Three Theological Questions About Christianity, Orthodoxy, and the LDS Church

April 10, 2012 By David French

Yesterday the Daily Caller highlighted an excerpt from Jake Tapper’s interview with Rick Warren.  In light of Mitt Romney’s all-but-inevitable nomination, he asked Warren, “Are Mormons Christians?”  Here’s Warren’s response:

“The key sticking point for evangelicals and actually for many is the issue of the trinity,” Warren said. “That’s a historic doctrine of the church — that God is three in one. Not three Gods, one God in father, son and Holy Spirit. Mormonism denies that. That’s a sticking point for a lot of Catholic Christians, evangelical Christians, pentecostal Christians because they don’t believe that. Now, they’ll use the same terminology. But they don’t believe in the historic doctrine of the trinity. And people have tried to make it other issues, but that’s one of the fundamental differences.”

But let’s think about this for a minute.  Is this really where pastors want to circle the wagons?  I have three questions:

1.   Is Warren’s statement correct as a defining characteristic of Christian belief?  In other words, is the creedal belief in the Trinity the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian?

2.  If it is correct, where does that leave the millions and millions of members of Catholic and Protestant churches who, frankly, don’t have the slightest clue about the Trinity?  I’ve been in church my whole life and can barely remember any in-depth studies of the nature of the Trinity.  In fact, responses to questions about the Trinity depend directly on the way the questions are asked.  Phrase the Trinity question one way, and it appears that rank and file Christians have sharply divergent views from Mormons.  Phrase it a different way, and there’s remarkable unity.  This suggests a great deal of uncertainty.

3. If creedal belief in the Trinity is the defining characteristic, and we don’t want to exclude from Christianity the millions of Catholics and Protestants who don’t know what the heck they believe, is the real dividing line then “creedal belief in the Trinity and/or attendance at a church holding a creedal belief in the Trinity?”  But that can’t be it, can it?  After all, our church’s theological righteousness is not imputed to us as individuals.

I think Warren was answering a different question than the one Jake Tapper asked.  Tapper asked, “Are Mormons Christians?” not “Is Mormon theology historically orthodox?”  Here’s my shot at answering the latter question: “No, LDS theology is not orthodox.  In fact, like other church movements in the 19th century, it was a direct repudiation of what it believes to be the theological error of the orthodox, institutional church as embodied not just in the creeds but also historical practices.  It was attempting to restore Christianity to what it perceived to be core truth.”

But what about Tapper’s actual question?  Isn’t that the question that’s truly interesting?  After all, “orthodoxy” isn’t really that much of a popular concern compared to the core identity as a Christian.  Here’s how I’d answer Tapper:

Jake, a Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ.  Romans 10:9 says that if you confess with your mouth that ‘Jesus is Lord’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved.  Christian identity is not defined by categories but instead by that simple confession and belief, and only God knows who has made that confession and who has that belief.  I don’t know whether any given member of the Mormon church is a Christian any more than I know whether any given member of my own church is a Christian.  That’s not to say that doctrine doesn’t matter — it does, greatly — but a person can be in error on important doctrines and yet Christ has called them to that core confession and belief.

One final note: I’d argue that our view of salvation — whether Arminian or Reformed — is of enormous consequence, going directly not only to the nature of God but also how we understand each moment of our lives, yet I rarely hear anyone seriously ask, “Are Methodists Christian?”  Perhaps that’s not so much because the theological differences aren’t real and profound but because we’ve made our historical peace through shared understanding of our faith in Christ.  Perhaps its time that we make that same peace with Mormons.

You might also enjoy:

Jon Stewart Discusses Rick Santorum’s Future

How does Tim Tebow Do Easter?

What is up with this Easter sign?

Love, Marriage, Baby Carriage, Cancer?

If You’re an Evangelical, You Should be Outraged at MSNBC

Conservative Christian Parents Finally Say No to “The Bachelor”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

If You’re An Evangelical Who Doesn’t Like Mormons, You Should Still Be Outraged At This

April 4, 2012 By Nancy French

Buckle your seat belts, evangelical friends. Noah Glyn points out that the mainstream media is suddenly very interested in religion. Last night, here’s some interesting footage from MSNBC. Noah writes:

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell attacked Mitt Romney, Mormonism, and Joseph Smith. According to O’Donnell, Smith only created Mormonism to justify his lax sexual mores.

