Follow Up: President Obama & Governor Romney: Two Sides Of The Same Coin

I am posting this tonight, as the polls close, to remove the notion, as best I can, that my reason for publishing it is political. I assure you my purpose is not political. This is a follow-up to my earlier article President Obama & Governor Romney: Two Sides Of The Same Coin. I will publish it again perhaps tomorrow. No matter how the election turns out I think my observations are extremely relevant. If you are going to comment on or discuss this post please read my first article and this one fully before doing so.

Since publishing that article I have been willingly, and at times unwillingly, engaged in lengthy discussions by every conceivable means: texting, e-mail, social media, and, my old favorite, verbal discussions. I have been amazed, encouraged, disappointed, and sometimes downright disillusioned at much of what I have heard. Mostly I have experienced the latter two.

Let me first say that I, as a supporter of religious liberty, have no problem with someone running for office who doesn't agree with my faith or worships a different god. I also understand that in American politics someone's religious belief will not generally be part of the public debate. I actually thrill at the diversity of my country, and shall pray for God's grace to be upon us and our leaders no matter who is in office. I love my country.

But I am also Christian and a Bible believer. I cannot separate my citizen self from my Christian self, so my faith will influence the level of my support for any candidate. What a candidate believes about God is primary to me. It is the first commandment, the first table of the law, and the ground upon which God judges the people of the earth. This was the premise for my first article.

When it comes to Governor Romney, discovering the detail of his personal religious beliefs has been very difficult. I respect, in some ways, his reticence to discuss his faith while running for office. But he has stated publicly that he knows and believes the major teachings of his church. The most basic teaching of any church is their definition of God.

I don't want to rewrite my previous article, but I must expand my statement about the god of Mormonism. In my article I said that Mormon theology “is a confusing sort of humanistic polytheism (a man-like god and deified men and women)”. Recently I have been reading Mormon theology almost to the point of blindness. I have deliberately avoided non-Mormon writers because I didn't want to be influenced or slanted in my assessment. 

I have been surprised to find Mormon theologians who are openly struggling with their theology and who seem to be aware that there are deep problems. I appreciate and encourage their struggle. But with that being said there are still some hurdles that will probably never be overcome no matter how much struggle takes place. The intractable problem is with the teachings of their early prophets and church hierarchy about their god.

I will state it as simply as I can: the Mormon belief that God the Father and God the Son have eternal, necessary "bodies" is a seemingly impossible theological roadblock to any consideration that Mormons believe in the same God as mainline Christians. Many Mormon theologians seem to agree. This is not a mean-spirited statement, it is clear to me that theologians on both sides of this divide politely agree with that general statement.

Here are a few quotes from James E. Faulconer, professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University, he has a PHD in philosophy from Pennsylvania State University. I don't think anyone can reasonably question his credentials to speak about Mormon theology. I came across his writings while searching a list of Mormon scholars. The article I quote is Divine Embodiment and Transcendence: Propaedeutic Thoughts and Questions as published in the Mormon periodical Element; Spring 2005. The word “propaedeutic” simply means a preliminary or preparatory instruction. Dr. Faulconer struggles in this article with the subject of the body of the Mormon god. I do not use the small g in god as an insult, but to highlight the fact that we disagree on the definition of God. Dr. Faulconer also uses this device. He wrote:

“Latter-day Saint doctrine is that the Father and the Son have bodies: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also" (D&C 130:22). At first glance this seems straightforward: the Father and the Son are embodied. However, it requires very little reflection to begin to wonder what that means. Joseph Smith's first vision tells us that their bodies are able to hover in the air and that they are bright beyond description (Joseph Smith History 1:17). Brigham Young and others taught that, though their bodies are bodies of flesh and bone, they do not have blood (cf. Journal of Discourses 7:163, Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History 5)”

“Joseph Smith's most clear statement of God's embodiment comes as part of a denial of Nicean trinitarianism: "That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones" (Teachings 181).”

“By not defining God as "wholly Other," existing in a realm absolutely transcendent of this world and being the being on which this world absolutely depends, even for its existence, LDS thought makes a radical break with traditional thought.”

Next Dr. Faulconer says the same thing I have said:

“The consequences of rejecting onto-theology, in other words, the consequences of believing that God is embodied run deep in our cultural and intellectual heritage, to their very roots. As a result, some of our theological discussions may simply be wrong-headed, trying to speak of God with concepts that do not apply or at least implicitly trying to make our understanding of him fit inappropriate concepts and conceptual structures. Even if we somehow manage to escape those problems, our discussions are likely to be shot through with deep equivocation. These sorts of problems make it easier to be sympathetic to those who accuse Latter-day Saints of not worshiping the God of Christianity. If by "God of Christianity" they mean "God of traditional Christian philosophical theology," then they are right: we do not believe in or worship that god.” (Emphasis mine)

I politely, but firmly, agree with Dr. Faulconer, we do not worship the same God. In his conclusion he wrote:

