The Mormon/Evangelical Rupture

Mitt the Mormon

A while back I heard a knock on my door, and hardly to my surprise, two young, dapperly presented Mormons smiled and asked politely if I had a moment to kibitz religion. Sure. It was an uneventful day and I had been reading up on the intricacies of Mormonism, so the opportunity to probe the issue further with a pair of enthusiastic Mormons was a golden opportunity, from my perspective. So I invited them inside. The proselytizing preps. accepted my offer with élan; maybe they had a future convert in their midst…regardless, in the very least they could warm up a bit. It was freezing outside, a cool autumn was exiting stage right and a biting Wisconsin winter was set to make its presence known and felt. So my new friends shed their black coats to reveal their crisp, starched-white shirts and black ties and we sat at the dinning room table. I will be the first to say that Mormons are among the nicest people you will ever meet. My two “Elders” were impeccably courteous, with manners that harkened back to the black and white days of Ward and June Cleaver.

I distinctly remember wanting to offer them something to drink, preferably something warm, but I was also vaguely aware of some of the dietary regulations of Mormonism which put a prohibition on the intake of alcohol or caffeine. (Mormon teachings far more controversial than these have changed in recent memory, so maybe this drink-intake rule too has changed...who knows.) As a Catholic, some of the best discussions I’ve ever delved into congealed over a libation of red wine, or some Italian coffee, complimented quite nicely by a fine cigar…call it the result of a Chestertonian gloss on my Catholicism. Whatever. So, to avoid an awkward faux pas, I poured out a couple glasses of cold, innocuous water to my new guests and we engaged in small talk. But before long, we were fully immersed in the back-and-forth of a theological debate. Immediately, they tried to establish a rapport with my Catholic background by comparing the organization and structure of the Mormon hierarchy to the Catholic Church, implying that a leap of faith to Mormonism would be a comfortable, common sense move for me. While giving credit for the sincerity and intensity of their faith, I was immediately struck by the rote nature of their responses to my queries. I asked repeatedly, “Do you believe that Christ is the Son of God, coequal and coeternal with the Father?” Came the reply, “We believe Jesus Christ is our Savior who died and rose for our sins…” Again and again, as if on cue or programmed, it was the same response. Why the equivocating? Having done my homework, I already knew the answer. So Mormons have rejected the preeminent teaching from the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, which definitively settled the question of Christ’s relation to the Father as being homoousia, that is, of the same substance. Then came the Book of Mormon. They presented me with a copy and suggested I pray over it, asking God for guidance. If I did so, they were certain that a “good feeling” would overcome me, convincing me of the veracity of the Mormon creed. Religious infallibility based on a good feeling…? Not bad. If only it were that easy. After about two hours of this genteel give-and-take, we realized that we had reached an impasse. We traded emails, wished each other the best and that was that.

How is this brief vignette relevant for today? Enter the Republican race for the presidential nomination.

Mitt Romney has faced a certain degree of skepticism, and outright hostility, from dyed-in-the-wool Evangelicals for his Mormon religion. To be certain, Mormon claims to the Christian label are deeply suspect from a theological and exegetical perspective. Rejecting and reformulating the most fundamental teaching of Christian doctrine, the nature of Christ as set forth by the Council of Nicaea, is no small matter. It’s no wonder that the Catholic Church, along with most Christian communities, does not recognize the Mormon baptism as a valid one. But Protestant protestations over the Mormon creed nonetheless strike me as somewhat odd. Mormons after all, have merely broadened the flawed yet primordial Protestant proposition of sola scriptura, taking it to its logical next step. To arrive at the definitive teaching of the Council of Nicaea, the pope and the bishops in attendance relied on Scripture, but Tradition was just as fundamental in guiding them; a Tradition that stretched back to the Apostolic days and by extension, to Christ Himself. The irony is that, by accepting the most basic teachings of the Council regarding Christ’s nature, most Protestants are unwittingly accepting the Catholic teaching on the necessity of both Scripture and Tradition for the sustenance of theological integrity. But the adverb “unwittingly” is key here. Another example: Most Protestants readily accept the ancient, Catholic teaching regarding the Trinity, but the word “Trinity” is not to be found in Scripture. But the sacrosanct, guiding rule for Protestants, at least on paper if not always in practice, remains sola scriptura. Or perhaps they do recognize the need for some kind of tradition, but not a Tradition in the Catholic sense. Protestants cannot justifiably reject the indispensability of Sacred Tradition on the one hand and then express pious consternation with Mormons for hammering out on their own a novel doctrine or two about Christ that doesn’t jibe with traditional teaching. Mormons are simply following the Protestant lead first formulated by Martin Luther.