Watch the clip. And apparently, O’Donnell’s done it before. This second clip, apparently filmed after Gov. Romney’s excellent “Faith in America” speech, is from The McLaughlin Group in 2007. Notice that when O’Donnell is asked if he’s a Christian, he doesn’t respond and instead scathingly refers to Mormonism a “racist” and a “pro-slavery” religion.

But before you Christians start feeling smug about Mormonism finally getting its due, take a moment to consider what you’re doing. As Charles wrote once after the Washington Post ridiculed Michele Bachmann:

“… the mainstream media and the left – whoops, I repeat myself – see no difference between what many evangelicals regard as the Bible’s truth and the teachings of Mormonism. If we support the idea that you can paint some ‘conservative’ faith communities as simply beyond the pale, they’ll do the same to us before we even get out the first five words of our explanation of submission or sin offerings. That’s what they’re trying to do right now to Rep. Bachmann, and when we attack Mormons as too kooky to be president, we aid and abet them–not because there really is no difference between our beliefs and theirs, but because the soundbite war in the midst of a presidential campaign isn’t the right place to have that conversation.”

As more evangelicals are coming around to support Gov. Romney as the “ABO” candidate but still have hesitation about his religion, it bears repeating.

You do not have to hold hands with Mormons, sing kumbayah, and adapt a “we’re all the same” mentality to support Gov. Romney for President. You just don’t. You can maintain that they are wrong theologically. (Guess what? They think you’re wrong too, or they’d be Baptist.) However, here’s the part you must not miss.

If you are an evangelical who doesn’t like Mormons, then it turns out you’ve got a lot in common with Democrats. David unpacked this before pretty well:

At Commentary, Jonathan Tobin breaks down a recent Gallup Poll showing that 22 percent of Americans won’t vote for a Mormon:

Still, in an era when religious pluralism is an unquestioned element of American culture, it is somewhat baffling that Mormons remain the object of hate. Some may put it down to the rigid beliefs of conservative evangelicals who think Mormons are not Christians, but considering the rude treatment the Mormons have gotten on both Broadway and HBO, it must be considered that some sophisticated liberals may be among the prejudiced 22 percent Gallup has discovered. Indeed, the survey says 27 percent of Democrats said they would not vote for a Mormon as opposed to only 18 percent of Republicans and 19 percent of Independents. All of which goes to show when it comes to religious bias, so-called liberals may turn out to be less tolerant than conservatives.

This is unquestionably true. Secular leftists are often quite religious in their zeal to attack traditional values, and I’d say that they have Mormons in their crosshairs in large part because they’re quite effective in defending our culture. After all, there’s only 6 million Mormons in America, yet the media Left — from HBO to PBS to Broadway — has spent much of the last two election cycles flailing away at the LDS church.

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, the secular Left hates Mormons because they see the LDS church as a part of the same Judeo-Christian tradition we belong to; the same Judeo-Christian tradition they so despise. Noah rightly suggests on NRO not holding your breath for MSNBC’s O’Donnell to condemn any Democrats who profess Mormonism (like Harry Reid).

So what does this mean? It means that Republican people of faith are all in this together. So let’s lock arms… not to sing kumbayah in some sort of ecumenical fireside sing-a-long.

Rather, we need to lock arms as we walk, step-by-step together to reclaim our party, our culture, and The White House.

You might also enjoy:

This Easter, Don’t Settle for Bunnies and Cigarette Smoke

Love, Marriage, Baby Carriage, Cancer?

Conservative Christian Parents Finally Say No to “The Bachelor”

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , ,

A Letter to Iowa Evangelicals

December 30, 2011 By Nancy French

 

To my Iowa Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I get it.  You have people like Bob Vander Plaats who are trying to get you to vote for Rick Santorum, even though you know he has no chance to beat Obama.  (Though he’s a great Catholic guy, he was so intimidated by the Virginia ballot process that he simply slunk away without even trying to give Virginians the option of voting for him.)  You love Michele Bachmann’s personal story, her faith, and her great conservative ideas.  Yet, she too doesn’t seem up for the job.  You briefly flirted with Newt — that’s okay.   Who hasn’t?But after the news of all of his affairs, his ethical violations, and his incompetence, you can’t bring yourself to voting for the guy either.

The most competent candidate, by far, is Mitt Romney.  He’s more conservative than George W. Bush, he is a champion of traditional marriage, pro-life issues, and — oh yeah — he can turn an economy around.

There’s that one nagging little thing…

I’ll never forget the day when my husband David told me about the exciting Presidental candidate named Mitt.  “He’s a Mormon.”