“The scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith allow us to say little more about divine embodiment than that God has a body with the same form as ours. From that I think we can also infer that the ontological gulf between ourselves and God cannot be as wide as the tradition assumes, whether the tradition takes God to being itself or to be the Good (and, so, beyond being). Though it is difficult to go confidently beyond that negative conclusion, two things seem to follow: First, the Latter-day Saint understanding of what it means to be in the world is, implicitly, radically different than is the understanding of any other Christian group, though it is not at clear what additionally follows from that difference. Second, our experience of the body, the only standard we have for understanding embodiment, suggests that to say that God has a body is to say that his omniscience and omnipotence must be understood in ways quite different from traditional Christianity because embodiment implies situated openness to a world. In other words, divine embodiment also implies that God is affected by the world and by persons in his world. This means that the belief that God is embodied implies that he encounters the world and that he is, in some ways, passive with respect to that which he encounters, and his passivity may include some notion of unconsciousness.”

Let me be clear. The God of the Bible does not have a body as part of or a necessary extension of His being. Anyone who claims that their god does have an essential body worships a different god than the God who is revealed in the Bible. Furthermore anyone or any church which teaches that their god's body appears to be, is like, or is a human body is clearly included in the list of corrupt theology given in Romans 1:23-25, this passage clearly states that such a belief contributes to the wrath of God falling on a nation and the removal of God's preventative grace as I argued in my earlier article.

Some will argue that the Son Of God in orthodox Christianity has a body. This is a clear misunderstanding of the person of Jesus Christ and orthodox Christianity's teaching concerning Him. The eternal Son existed before the body of Jesus came into existence. Read John chapter 1. In orthodox Christianity the body of Jesus is not a necessary attribute of the being of the eternal Son. The body of Jesus is not God, it is human. God is manifest in it, but is not it.

The truth about the differences between Mormonism, one of the fastest growing religions in the world, and orthodox Christianity has been taught and preached from fundamental and evangelical pulpits throughout this land for years. I have been a witness to this over the last 40 years in ministry. I have sat in conferences where Theology has been declared to the be the highest standard by which we humans are judged by our creator. But, sadly, for some it seems this truth was only valid when it didn't indict a favored political candidate. For that reason more than one commentator has labeled the Christian right as hypocrites.

No matter who is elected today that label will still stick and I think it does not bode well for our country. I have feared the mixing of politics and Christianity that began decades ago would lead to a corruption that might bring us into a direct confrontation with God and I have lived to see it happen... I think. It is my opinion that only God's grace will save us from the fruits of this defection. If you don't understand this then please read my first article.

To my more theologically trained readers please know that I am aware that the use of non-technical words opens me up to extensive clarification and disagreement. The more reasonable among you will understand that I wrote this post for a broad audience. With that said I will not now technically defend my choice of words to those who will take advantage of this non-technical post. I will, most likely, delete comments that attempt to do this. Thanks for reading.

Mercy Rides On The Wings Of Thanks Giving

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

One of the root causes of a culture's decline as described in Romans 1:24, 26-32 is the cold thanklessness of those in the culture who know God. The source of this thanklessness is, according to this verse, the result of a change in their way of thinking, or, perhaps more correctly, in the focus of their thoughts. The phrase in this verse “but became vain in their imaginations” means: “their thoughts became directed to worthless things.” Bauer-Danker

So the visible downgrade of a people who know God begins when they fail to discipline their minds to be appropriately vocal and sincere in their thankfulness to God. Growing out of this thanklessness, according to Romans 1:23,25, comes a movement to redefine God. To devise a new god more suitable to their new way of thinking... a more practical god. This all happens over time.

There is more in this section of Scripture than I can begin to touch in a short post, but let me just point out a few major truths which are laid out on the surface for us all to see: God listens for our thanks giving, observes the focus of our thoughts, and He measures our beliefs about His being. Based on His experience with us in these matters He decides to extend or withdraw His mercy. And His mercy is the foundation of the moral prosperity of any people. His mercy and our thankfulness are intertwined. It could be said that mercy rides on the wings of thanks giving.

God walks among us... especially those of us who know Him. Let us focus our minds upon Him, and let us appropriately thank Him without redefining Him. Our nation depends on our accuracy and faithfulness in this matter.

Liberty Of Conscience: Do We Have The Right To Be Wrong?

Romans 14:5b Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

The answer to the question in the title is a limited yes... and an absolute no. Let me explain.

In this chapter the Apostle Paul discussed differences in belief and ritual observance among individual Christians, and how to handle those differences in a church setting. The underlying principles of liberty of conscience are applied in these verses, but these principles should also be broadly applied to all forms of government.

It could be argued, and I would argue it, that a church has no authority to make or enforce prohibitions in the differences discussed in this passage. That we, as Christians within our churches, are called upon to permit differences in belief and practice to the extent mentioned in this and other passages.

