I have been loving this recent conversation in the media, online and in our social sphere regarding whether or not we Mormons are Christians. It was begun by two Mormons running for President and spurred by a Baptist Minister calling the LDS church a cult and not Christian. This idea of Mormons being Christian or not has always fascinated me and so this uproar has been quite exciting. I have learned so much in the last few days and I'd like to share my insights.
I now realize that those who really believe that Mormons are not Christian have a very different definition of Christianity than I, and I believe most other people, do. I have been having a Facebook conversation with my very liberal religious studies professor friend who is adamant that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints falls outside the Christian sphere. He says that we are not "historical" or "orthodox" Christians as defined by the Ecumenical councils, the first seven of which were within a thousand years of Christ's death and then there were a whole bunch more after that. The most recent, according to Wikipedia, was in 1670, I think.These councils are regarded as infallible canon by the Catholic and Protestant churches. They set out a lot of definitions and rules that the orthodox Christian world must adhere to.
Because these ideas developed over hundreds of years in many councils, it would take a lot to fully learn and understand them. As my religious studies friend said, it would take about four different classes over about four semesters in college to do it. A "healthy dose of Greek philosophy is helpful to understand some of the more complicated doctrines too, such as the Trinity. And apparently, if you don't believe in the Trinity, three separate beings but all in one God concept, you are not a Christian. Well, I haven't taken those classes, nor do I know any Greek philosophy so I don't know enough about the councils or creeds to speak too much about their principles. But, my definition of Christianity is definitely different.
In fact, most of what I hear in the media doesn't address these councils or whether or not the LDS church adheres to their precepts. Usually, we hear reporters asking their interviewees to address the fact that the LDS church states very clearly that we follow Christ's teachings, that His name is part of our name and that all of our beliefs spelled out on mormon.org (thanks everyone for getting that out there, by the way) are very Christ-centric. This leads me to believe that maybe most people are thinking the same thing that I am - that the definition of Christianity is simply a belief in and following of Christ and His teachings.
This definition stems from the Bible and from common sense - as well as about every dictionary I have seen (see below for some links). The Bible doesn't use the word Christian much, but when it does, it is referring to the disciples of Christ. Acts 11:26 cites the first time the disciples were called Christians in Antioch. The term is also used in 1 Peter 4:16 and Acts 26:28 when King Agrippa tells Paul that he almost persuades him to be a Christian. This is before any councils got together to decide whether or not these disciples believed in the Trinity concept, which is not mentioned at all in the Bible.
So, obviously what we're dealing with are two very different definitions of Christianity. I'm not here to tell you which you should believe but I do want to tell you why I believe the Biblical definition is the correct one.
The words that my facebook friend used to describe this definition were: historical, orthodox and traditional. He called the influences from the councils that gave rise to this definition historical, theological, political and philosophical. To me, all of these words imply human: in human history, human traditions, human theology, politics and philosophy. None of them address the eternal, spiritual or God-given aspects of a definition of Christianity which I would fully expect something based on Jesus Christ to be. Humans are fallible and imperfect and frankly anything that comes from them is too. How many philosophers have really given us truth? There are a lot of opinions out there of what truth is, but that's certainly not the same. And don't get me started on politicians! And, when you use the word "historical" how infallible can that be? Who's history? Did they write or tell it objectively? How many times have we heard that history is written by the winners or that our kids' history books aren't exactly right? And then there's tradition - the Christmas tree is a tradition, as are candy canes, wreaths, and Santa Claus. Most of these things didn't originally come from the Christian faith, they came from paganism and were adapted. How true or infallible can tradition be if they can so easily be changed and adapted to suit someone's needs?
When I read into the councils and creeds, I found that a lot of the principles were exactly what I've been taught in the LDS church. Check out the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian creed. This last one gets a bit confusing but it and the other ones clearly state many truths that are found in scripture, including that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals. So, I don't want to disparage these councils at all. I think that those who gathered there were doing their best to grasp the teachings found in the gospels and writings of the apostles as best they could. I believe they were good men doing a good thing and I'm sure did it better than anyone else on the Earth possibly could at that time. I just don't think that you can selectively exclude groups of people who claim to be Christian from this group based on the ideas that came from the councils.