“Oh,” I said.  “Too bad we can’t vote for him.”

“Why?” David asked innocently, though I was incredulous.   Wasn’t the answer obvious?

“I’ll never vote for a Mormon,” I said, flabbergasted he’d even consider it.  After all, I was raised in the Church of Christ, had attended the charismatic Times Square Church in New York City, and – at the time – went to the conservative Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia.  I tithed, had been baptized in a summer camp swimming pool when I was twelve, knew all the verses of How Great Thou Art, and had Pyrex dishes with my name written on the bottom in Sharpie specifically for benevolence casseroles.

Though I didn’t know many Mormons well, I was sure I wouldn’t like them.  After all, their commercials on television were ridiculously earnest.  Who runs in the back yard with their family while blowing bubbles in slow motion?  Please.

However, in a matter of days, I went from objecting to his candidacy to unabashedly supporting it, so I thought I would share how I went from being completely opposed to unabashedly supportive of this particular Presidential candidate.  Here’s what helped me:

1. In spite of our theological differences, evangelicals and Mormons are already political allies. In fact, if Mormons weren’t consistently more conservative than their evangelical neighbors, Al Gore would be America’s president now and California Proposition 8, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling that permitted gay marriage, would’ve failed. In fact, we owe them a great deal for their steadfast consistency on moral issues The sometimes squishy evangelical church, tossed by every trend, is responsible for electing Barack Obama.

2. Romney’s faith doesn’t indicate that he’s gullible. Let’s face it.  All religions require a leap of faith that appears silly to outsiders. If a reporter questioned me about my religion, he’d raise an eyebrow over my belief that Noah was a floating zookeeper, that Jesus was the best sommelier in Galilee, and that he paid taxes with coins from a fish’s mouth.  No one belongs to the Church of the Scientific Method, so religion falls outside normal reasoning. Gov. Romney’s beliefs certainly require faith – including his quite miraculous notion that Jesus is his personal Savior. In my experience, evangelicals loathe religious litmus tests.  That’s what Democrats do, when they try to disqualify Christian and Catholic judges because of their beliefs.  The same people who would disqualify a Mormon would disqualify me, citing the same list of “this person can’t be a serious thinker if she believes this miraculous stuff.”  And as far as gullible goes, don’t forget that Mitt Romney has two Harvard degrees.

3. Baptists don’t have the best track record, either.  John Mark Reynolds once wrote that “my faith in the holiness standards of Baptists survived Clinton and my belief in their sanity survived Carter, though that was a closer call.” In fact, should we taint all Baptist Presidential candidates with the legacy of recent Baptist leaders – i.e. Clinton’s moral failure, Carter’s weak foreign policy, Johnson’s social programs, and Gore’s use of the word “lock box.” Of course not.  Evangelicals should evaluate candidates on their own political merits.

4.  Evangelicals do not historically vote for the “most Christian” person on the ballot. When Jimmy Carter (a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher) ran against Ronald Reagan, evangelicals correctly voted for the divorced Hollywood actor.  After all, he was the one who would best represent their values.  Similarly, in 2012, we should look for the candidate who will most effectively represent our values by beating Obama and being a good advocate for our social positions.  Gov. Romney is that candidate.

5. Electing a Mormon will not create a surge of support for that religion.  My husband David put it best when he wrote:

I think it’s fair to say that Barack Obama hasn’t done much for Jeremiah Wright’s now-famous “black liberation theology,” and George Bush’s well-known evangelical beliefs likely repelled as many people as they attracted. In fact, I can’t think of a single president that had a discernible impact on the theological beliefs of our citizens. And that makes sense. Presidents aren’t pastors. We don’t look to presidents for pastoral guidance but instead for national leadership. We don’t think, “I like those Bush tax cuts. I think I’ll check out the Methodist church.”

Applying these same lessons to Mormons, does watching Harry Reid make you want to talk to a Mormon missionary? How about when you fly JetBlue? During a smooth, comfortable flight do you use the in-flight Wi-Fi to surf LDS.org? Does a particularly elegant turndown service at a high-end Marriottput you in the mood to download the Mormon Tabernacle Choir’s greatest hits? If you’re a sports fan, did watching Steve Young connect with Jerry Rice make you complete an application to BYU?

6.  You don’t have to agree with the LDS faith to support Gov. Romney.  If the Romneys agreed with my religion, they would be conservative Presbyterians.  If we believed theirs, we’d be Mormons.  There’s nothing wrong with definitively saying that there are religious differences between the two.  There obviously are, and you don’t have to defend Mormonism to pull the lever for Gov. Romney.