What a church, or any other government, cannot lawfully prohibit and prosecute it must allow. Not only must it allow this liberty, it also must protect this liberty by whatever means are lawfully available. By doing so it may also be acknowledging and protecting the right of God's justice which is essential to real liberty of conscience. The result is that every government with this principle of liberty will have citizens or members of varying disciplines when it comes to matters of conscience and action. Liberty of conscience is a product of God's Grace.

Clearly God may prohibit certain thoughts and behaviors, but then not give His church, individuals, or any government the right of prohibition and prosecution. This means that these "thoughts and behaviors" are allowed on this earth, so, in this limited context, people do have the right or freedom to be wrong. But this God given liberty comes at an awful price: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

There are clearly certain rights of judgment and prosecution that God retains for Himself. So those sins that we may be free to think or do while living on this earth are still under the jurisdiction of God. So ultimately no one has the right to think or do things that are defined by God as wrong, and there is no behavior or thought that will remain unmeasured by His perfect Justice. So, before God, there is absolutely no privilege or right to be wrong. This truth is vital to the Gospel, and the recognition of God's exclusive authority or jurisdiction is essential to real liberty of conscience and limited human government.

Without God, law and human force become the only controlling authority. This means that atheism is pure human legalism with brutal controls. Atheism is naturally inclined against liberty of conscience. In atheism man must use the force of law and government to eradicate any thought or behavior considered to not be in the common good. And humanity defines the common good because there is no higher authority. There can be nothing left to God because, in the view of atheism, there is no God.

But on the other side of that humanistic coin are those religionists who seek to enforce laws which they have no right to enforce. This power mongering is, in some senses, a form of religious humanism and is anti-faith. The result is the same as atheism: God's exclusive Justice is replaced by repressive human force. Many Christians seem to be, at least in their approach to law and liberty, practical atheists. Which means they believe there is a God, but legislate and live as if He doesn't exist.

So the best human government is one which, under God, vigorously promotes and protects liberty of conscience. But... it leaves to God the judgment of the details of human thought and behavior which He has placed under His sole jurisdiction, and it also trusts Him to right the wrongs of faulty human law and justice.

One more point: essential to liberty of conscience is the right of dissent and non-participation in behaviors or beliefs that are against the conscience of the dissenters. But this right of dissent does not then give the right of judgment or prosecution to the dissenters. Romans 14:10 says, “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” Just because we disagree, and may even be right in our view, doesn't mean we also have the authority to judge those with whom we disagree.

When Freedom Goes Too Far

I recently ended a series on Liberty of Conscience (to be published in the future) with these questions: To what extent does government have culpability for the behaviors and beliefs it allows? Liberty of Conscience demands a certain amount of liberty of action. But when does freedom go too far? Will God judge a whole nation because of the freedom given a few?

When some of us think of national judgment we tend to think in terms of disease, war, economic failure, or oppression. This type of judgment has certainly happened in history, but it is not the normal way God judges nations.

In Romans chapter 1, we are taught that God’s judgment begins by the removal of the spiritual force He uses to restrain wayward humanity. This restraining force has been in place since mankind first fell and God’s grace became the only preserving force. This restraint is necessary for fallen humanity to live in a productive, relatively peaceful society. Without this common restraining grace there can be no civilization.

The primary reason revealed in Romans 1 for this judgment is corrupt religion. That is: religion which dishonors God, the Creator. This is why many of our forefathers, and some founding fathers, declared that the United States would continue in liberty only so long as the Christian God is properly honored by the people of the United States. It was not a legalistic system they were promoting, but the recognition and honor due from and given by creatures to their Creator. They were students of history and Romans 1 enough to know the awful resulting judgment upon a population which dishonors the Creator.

Primary judgment comes in the form of dishonor. God, in judgment, withdraws His gracious restraint which results in a substantial number of citizens vigorously engaging in dishonorable behavior. The scriptures say God “gave them up”. That is: He released them into the captivity of dishonor in response to their dishonoring Him. This state of judgment is evidence of rotten religion.

This puts a nation into an insane spiral out of freedom into the cold captivity of reprobation. Corrupt religion points to the dishonorable behavior of fellow citizens and threatens God’s judgment if it isn’t outlawed. But… law will only lead to further judgment, because it is not fundamentally a problem that can be solved by force of law; it is a problem of corrupt religion. And one of the characteristics of corrupt religion is it points to law (human effort) instead of grace (God’s remedy) as the route to divine favor. But this religious humanism looks like the sin fighting, culture changing answer, so it is then given more power, politically and otherwise. And the spiral into judgment continues.

The judgment detailed in Romans 1 comes in the form of more freedom for dishonorable behavior demanded by the citizens, and more license granted by government to engage in these behaviors until the people become uncivilized and thoroughly corrupt. Religious humanists (addressed in Romans 2, 3) call for more laws… and a culture once blessed by grace moves into justice. May God have mercy upon us… sinner and saint alike. God’s mercy in Christ Jesus is our only hope, and it has always been our only hope.