Image courtesy the More Good Foundation.
Two subjects one is supposed to avoid in casual conversation are religion and
politics. Either of these topics has been known to divide friendships, create
animosity, and cause general discord at social gatherings. So, it should be no
wonder that the recent endorsement of presidential candidate Mitt Romney by
Billy Graham would grab attention. In the evangelical community, the
Graham/Romney link made headlines for a different reason. Billy Graham's
organization removed some content on their web site where it defines Mormonism
as a cult of Christianity. Given that Romney has been very public about his
adherence to the teachings of the Mormon Church, does this change mean that
Graham's organization is compromising a religious stance for political gain?
Ken Barun, the BGEA's chief of staff who was quoted in the Washington Post,
confirmed that the organization removed the article labeling Mormonism a cult.
However, he said it was to neuter misperceptions attached to the word that could
be used improperly in a charged-up election. "Our primary focus at the Billy
Graham Evangelistic Association has always been promoting the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to
participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized
during this campaign." OK—I can understand that in our "gotcha" media mindset,
there are those both online and in the mainstream media that would seek to hoist
the BGEA on its own petard, so to speak. I mean
this wouldn't be the first time that a Christian organization was
misrepresented by the secular press. But it does leave the question of
whether the label of cult should be used for Mormonism unresolved.
Labels and Language
This situation brings up a point that I've been thinking much about lately.
Whenever I speak with those in the general public, they are usually taken aback
if they hear the word "cult" used in connection with the LDS. In fact, I've
received a fairly hostile response to the charge and even lost a friend who felt
that I was being excessively bigoted and narrow in calling Mormonism a cult.
People may or may not have had a Mormon acquaintance, but they are pretty
uniform in what they think the word cult means.
Part of the problem here is
that language changes. I was recently listening to a lecture on how the
Bible has been translated by Dr. Daniel Wallace and he pointed out how the 1950
Revised Standard Version became outdated within some thirty years due to our
shifting meaning in language. For example, Psalm 50:9 has God declaring to
Israel "I will accept no bull from your house." Now, the audience in1950 may
understand this as a denial of a sacrifice, but the phrase means something very
different to anyone today. Similarly, we never use the word "gay" in
conversations with friends to mean happy or carefree, regardless of our position
on homosexuality. Because the primary understanding of these words is now
different, we must construct new sentences to help us get our idea across with
as little misunderstanding as possible.
In our modern day, the word "cult" falls unfortunately under this rubric.
Traditionally, we've used the word cult in two ways. It was primarily a
theological definition to mark a group or teaching that claimed to hold to
Christian beliefs, while diverging from them on essential doctrine. Rob
Bowman's definition of a cult is "A religious group originating as a heretical
sect and maintaining fervent commitment to heresy."
[1] The
BGEA also
had defined the word in this sense. The other way the word cult was understood
was in a sociological sense, as a kind of fully devoted allegiance that may or
may not be reasonable (think of a cult fad, or the cult of personality.)
However, in the last thirty to forty years, several theological cults whose
followers held an almost slavish devotion to the pronouncements of their leader
were given much attention in the media. Over 900 people committed suicide
following Jim Jones in the jungles of South America. In the 1993, David Koresh
and the Branch Davidians' stand-off with the federal government was front page
news. Add to that the Raelians and the Warren Jeffs' polygamy case and one can
see why the word cult now paints a markedly different picture from the
theological definition it originally held.
Definitional Distinctions
I grant that the word isn't communicating what I desire, but apologists and
evangelists still have a problem here, and it is one the Mormon hierarchy
themselves have created. In their advertising and in their proselytizing,
Mormons continue to claim that they are a Christian faith. Past president Gordon
Hinckley even stated "We are Christians in a very real sense"
[2]even
though Mormon doctrine denies all of the essentials of historic Christianity
from the nature of God to the result of the fall to the atonement and even how
many divine beings exist! It is therefore vital for the faithful defender of the
faith to draw a sharp distinction to these differences lest someone assume that
Mormonism is a legitimate choice for those wishing to faithfully follow Christ
and His teachings.
So, how do Christian apologists best define the
distinctions between those belief systems that seek to claim Jesus as their own
while holding to fundamentally different concepts on the essential nature of
God, Jesus, salvation, man, and eternity? What word do we use to clearly
separate the two? I've used the word cult in the past and while it clearly
communicated the distinction to those who understand the differences already,
the new connotation may burn more bridges than it builds. Are other labels
adequate for the task? The word "heretical" is outdated.
"Pseudo-Christians" or "faux-Christians" feel forced and awkward. Defining
Mormonism as a "new religious movement" doesn't capture the concept that Mormons
are claiming to be the true church started by Jesus.
The Need for a Word
And that's the rub. As long as the LDS continue to claim that they are
Christian and that their roots are grounded in the Bible as well as the book of
Mormon, then they force the historic church to make a distinction; we just need
a word to communicate the difference. The Greek word πλάνος (planao) captures
the idea. We find the word in Matthew 24:24 when Jesus says "For false Christs
and false prophets will arrive and will show great signs and wonders, so as to
mislead (planao), if possible, even the elect." It means "to confuse' or "to
lead astray" and can be used of religious seduction toward idolatry. Maybe we
can trade on that concept. I think that if I'm in conversation with friends and
I state that Mormonism is a seduction away from Christianity; that would go much
further in communicating that there's a difference from Christianity while still
showing the claims of Mormonism as being Christian. I think I'll give that a
try. If you have other ideas, let me know them as well.
References
[1] Bowman, Robert M. "A Biblical Guide To
Orthodoxy And Heresy" as quoted by Apologetics Index.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/c09.html#sociotheolo Accessed 10/22/2012.
[2] "Are Mormons Christians?" Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints web site.
http://mormon.org/faq/mormon-christian. Accessed 10/22/2012.
I've been hearing from a lot of Christians that they will either choose to sit out this election or not vote for president because neither choice is a candidate they consider appropriate for the position. They believe that their consciences would be violated by voting for "the lesser of two evils." Some hold that because neither are conservative Christians they therefore shouldn't be considered. Some wish to vote for the Libertarian candidate because they believe in Libertarian ideals. Some people are promoting the idea that Christians 
I'm continuing building my list of top books that I have found valuable in building my defense of the faith, but are not as well-known as some others. Some are more technical or academic in nature; others are not thought of as a teaching tool for apologists. My next entry falls into the latter category. 