Reports show that Rick Santorum — the only candidate not to have experienced a surge so far — might be earning the evangelical votes in Iowa.

So, to all of my evangelical friends in Iowa, I know where you’re coming from. I understand that your hesitation comes from a well-meaning desire to protect the gospel and to honor God in all aspects of your life.  However, God has something to do with salvation, can safeguard the integrity of the gospel without our feeble, frequently self-righteous help, and wouldn’t hang the validity of Christianity on whether or not we voted for Mitt Romney for President.

If you still have questions, or are concerned about his track record on abortion, gay marriage, or Romneycare, please visit www.EvangelicalsforMitt.org, where we have sorted through the issues so you can make an informed decision in 2012.

Please, Iowa Evangelicals, let Bob Vander Plaats know that you can think for yourselves and that you aren’t going to let Iowa select a person who’ll guarantee another four years of Obama.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , ,

The “Cult” Slur is a Slanderous Leftist Tactic

October 13, 2011 By David French

I’m a racist, sexist, homophobe.

At least that’s what I learned — much to my shock — when I arrived at Harvard Law School in 1991.  It’s not that I believed that whites were superior to other races, that men were superior to women or that gays were lesser human beings.  Instead, I was opposed to affirmative action, thought the Leftist view that gender was nothing but a “social construct” was both bizarre and unscientific, and believed same-sex sexual activity was immoral.  According to various postmodern social texts, each of those positions made me the moral monster they claimed I was.

It didn’t take me long to figure out the tactic and learn to laugh it off.  Here’s the pattern: Take a common and inflammatory slur, expand the definition far beyond its common meaning, then use the slur as loudly and often as possible.  It has incredible power, creating the “when did you stop beating your wife” rhetorical dynamic that puts its target in an outraged defensive crouch from the beginning of the conversation.

Do you recognize the pattern in Robert Jeffress’s attack on Mitt?  First he uses the term “cult” without qualification.  Then, when called on it, he retreats to the utterly obscure and artificial academic distinction between a “sociological cult” and a “theological cult” but maintains the core slur.  (Of course it turns out that the definition of “theological cult” is so broad — like the Left’s definition of “racist” — that it can fit any religious faith you don’t belong to or believe in.)  Make the slur.  Redefine the slur.  Maintain the slur.  It’s textbook.

Let’s be very, very clear about what happened here:  For the sake of temporary partisan advantage in a Republican primary, a prominent pastor issued an inflammatory religious attack against the Republican frontrunner.  At the same time, he revealed his position as partisan, not principled, because he quickly added he’d vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.  (I suppose his religious truth changes after Super Tuesday).  Then, when called on his blatant, disingenuous partisan attack he retreats behind — and tries to create — a Mormon/Christian theological battle, presenting himself as the defender of the faith.

I agree with this statement, from Pastor Steve Cornell:

I recommend that we (as Christians) discontinue the use of the label “cult” and explain our differences in more helpful ways. By using more clarifying and less pejorative terms, we can avoid unnecessary alienation.

And this:

Finally, as for the pastor’s preference for one would lead “biblically,” I am not sure what he meant. But I am sure that there are different understandings of what the term “biblical” means or how to apply it. It may have been better for him to say, “I’d prefer a president who takes the Bible seriously”? We can be sure that many heard the preference for a president who leads biblically as a desire to impose Christianity on the nation. There are much better ways of expressing concerns and preferences than the ones used by the pastor. We simply cannot waltz into the public square unleashing terms and labels without more thoughtful reflection on how those terms will be heard.

This is exactly right.  If we are going to discuss the role of Mitt Romney’s faith in this election (and such a discussion — at some level — is proving unavoidable), let’s begin with this question:  Which of his actual religious beliefs will have negative implications for the decisions he’ll make as president and the way he’ll lead this country?  Why do you believe this?

I can think of a lot of positives from his faith: His faithfulness, his integrity, his respect for life and family, his clear perception of evil (such as the jihadist threat), his commitment to excellence, and his desire for justice.

Are there negatives?  I don’t think so . . . except that it might be tough to find good coffee in the White House.  So if you do visit, be sure to bring your own cup.

