We previously hashed out the fact that Mormons fail the orthodox Christian litmus test. Historically Christianity views Mormonism as a cult. Traditionally the word means a commitment to heresy. Rod Dreher, columnist for the Dallas Morning News adds a strident tone to the matter which he claims will get our blood boiling. I think the article is worth posting in its entirety:
Herewith, my views on religion and the politics of the present moment, with something to offend just about everyone:
1. Mormons aren't Christians. I don't mean that as a criticism, only as a descriptive phrase. When Mormons claim Jesus Christ as their savior, there's no reason to doubt their sincerity and good will, or even to deny that they are in some way followers of Christ. Yet Mormonism rejects foundational doctrines of traditional Christian orthodoxy, such that it is impossible to reconcile with normative Christianity.
2. Anyway, the Latter-day Saints church teaches that all other Christian churches are apostate. A heretic is someone who rejects one or more doctrines of religion, but an apostate is someone who has rejected the religion entirely. How is it, exactly, that you can get mad when people you regard as apostates consider you to be ... apostate? How does that work?
3. Theologically, this is a big deal. But politically, so what? Mormons vote like Southern Baptists and come down on the same side of most issues of public morality like conservative Christians do. If you're a socially conservative lawmaker, wouldn't you rather have a Mormon in your legislative foxhole than a Kennedy-style cafeteria Catholic or progressive mainline Protestant? I'm no Romney fan, but is there really no meaningful political difference between Good-Mormon Mitt and Bad-Catholic Rudy, to say nothing of Liberal-Protestant Hillary?
4. There are plenty of good reasons for conservative Christians not to vote for Mr. Romney, but his religious beliefs are not among them. Do Christians want to be in the position of rejecting a candidate whose political views and moral values they agree with, solely because they don't like his religion? On what grounds would they condemn secularists for rejecting Christian candidates?
5. "If Mitt Romney believes what Mormonism teaches, no telling what he'll believe," say more than a few conservative Christians. Oh? Non-Christians have to overlook the fact that Christian candidates profess to believe that God became man, was murdered and rose from the dead. They have to ignore the fact that some Christians believe that same God-man mysteriously appears as bread and wine under certain circumstances, and others believe that the universe was created in seven literal days. The content of a religion's doctrinal teaching is not a reliable guide to the overall judgment of one of its adherents.
6. Which isn't to say that doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state and that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims. To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.
7. Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies – African-Americans, say – that vote Democratic.
8. Does freedom require religion, as Mr. Romney asserts? Superficially, no, unless you wish to argue that post-Christian Europe is unfree, which is plainly nuts.
But we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss John Adams' observation that the U.S. Constitution is made "only for a moral and religious people" and will not work for any other. His point was that maintaining political liberty requires a people capable of governing themselves and restraining their passions for the greater good. He might have said "moral" people, and left it at that, because in his day and in ours, one can find morally upright men and women who have no religious faith and believers who are morally corrupt.
9. But the crooked timber of humanity is frail indeed. If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.
10. Adams' pronouncement raises the question: "Whose morality, and whose religion?" The American constitutional understanding of the rights of man and human dignity come out of both the Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian tradition. The American constitutional order, and the American civil religion, is inexplicable outside of both, together, in creative tension. Religion is not sufficient for securing liberty, but religion, restricted by boundaries required by a pluralist democracy, is necessary to maintain it.
11. Mr. Romney, as a Mormon, may not be a Christian, but his values are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christians who judge a candidate's fitness for the presidency based on his particular profession of faith should reflect on the quality of governance our devoutly evangelical president has provided over the last seven years. Martin Luther is supposed to have said that he would rather be governed by a wise Muslim than a foolish Christian.
Smart man, that Luther. For a heretic.
I find two points particularly striking. First of all number three corroborates a truth I routinely raise when opining about the relationship of religion to politics. Mormonism indeed carries a sociological fundamentalism similar in appearance to Southern Baptists. Abstaining from strong drink, cigarettes, chew, and woman who do, fits well in both Mormon and Southern Baptist doctrines. So why all the fuss? This evangelical senses relatively few problems with Romney, mainly because he appears to espouse the same moral code as most conservatives. Fellow United Methodist Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, attends the Foundry United Methodist Church-a theologically liberal aberrant church according to our denomination's social principles. United Methodist social principles state:
"While persons set apart by the Church for ordained ministry are subject to all the frailties of the human condition and the pressures of society, they are required to maintain the highest standards of holy living in the world. Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals* are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."
*Footnote -- " 'Self-avowed practicing homosexual' is understood to mean that a person openly acknowledges to a bishop, district superintendent, district committee of ordained ministry, board of ordained ministry, or clergy session that the person is a practicing homosexual."
Foundry United Methodist joined the Reconciling movement. Their statement of reconciliation defies United Methodist social principles in both spirit and practice:
We, the friends and members of Foundry United Methodist Church, hold deeply our commitment to help bring about a peaceful, loving, just and accepting world. We are proud of our active, diverse congregation and have seen how each person has graced our community with his or her talents. We believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in all.
We acknowledge our oneness with all of God’s creation and invite gay and lesbian persons to share our faith, our community life, and our ministries. We also affirm the same for all persons without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, age, economic status, or physical or mental condition.
We seek to be an inclusive congregation, and we proclaim our commitment to seek the reconciliation of all persons to God and to each other through Jesus Christ.
As we journey toward reconciliation with all, we proclaim this statement of welcome to all, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters: God loves you and we love you, we affirm you, and accept you, we treasure you. We welcome you.
At the same time, we recognize that there remain differences of opinion among us on issues relating to sexuality. We do not seek to erase our differences, but to journey together in faith toward greater understanding and mutual respect.
In becoming a Reconciling Congregation we believe that we are being reconciled to God and to one another.
Romney gets my vote over Hillary any day.
Dreher raises a second notable point in numbers nine and ten. Sociologists inherently understand that a tribe or cult thrives around a myth. When the cult alters their myth (story explaining origins which may or may not contain a literal truth) the cult experiences a metamorphosis. In the case of America, Dreher rightly points out the fact in number nine and more explicitly in ten that America received its character from Judeo-Christian principles. Pragmatically Mormonism fits nicely within this framework. If we ever lose sight of this truth we will lose our national identity. And, frankly I like who we are.
