With Mitt Romney running for president, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) has been getting a lot of attention lately and not all of it kind. A lot of the focus has been on their faith’s distinct history and differences from other churches. Inevitably you end up hearing some non-LDS people asking the question, “Are Mormons Christian?” In a public conversation involving people from a variety of traditions—Christian and otherwise—I do not think there is any definitive, “absolute” way to answer this for everyone.
Recently the New York Times ran an editorial written by a Mormon professor of theater at Rhodes College, David Mason. The article’s provocative title sums up his perspective: “I’m a Mormon, Not a Christian.” In it Mason looks at LDS conceptions of the Godhead, compares them with older Christian traditions’ Trinitarian perspectives, and correctly notes there is a difference. (1) He also states that “being a Christian so often involves such boorish and meanspirited behavior that I marvel that any of my Mormon colleagues are so eager to join their fold.” He, therefore, argues that being Mormon is different than being a Christian—again, he primarily roots this difference in unshared views on the nature of God—and suggests that it should be considered its own unique and separate religion fitting into the broader Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Since I am not Mormon, I do not have any business telling Mormons how they should understand themselves. Still, I found this article interesting because I have not heard very many LDS folks argue this way. The Mormons that I know would not agree with his abandonment of "Christian" language.
The question Mason’s article raises is who gets to determine what the word "Christian" means and to what does it refer. Practically speaking, the answer is both everyone and no one. Different groups choose to self-identify in all sorts of ways that other groups--using similar language--would disagree with. A common example is with Jews (e.g. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform) and Jews that become Christians but still call themselves Jews (e.g. Jews for Jesus, Messianic Jews, etc.). Jews that do not believe in Jesus do not considered those that follow Christ Jews anymore and are pretty clear on the matter. From the points of view of most Jewish communities, to start following Jesus is to cross the line into not being a part of the broader Jewish tradition anymore. Of course, those from Jewish families that become Christians have a whole spiel and understanding in which they argue they still are Jews and claim the name (They argue that the very concept of a messiah and waiting for one is Jewish; in their minds in Jesus they are just taking Judaism to it logical conclusion). Broadly speaking, if you look at the substance of what both groups believe, a lot of the language and concepts are the same, but the overarching story of belief they inhabit is different in significant ways. Yet at the end of the day, both groups are calling their different stories "Jew" or "Jewish," with one group saying the other is not really a Jew or Jewish. Who is right?
It depends whose camp you are standing in. The "Jewish" Christians have no right or way to make the Jewish communities accept them as Jews (Given how horribly those that follow Jesus have abused, harassed, and murdered Jews historically, I cannot blame them for not being keen on allowing Jesus-worship into the mix of their self-definition). And conversely, Jewish groups cannot really stop Jesus-followers from Jewish backgrounds from calling themselves "Jews, too."
All of that to say, what I think what is so intriguing about this professor’s article is the defiant stance that he takes in this internecine argument. It is as if he is taking the typical argument heard among Evangelicals, "Mormons are not really Christians," responding with a, "You're damned right we are not!" and reconfiguring the negative exclusion into one of positive identity. My guess is most Mormons would still not take to his way of thinking and the notion of sibling rivalry that he refers to suggests some sort of connection rather than complete separation (In fairness, I am not sure he is arguing for a complete sense of separation in genealogy as much as a sense that one group has moved beyond the other into new territory, thus itself becoming new and other).
What is complicated about talking about the LDS Church in relation to older forms of Christianity is language itself. In public pluralistic conversations, words like "Christian" simply do not tell one as much as the qualifiers that go before them such as LDS, Catholic, Protestant, etc. The reality on the ground is that all of the various groups do not tend to accept each other even if they reluctantly share the word "Christian" in their self-descriptions. Most Evangelicals would love to convert Mormons away from the LDS church; they obviously do not respect Mormons as legitimate followers of the Christ Evangelicals believe in. Conversely, I have not met a Mormon missionary yet that has not tried to get me to be a Mormon even after telling them that I am already a Christian and have a church that I attend. Like Evangelicals toward them, they believe that my understanding of Christianity is deficient, “less than,” and not part of the "true" Church. They would not say that I am completely wrong, but rather I am not right enough to be left to my beliefs without a conversion attempt. And in this back-and-forth battle, each side is claiming "Christian."
The LDS folks that I have met have been much nicer about the disagreement than Evangelicals I know. Mormons do not try to take the word "Christian" away from non-Mormon churches in public discourse (I think Evangelicals could learn a thing or two from their tone in this). But in the end each side really does think the other is wrong and would like to persuade them to change. Some people are just ruder than others in the process.
Frankly, the disagreements do not bother me, nor does the back and forth of trying to convert each other; there is a certain logic to doing this in LDS and non-LDS Christian perspectives. I am more concerned when in the midst of it all some resort to unChristlike behavior like violence, coercion, force, or insults. To what life, lifestyles, churches, and ultimate narratives of meaning should the word “Christian” refer in public pluralistic discourse? There is no answer except whichever answers different groups are willing to accept and work with in their conversations and life with the Other. This puzzle cannot be solved for everyone everywhere, even by way of the New York Times. Mason clearly knows this and states his piece well, even if those in his own faith would disagree with him. My prayer is that when Christians of my ilk follow suit that they would remember the character and call of Jesus and not be godless about it.
Endnote:
1. Unfortunately, Mason actually gets the difference wrong in that he does not describe a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead accurately. He says that such Christians believe that "Jesus is also the Father and the Holy Spirt." This is precisely what classic trinitarian formulae do not say. Instead, they say that the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Spirit and yet the three are of one essence and purpose and are one God, not three distinct beings or three gods. The Trinity in such Christian thought is ultimately an unexplainable mystery.
No comments:
Post a Comment