 

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,

Robert Jeffress’s Bizarre and Unbiblical Beliefs

October 8, 2011 By David French

Yesterday Dallas Pastor Robert Jeffress lit the Internet on fire after he introduced Rick Perry at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit then made extraordinary statements in a post-introduction interview that really stoked the flames.  Some choice quotes:

“That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult.”

“Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian.”

“No.”  (In response to Politico’s question: “Is Mitt Romney a Christian?”)

These remarks should not have come as a surprise to the Family Research Council or Rick Perry.  After all, in a well-publicized speech during the 2008 campaign season, he said:

Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. Even though he talks about Jesus as his lord and savior, he is not a Christian . . . Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult. And just because somebody talks about Jesus does not make them a believer.

In a 2008 debate with Jay Sekulow he even went so far as to declare that he’d vote for a pro-choice Christian over a pro-life Mormon in a Republican primary because of the “eternal consequences” which could lead people into an “eternal separation” from God (see embedded video at 6:35 mark).

I won’t even deal with his claim that Mormonism is a “cult.”  To believe that Mormonism is a cult, one has to stretch the term so far as to be functionally meaningless.  In this context, the word is a slur, pure and simple.

He makes three much more serious claims that he is in no way qualified to make.  First, without knowing Mitt Romney at all he flatly declares that Mitt Romney is not a Christian.  Yet it is God who defines Christianity, not Robert Jeffress (thanks be to God for that), and in his word God has clearly stated that salvation is based on faith alone.

And what is that faith?

That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.  For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Does Robert Jeffress know if Mitt Romney has made this confession?  If Mitt Romney has this belief?  He does not, and any statement to the contrary represents an astoundingly irresponsible amount of speculation.

Second, he goes even farther to chastise “every true, born again follower of Christ” who supports Mitt over Rick Perry (and presumably the other evangelicals in the Republican primary).  Honestly, I simply can’t find any biblical support for the notion that I, as an American citizen and therefore an integral part of our own government (according to our constitution we are not divided into a class of “rulers” and “ruled” but instead “we the people” are responsible for the fate of the nation) cannot select the man I believe is best able to defend the unborn, preserve national security, and restore fiscal sanity — and do those things with integrity or dignity.

How far does Mr. Jeffress propose we go?  Shall we reject Jews?  Or if he’s the policeman of orthodoxy and saving faith, shall we also reject Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and any of the other mainline congregants whose denominational leaders are even now departing dramatically from biblical Christianity?  His principle is fundamentally unworkable and remarkably (and fruitlessly) divisive.

In fact, even he won’t hold to his own principles, saying that he’d support alleged cultist Mitt Romney over Christian Barack Obama.  So, where does this leave us?  With religious wars confined to the Republican primary?

Finally, is it really the case that a Mormon president would threaten us with “eternal separation” from God?  Earlier this year, Christian journalist Warren Cole Smith made a similar argument, saying “people’s souls” were at stake if Mitt Romney became president. As I noted then, this comment implies a remarkably small view of God and a large view of politics.  But the reality is exactly the reverse:

In biblical Christianity, as opposed to consumer Christianity, God is the Prime Mover in our salvation, not man. And the goal is not life enhancement, but the reconciliation of our broken souls with a Holy God.

This is plain from scripture, from Jesus selecting his disciples, to Paul’s Damascus Road conversion, to the miraculous interaction between Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, to the definitive declaration: “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”

Why do we believe that God would entrust something as precious as the individual soul to something so trivial as our voting decision? That’s not to say that votes don’t matter. Politicians help shape our culture, they make life-and-death decisions, and they can impact (though we often overstate their influence) an economy that shapes the material dreams of our own lives and our children’s lives. But presidents don’t save or condemn us, and their influence is inconsequential in the face of a sovereign God.

I’m not sure why the Family Research Council recommended that Robert Jeffress introduce Rick Perry, nor can I figure out why Rick Perry would have approved him (unless he was either ignorant of Jeffress’s views about Mitt or maliciously hoped he’d trigger this exact controversy).  One thing is clear, however: In his attempt to smear Mitt, Robert Jeffress smeared himself.  Jeffress’s unbiblical beliefs should not — and, mercifully, will not — gain wider traction in Christian community or the Republican electorate.

Simply put, when it comes to this issue, most Christians know their Bible (and the Constitution) better than Pastor Robert Jeffress.

 

UPDATE: Thanks for all of the shares!  Please also subscribe to the French Revolution, by  entering your e-mail address to the right under the headline “Subscribe!”  This will mean you get all of the pearls of wisdom from the Frenches, delivered free to your inbox!

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , ,