http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/why-evangelicals-dont-like-mormons/
I read this headline and was completely stunned by the author’s lack of understanding of basic differences in beliefs. How can someone so out of touch with the basic differences in the “denominations” publish an article that is picked up in the headlines?
While the author’s purpose in writing I believe is noble (he wants us to keep religion out of politics), I think he simply missed the point by a mile.
For example, the author claims that “it’s important to consider the often antagonistic skepticism that many evangelicals have of Mr. Romney’s brand of Protestantism: Mormonism.” This is a categorical fallacy. Mormonism is not Protestantism. Mormons do not claim to be Protestants or Roman Catholics or Coptics or Greek Orthodox, etc. They are Mormons.
Here is another point that the author has completely wrong:
“For many evangelicals, that faith — a “false religion,” as the Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress called it — raises serious doubts about Mr. Romney’s suitability for office. But such concerns ultimately say more about the insecurities of the establishment denominations than about Mormonism itself.”
The author is playing on and gambling on “fear” as the real reason that Evangelicals have a difficult time accepting Mormonism. However, fear really has nothing to do with anything. The so-called “established denominations” are not “afraid” of Mormonism taking over the nation any more than established denominations are afraid of Islam taking over the nation. Fear is not the issue.
More to the point, Mr. Reynolds scratches the surface of the issue but again completely misses the point:
“Many evangelicals assert that Mormonism denies the divinity of Christ and is therefore not a branch of Christianity. But the Mormon belief is that Jesus was the first-born child of God and a woman, and that humans can aspire to share his spiritual essence in the afterlife.”
Protestantism, along with Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox church has always taught the divine generation of the God-Man, Jesus Christ. The tradition has established this doctrine since the beginning. Read any of the early creeds and you will find that one of the most fundamental teachings of church history is the divinity of Christ, who was also fully human. All early councils taught this (though it has been debated and some of the details have been disagreed upon such as the filioque clause that caused division between the Latin and Greek speaking churches at the Council of Nicaea 325 A.D.).
What Mormonism actually teaches is the ultimate divination of humanity.
The author then goes on to list Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and Christian Science as branches of Protestantism that sprung up after the Second Great Awakening. My question is this: How did these groups come to be called “branches of Protestantism?” Why not call them “branches of Roman Catholicism?” These cults have as much in common with Protestantism as they do with Roman Catholicism, which is nil.
Here is where Mr. Reynolds gets things very muddy:
“There’s plenty about these and other surviving Protestant groups that’s out of sync with mainstream religion. Christian Scientists, for instance, eschew doctors and medicine. Seventh-day Adventists have often set dates for the end of the world that have come and gone, while Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the doctrines of the Trinity and eternal punishment.
But neither those nor other American-bred religions arouse nearly the degree of anxiety that Mormonism does. Why?”
The author equates “Protestant groups” as being “mainstream religion.” This is another categorical fallacy. And to answer his question “Why” is to point out that the problem is right in front of him.
Mormonism may cause anxiety in some “Protestants” or “Evangelicals” because they do not understand who they are to begin with. Why would a Baptist be concerned about a Mormon president any more than they would be concerned about a Scientologist president?
Christians are going to vote for the presidential candidate he or she feels will best represent and help the nation. But Mr. Reynolds continues to demonstrate that Christians have an identity crisis. That is, we do not know who we are or where we came from. Many find church history boring and irrelevant. But if we do not understand what we believe and why we believe it in the first place, we lose the lessons so many have died to teach us. And of course, history will repeat itself.
As part of my New Year’s resolution to blog more, here is my first entry for the New Year. I could have titled it, “Out of the pot and into the fire.” Just out of the Vatican this week is an effort to bring in new congregations of all things, Episcopalians. This is indeed a monumental move with historic ramifications. To be sure, this is more telling about the church than anything else in our day. For one, Rome wants to open a door to allow Episcopal congregations to join the Roman Cathoic church. This means that a married priest within the Episcopal church can become in effect, a Roman Catholic priest. This is strange because Roman Catholic priests must maintain a vow of celebacy.
That is periphery. Now the real issue here is twofold. First, why would a protestant group want to join the Roman Catholic church? Short answer, “We do not care about Sola Fide.” In other words, how a person is made right with God or “justified” is no longer an issue for the Episcoplians who join the Roman Catholic church. Rome teaches a very different way of being justified or made in a right standing before God than Protestantism. So these Episcopal churches have to accept the Pope as the “Vicar of Christ” and agree to the anathemas handed down at the Council of Trent by Pope Leo X. I suppose that all of a sudden, justification by faith alone is no longer an issue for these churches and priests.
The second issue is even more telling. It is believed that the reason why many Episcopalian churches are leaving the Episcopal church and requesting admission to the Roman Catholic church is that the Episcopalian church has become extremely liberal, while the Roman Catholic church has largely remained unchanged in the past 40 years. It is now legal for practicing homosexuals to be appointed as bishop within the Episcopal church. This has driven many “conservative” congregations to begin to reconsider their ties with the denomination.
The lessons here are obvious. It is a lesson for every conservative evangelical Christian. The pathway of error has deadly consequences. When you compromise the truth so much, in the end you will perish. If churches continue to capitulate the responsibility to be valiant for the truth, this is where theological compromise always leads. In an effort to take a stand against a social sin like homosexuality, you give up justification which Protestants have always fought for.
The lesson we must learn is that theological compromise on a cardinal doctrine such as justification has grave consequences. Let the New Perspective listener hear. In an effort to be “more conservative” and “disassociate with homosexuals” the church then gives up the heart of the gospel, Justification.
Conservative evangelicals are playing with fire when pragmatism rules the day. They will fight ”tooth and nail” to distance themselves from the ordination of practicing homosexuals but will not question compromise when it comes to Justification. I know this, I see it everyday. Many in our community feel that, “As long as we are not engaging in the social sins of our day, we are all o.k.” Or, “It doesnt matter what you believe, as long as you name Christ as Lord.”
Conservative Evangelicals will continue to ignore and compromise Justification to their own peril. The recent activity with the Episcopal church is the writing on the wall. All roads lead to Rome or non-existence when Justification is ignored or compromised.
In a recent article by CBS News, a startling discovery has emerged. You can read the article here http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57337524/u.s-to-use-foreign-aid-to-promote-gay-rights/
The use of tax dollars designated for foreign aid, which typically is used for medicine, food, and other humanitarian resources will now be designated “to assist gays and lesbians who are facing human rights violations.”
On the surface, this may seem compassionate and a good use of taxpayer money. In all honesty, the US has always been the one who has assisted the weak and vulnerable. However, what this statement by the Secretary of State signifies is that the US government will continue to grow in order to have even more influence over how other nations make decisions. As a nation, we have long sought to fight for the rights of minorities around the world. And no one wants to see any minority group oppressed. But my question concerning the Obama administration’s decision is this, “Which groups will you choose to provide aid to and which will you not?” There are plenty of Christians around the world, in much larger numbers who are in need of relief from persecution. Should American tax dollars be used to help these individuals? What about Muslim groups that are oppressed? Or Buddhists or Mormons or any other group. How will the State determine who should receive assistance?
Historically, Christians have risen up to help those who are oppressed. Men like William Wilberforce fought with diplomatic weapons to end the slave trade in England. Many brave men and women have taken compassion on the oppressed around the world throughout time with or without the aid of others. The Obama administration’s decision is essentially to force taxpayers to give their money to this cause whether they want to or not.
In reality this move is another sign that the US government has grown too large so much so that it is seeking to pontificate to other nations concerning their own national policy and to support certain minority groups without the general consent of the rest of the nation.
Please do not misunderstand: I do not want to see any group oppressed or tyranized. However, it is best left to individuals and non-profit organizations to fight for the rights of the people they choose to represent. It is up to individuals to rise up and say, “Enough is enough.” I do not expect the US government to give taxpayer money to support and aid Christian minorities in other countries who are oppressed. This is the job of the churches, not the US government.
Here is the link to the video about how the vandals are being targeted by concerned citizens.
I read today that New York is set to prepare the way for same sex couples to unite in marriage. Two Republicans have “switched sides” in order for the bill to garner enough votes. Some of the articles were interesting. One in particular sought to paint the Republicans in a good way. You can see it here
I read the article and found it unconvincing. What bothered me was that 1) the right to marry whomever you choose is not at all mentioned. 2) The same old song and dance that homosexuals are in the same category as Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. 3) The Gordian knot that puts the pro homosexual movement in the same camp as women’s rights.
