Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think
June 3, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton
“Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical as most evangelicals think.” This is according to BYU Professor Robert Millet and Professor and Pastor Gerald McDermott. The main point of their recent article on Christianity Today's website (Mitt's Mormonism and the 'Evangelical Vote') is that Christians should not exclude Mitt Romney from their consideration for President simply based on his religious beliefs. I agree with that. The problem is that in the process Millet (and possibly McDermott) is deceitful about the differences between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity. James White has written a couple of great posts responding to the deceitful points of the article (Post 1 and Post 2). Unfortunately, it appears that this article is something of a preview of a forthcoming book co-authored by Millet and McDermott, published by Brazos Press (a branch of Baker Books). Our friend John Divito has the scoop on that.
The quote which I used to title this post is utterly false if we consider Evangelicalism a current manifestation of historic orthodox Christianity as taught in the Bible- believing in things such as monotheistic trinitarianism, salvation by grace alone by the gift of faith alone on account of Christ alone, etc. However, I'm afraid that contemporary Evangelicalism may be so far adrift from and/or ignorant of historic Christianity such that the quote has a ring of truth to it. “Mormon beliefs are not as un-evangelical” as we might think because Evangelicalism is not what it used to be. The more things such as the “New Perspective on Paul” are popularized the more Evangelicalism looks like a sect of Roman Catholicism, and as this occurs the message of the Good News as taught in the Bible is compromised.
There is too much ecumenism today at the expense of clear understanding of differences in fundamental beliefs. If we as Christians are not explicitly clear to our non-Christian Roman Catholic and Mormon friends that what their churches teach is a false gospel, then we are not truly their friends and are simply condemning them with a smile (as Piper puts it). If we are to be faithful to our call as Christ's followers and ambassadors to this world, we must live with a renewed boldness and submission to God's Word. And the fewer differences we see between Mormon beliefs, the Roman Catholic Church and Evangelicalism, the more fervently we should reject Evangelicalism as an abomination.
UPDATE: Our friend Keith Walker over at Evidence Ministries has been corresponding with Associate Editor Madison Trammel of Christianity Today regarding the article. Today he received a positive response affirming most of his criticisms and promising a future article outlining the differences between Christianity and Mormonism,
Related posts:
- What is "Official" Mormon Doctrine? (Part 1)
- How Should Evangelicals Witness to Mormons?
- What is "Official" Mormon Doctrine? (Part 3)
- What is "Official" Mormon Doctrine? (Part 2)
- What is "Official" Mormon Doctrine? (Part 3)
- Book Review: A Different Jesus? By Robert Millet
Posted in Main Page, Mormonism, Roger's Posts
content rss
June 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Roger, for clarification, are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church as an institution is not a Christian body?
I posted a long quotation of Alister McGrath's defining evangelicalism here, but I'll put a piece of it in this comment:
“The term 'evangelical' dates from the sixteenth century, and was then used to refer to Catholic writers wishing to revert to more biblical beliefs and practices than those associated with the late medieval church… The term is now used widely to refer to a transdenominational trend in theology and spirituality, which lays particular emphasis upon the place of Scripture in the Christian life. Evangelicalism now centers upon a cluster of four assumptions:
1. The authority and sufficiency of Scripture.
2. The uniqueness of redemption through the death of Christ upon the cross.
3. The need for personal conversion.
4. The necessity, propriety, and urgency of evangelism.”
The rest of the quotation is worth reading and I think McGrath is rather accurate.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:33 am
I'm hesitant to affirm any “institution” as a Christian body. Christ's body is made up of individuals, not denominations or institutions. As an institution, I do not believe Rome officially teaches a gospel that saves. There may be individuals who consider themselves Roman Catholic whom God has saved, I can only judge the teachings of their church based on what the Bible says.
McGrath is certainly more of an authority than I, but I would like to know how he supports that the term evangelical “was then used to refer to Catholic writers.” As I understand it, Luther was really the first one to use the term and it was predominantly protestants who used it following him. Perhaps he first used when struggling with Rome's teachings as a Catholic and continued using it after leaving?
Relating his 4 points to Mormonism- The LDS cannot subscribe to the first point since they believe a current prophet is necessary to provide new revelation today. They may not be able to subscribe to the second point depending on what “the uniqueness of redemption through the death of Christ” means. I would think, though, that they would have no problem affirming points 3 and 4.
However, I think McGrath's 4 points is somewhat simplistic. For example, most people consider “Evangelical” to refer only to Protestants. Most today might also associate some form of political activism to the term. So I'm not sure how helpful McGrath's points are- perhaps only has a foundation to a defintion that needs to be built upon.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:00 am
I can agree with your hesitancy about “institutions.” That was poor wording on my part, though I would still emphasize the communal nature of the people of God — admittedly that is likely a tangent and splitting semantic hairs. You have filled out your point well. You appear to be saying that some Roman Catholics may be Christians, but the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is not necessarily Christian. To clarify further, are you saying that the Roman Catholic Church's teachings are unorthodox?
I would be surprised if McGrath would apply his definition of Evangelicalism to Mormonism as he upholds Christian orthodoxy as laid out at the Seven Ecumenical Councils and from what little I understand, Mormonism doesn't accept the Nicene Creed.
As for McGrath's four points, I can't elaborate further than the link I offered in my previous comment, which goes to a longer quotation from the book I cited. What I learned of the history of the term “Evangelical” comes mostly from McGrath's Christian Theology and I tend to find him reliable. (I recently moved and that book is still in a box, so I can't get back to it to see if he addresses Luther in his discussion.) I think McGrath points out that the term Evangelical, despite what it might mean here and now, was originally applied to certain Roman Catholics. I'll take your points a bit further — “Evangelical” in popular American parlance not only refers to Protestants, but those more closely associated with Fundamentalist Christians (both theologically, ethically, and politically) than with Mainliners. What I appreciate about McGrath's comment is that he takes Evangelicalism to a basic set of presuppositions to which Christians of any denomination can adhere, and he in fact calls it “transdenominational” and “ecumenical.” A friend of mine informed me that Mark Noll goes a step further and says that “evangelical” is probably better understood as an adjective than a noun: there are evangelical Methodists, evangelical Eastern Orthodox, evangelical Catholics, etc. (I'm a member of the Evangelical Covenant Church; does that make me an evangelical Evangelical? Now I'm being silly.)
June 8th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Roger,
Thanks for covering this issue. We need to continue to pray that CT does the right thing and clarifies their web article. Thanks also for pointing people to our blog.