I believe that the simplest and most inclusive definition of Christianity is most appropriate. This definition is what we find in the dictionaries and is clearly implied in the New Testament. Technically, this also comes from humans, but it is the original and simplest definition and is unencumbered by the adaptations and interpretations that came after.
Christians are those that believe in Christ as their savior and follow his teachings. Its canon is the teachings of Christ and the commandments. Its principles are spelled out clearly in the Scriptures - no need for four semesters of college and an knowledge of Greek philosophy to understand them. Its authority does not go back to councils of men but to the original scriptural accounts written by the apostles.
Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of people understand these differences. They simply hear their minister or priest say that Mormons aren't Christians and then assume we don't believe in Christ. This is a real shame and so I hope that we can start really discussing these different definitions so people are clearly informed and can make their own decision as to whether they think Mormons are Christian or not.
I'm so glad that we have had this conversation in our country just so that I could more fully get this. I hope that we keep talking about it and that more recognize these differences. I am so glad to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know I am a Christian, no matter what history or tradition says. I know Christ is my Savior, that he suffered and died for me and my sins and that through Him, I can repent of my transgressions and be saved. I'm so grateful for that knowledge and for the growth in understanding I have had over the last few days. I hope that my learnings have helped you a bit, too.
Some links:
What Mormons believe about Jesus Christ: http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/
My profile on mormon.org: http://mormon.org/me/37PK/
The first four definitions of Christian that came up on Google for me:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
I now realize that those who really believe that Mormons are not Christian have a very different definition of Christianity than I, and I believe most other people, do. I have been having a Facebook conversation with my very liberal religious studies professor friend who is adamant that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints falls outside the Christian sphere. He says that we are not "historical" or "orthodox" Christians as defined by the Ecumenical councils, the first seven of which were within a thousand years of Christ's death and then there were a whole bunch more after that. The most recent, according to Wikipedia, was in 1670, I think.These councils are regarded as infallible canon by the Catholic and Protestant churches. They set out a lot of definitions and rules that the orthodox Christian world must adhere to.
Because these ideas developed over hundreds of years in many councils, it would take a lot to fully learn and understand them. As my religious studies friend said, it would take about four different classes over about four semesters in college to do it. A "healthy dose of Greek philosophy is helpful to understand some of the more complicated doctrines too, such as the Trinity. And apparently, if you don't believe in the Trinity, three separate beings but all in one God concept, you are not a Christian. Well, I haven't taken those classes, nor do I know any Greek philosophy so I don't know enough about the councils or creeds to speak too much about their principles. But, my definition of Christianity is definitely different.
In fact, most of what I hear in the media doesn't address these councils or whether or not the LDS church adheres to their precepts. Usually, we hear reporters asking their interviewees to address the fact that the LDS church states very clearly that we follow Christ's teachings, that His name is part of our name and that all of our beliefs spelled out on mormon.org (thanks everyone for getting that out there, by the way) are very Christ-centric. This leads me to believe that maybe most people are thinking the same thing that I am - that the definition of Christianity is simply a belief in and following of Christ and His teachings.
This definition stems from the Bible and from common sense - as well as about every dictionary I have seen (see below for some links). The Bible doesn't use the word Christian much, but when it does, it is referring to the disciples of Christ. Acts 11:26 cites the first time the disciples were called Christians in Antioch. The term is also used in 1 Peter 4:16 and Acts 26:28 when King Agrippa tells Paul that he almost persuades him to be a Christian. This is before any councils got together to decide whether or not these disciples believed in the Trinity concept, which is not mentioned at all in the Bible.
So, obviously what we're dealing with are two very different definitions of Christianity. I'm not here to tell you which you should believe but I do want to tell you why I believe the Biblical definition is the correct one.