To start with the last two, being homosexual is different than being a female, Black, Hispanic, or Asian. Societies of course do change. Social norms do change over time. But if we look back over the history of civilazation, there has never been a civilization that has reckonized homosexuality as being good for the society. True, in Ancient Rome, for one example and there are many others, there existed pedestry. Wealthy Roman males could and often did have inappropriate relations with boys. The Apostle Paul writes about this in several places, Romans 1 in particular. In major civilizations, homosexuality has always been seen as something deviant. And although this does not prove or disprove anything, we should pay attention to why these norms exist.
For the first question, I think it was quite ironic that the New York Daily news writes any news at all. For example, they made some moral charges against some individauls caught with child pornography. A teacher was named as one being caught. You can read the article here
The article calls the individuals caught (and I agree with the labels), “sickos,” “Perverts,” etc. This is to make a moral judgment. Judging by the outrage among those who left comments, it is pretty clear that as a society we have determined that it is wrong for adults to behave this way towards children. It is law and it socially repugnant to us.
Now the comments left regarding the possibility for New York to become a state that recognizes marriage between to people of the same sex is interesting. I like this one, “The Republican party should just be honest and change their name to the Christian Theocracy Party.” As if only Christians and Republicans were against same sex marriage! And if you happen to be a Christian, that makes you in support of a Theocracy? What pitiful logic!
My point is this: How can the “newspaper” say one thing is morally wrong while another is not? Where do they draw the line? How do you get to a moral consensus? If I can marry another man, why not multiple men? Why is it seen as supporting Theocracy when you are against same sex marriage but in favor of protecting children from perverts? This is something that people need to realize. We have laws because we have been endowed by our Creator to understand that there are moral absolutes. And now those moral absolutes are being questioned at an alarming rate. Once the family is out of the picture, there’s not much left to our civilization. The only thing that Christians can do is to regain the priority of the gospel and believe what God says regarding the family. If churches continue to tear apart the family then there really is not much hope left for America.
Under constitional protection, US citizens have basic rights. We citizens have certain rights bestowed upon us by something called the Bill of Rights. Within the Bill of Rights there is something called the Fourth Ammendment which requires probable cause for searching a person. The State of Texas recognizes this basic, inalieanable right of it’s citizens. I am not so sure if the Dept. of Justice recognizes this basic right.
Something that has many people upset to say the least. Air travel has become the norm in our nation. It is fast, affordable and safe. And since I have family in Puerto Rico, practically necessary to get there by air nowadays. But I really do not want to fly. Not because I am scared of dying, rather I dont like the TSA. I cringe at the thought of a stranger groping the private area of my daughter. I can’t bear to see it happen and not stop it. Should we have the right to board a privately owned plane at a privately owned airport without having to watch strangers fondle the genitalia of our kids? Seems like a reasonable thing.
Texas politicians recently passed a bill (HB 1937) which was enthusiastically endorsed by both parties and ready to be signed into law. The bill was designed to prevent the TSA from invasive pat-downs of passenger’s private parts, unless there is probable cause. However, as the bill was being sent through the branches of the TX govt, Washington sent a letter from the Dept. of Justice to the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House, and members of the Senate stating in effect that TX would be declared a “No-Fly zone” and that all air travel in, out, or over TX would be halted if the bill continued.
Needless to say, the bill was withdrawn. What happens next is anyone’s guess. Hopefully there are still enough citizens who cherish their freedom from tyranny who will speak out against such abuse and threatenings. Perhaps we have become so used to the US govt flexing its muscle in other parts of the world in order to “ensure freedom” that we have sold ourselves into slavery at the cost of “national security.”
As far as I know, the TSA has not prevented any bomb or terrorist from boarding a plane in the US. It has been 10 years since 9/11 and the TSA has not helped the problem. Perhaps there is a better solution than unconstitional searches of US citizens by the Federal government in order to prevent terrorists from boarding airplanes. I for one will simply have to drive or look at other travel options. And of course vote.