November 21, 2007 8:08 AM

"You want him to say something he doesn't believe so you can feel better? "

God forbid that Mitt Romney would say something he didn't believe while running for governer of Massachussets ...er... I mean president.

Posted by Njorl | November 21, 2007 9:19 AM

God:
Moroni, I need you to go take these gold tablets to America.
Moroni:
Uh, where's America?
God:
You know Moroni, the continent where those heathen red skinned people live.
Moroni:
Oh yea, I didn’t know it was called America.
God:
It’s not, at least not yet.
Moroni:
So I guess you’re going to tell the red skinned people about the glory of Jesus.
God:
No, I need you to take the tablets to America and bury them in the ground.
Moroni:
I don’t understand, why are we going to bury the tablets in he ground? And what language is this written in?
God:
It’s written in a secret code, you have to stick your head in a hat to read it. Joseph Smith will know what to do with them
Moroni:
Who is Joseph Smith?
God:
A polygamist and a murderer.
Moroni:
WTF?? Shouldn’t we tell the Christians?
God:
No, it’s our little secret.

Posted by Moroni | November 21, 2007 12:11 PM

I am not Mormon, but I have known quite a few Mormons, all of whom, seemed to be very nice people. I think it is pretty obvious that the Mormon Church is a Christian sect, that I would call "Protestant."

From my outside perspective, the Mormon Church seems similar to the Catholic Church. The Mormon Church has a very elaborate and complex top-down system of organization and theology, just like the Catholic Church. The Mormon theology is codified, and quite complex and elaborate, so that most Mormons do not pretend to be experts on it, but may refer you to someone who might be able to answer your questions, much as Catholics might do, but very different from Evangelicals, who are all experts.

I think this complex organization and theology is one reason why the Catholic Church seems so much more hostile to Mormonism than to other Protestant sects, because they run a similar, yet different organization.

Posted by Daniel | November 21, 2007 2:30 PM

Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb.

If there's one thing all Christians have in common, it's the belief that their church is more Christian than the others.

Romney's response makes perfect sense to me and, I'd imagine, to most reasonably open-minded evangelicals. Best to avoid arguing over the point, but just to say, yes, in my definition I am a Christian but I recognize others' right to think what they like. Who can ask for more than that?

And to whoever said the Catholic Church is the original and all newer churches will have an uphill battle claiming they are just as Christian, oh please, do some reading about early Christianity. There are Christian churches that consider themselves older than the Catholic church, or consider that the Catholic church broke off from them (Coptic Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.). Objectively, there's no reason to accept the Catholic claim that the Copts broke off from them over the Copts' claim that it was the other way around. But for the record, it is a perfectly defensible view that the organization we know as the Catholic Church was conceived originally as a political organ of the Roman Empire, a glorified and hyperpowered Bishopric of Rome that allowed itself to be coopted by the Empire in exchange for hegemony over the other early bishoprics. Early Christians who did not affiliate themselves with this politicized organization were no less Christian for it.

Off-topic, I know, but I'm just trying to make the point that Christian history is long and complicated, and who gets called a Christian depends on who you ask. I'm with Romney on this one.

Posted by theomobius | November 21, 2007 3:44 PM

MY said...
As a non-Christian myself, I'd kind of like to see Romney embrace the non-Christian label and try to break some barriers...

If you're trying to break barriers imposed by arbitrary labels, why would you try to impose another arbitrary label? Unless you're anti-religion, I mean?

Posted by kwo | November 21, 2007 7:04 PM

Mormonism is an off-shoot of Christianity, just as Christianity is an off-shoot of Judaism. But just as Christians are not considered Jews by Jews themselves simply because they acknowledge the Divine Origin of the Old Testament and its prophets, Mormons are not considered Christians by Christians simply because acknowledge the New Testament and the Divinity of Jesus. Rather, they are considered to be a separatist movement that has gone off on its own, with its own scripture, it's own teachings, and its own culture, which is separate from its origins.

And, as pointed out, Mormons claim authority and authenticity over all other previous sects of Christianity, just as Christianity claims authority and authenticity over all other previous sects of Judaism. This obviously creates a huge conflict which cannot allow co-mingling with other Christian sects, which essentially means that Mormonism is a new species of religion, not just one of many variant Christian sects.

Posted by Conradg | November 21, 2007 7:12 PM

"fudge the difference"?

he's just describing reality - different people use the word differently. why does one have to be lawyerly to not want to be drawn into an endless semantic debate with the same people whose vote you're trying to win?

is obama really an "african-american"? some people's definition might exclude him from that category. would it be an attempt to "fudge the difference" if obama refused to argue the point and just explained what exactly his heritage is?

Posted by jethro | November 21, 2007 7:40 PM

also, i can say with certainty that this approach will not turn off mormons.

they want romney to vindicate their place within the christian right by winning, not by arguing about terminology.

Posted by jethro | November 21, 2007 7:46 PM