The words that my facebook friend used to describe this definition were: historical, orthodox and traditional. He called the influences from the councils that gave rise to this definition historical, theological, political and philosophical. To me, all of these words imply human: in human history, human traditions, human theology, politics and philosophy. None of them address the eternal, spiritual or God-given aspects of a definition of Christianity which I would fully expect something based on Jesus Christ to be. Humans are fallible and imperfect and frankly anything that comes from them is too. How many philosophers have really given us truth? There are a lot of opinions out there of what truth is, but that's certainly not the same. And don't get me started on politicians! And, when you use the word "historical" how infallible can that be? Who's history? Did they write or tell it objectively? How many times have we heard that history is written by the winners or that our kids' history books aren't exactly right? And then there's tradition - the Christmas tree is a tradition, as are candy canes, wreaths, and Santa Claus. Most of these things didn't originally come from the Christian faith, they came from paganism and were adapted. How true or infallible can tradition be if they can so easily be changed and adapted to suit someone's needs?
When I read into the councils and creeds, I found that a lot of the principles were exactly what I've been taught in the LDS church. Check out the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian creed. This last one gets a bit confusing but it and the other ones clearly state many truths that are found in scripture, including that God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate individuals. So, I don't want to disparage these councils at all. I think that those who gathered there were doing their best to grasp the teachings found in the gospels and writings of the apostles as best they could. I believe they were good men doing a good thing and I'm sure did it better than anyone else on the Earth possibly could at that time. I just don't think that you can selectively exclude groups of people who claim to be Christian from this group based on the ideas that came from the councils.
I believe that the simplest and most inclusive definition of Christianity is most appropriate. This definition is what we find in the dictionaries and is clearly implied in the New Testament. Technically, this also comes from humans, but it is the original and simplest definition and is unencumbered by the adaptations and interpretations that came after.
Christians are those that believe in Christ as their savior and follow his teachings. Its canon is the teachings of Christ and the commandments. Its principles are spelled out clearly in the Scriptures - no need for four semesters of college and an knowledge of Greek philosophy to understand them. Its authority does not go back to councils of men but to the original scriptural accounts written by the apostles.
Unfortunately, I don't think the vast majority of people understand these differences. They simply hear their minister or priest say that Mormons aren't Christians and then assume we don't believe in Christ. This is a real shame and so I hope that we can start really discussing these different definitions so people are clearly informed and can make their own decision as to whether they think Mormons are Christian or not.
I'm so glad that we have had this conversation in our country just so that I could more fully get this. I hope that we keep talking about it and that more recognize these differences. I am so glad to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I know I am a Christian, no matter what history or tradition says. I know Christ is my Savior, that he suffered and died for me and my sins and that through Him, I can repent of my transgressions and be saved. I'm so grateful for that knowledge and for the growth in understanding I have had over the last few days. I hope that my learnings have helped you a bit, too.
Some links:
What Mormons believe about Jesus Christ: http://mormon.org/jesus-christ/
My profile on mormon.org: http://mormon.org/me/37PK/
The first four definitions of Christian that came up on Google for me:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Christian
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/christian
3 comments:
You delivered the good news with this one, Jenny, and while I don't share your creed entirely, I share your perspective.
As far as I'm concerned, there's the church of Christians who knew and loved Christ on earth - and then there is everything else: all those human instruments to reproduce that original, primitive church while failing ultimately to rise above their earthly foundations.
And while I may be mixing my historical references, I'm certain that any effort to define a "Christian" according to this council or that piece of orthodoxy is nothing more than the effort to count the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin. It's mere scholasticism. I write this as an academic who has committed many such sins.
I don't know much about God, but I do know that anyone who professes their love of Christ and desire to follow His example is a Christian. And those folks - no matter how well meaning - who use human measures against those spiritual aspirations do their own causes no good service.
I liked this post because I did grow up in a "traditionally" Christian household. We were taught that Mormonism is a cult, and I can say that until now, I had not given any thought to what I believed about the "two" religions. While my personally interactions with mormons in my family have been less than an ideal view of what a Mormon believes in, I know that one person or family shouldn't negatively affect my view of an entire group. I loved your last paragraph, where you state pretty much what all Christians I know would say that they believed. An isn't that the whole point of Christianity? Belief in Christ, knowledge that we are sinners, and acceptance of his forgiveness? In the end, all religions are arranged by a person or group of people who believe that their view of God is correct. As long as the belief is there, I'm learning I don't care what label a person decides to embody. Thank you for your thoughtful words, and to Andy for sharing the link kn Facebook.
Thank you both for your thoughtful comments and your support. I'm glad that you enjoyed the post!
Post a Comment