OCTOBER 2011

In this edition . . .

Welcome to this month’s exciting episode of The Eclectic Kasper.

About a week ago, I began writing an article about what the word “cult” means and how this effects the 2012 presidential elections. I am aware that many others have endeavored to do the same, but I think that you will enjoy both the sociological and theological perspective that we bring to the discussion. The article became so long that I decided to split it into two parts, both of which are in this edition (this is just too timely to wait until November for the second half!). So I hope you enjoy our two installments of “Is Mormonism A Cult?”

Also, the October 2011 edition includes an article on creativity in the emergent movement, more “Dimensions of Worship,” weighing in on the semantics of “gay marriage” and the frightening pandemic of infinitive-splitting.

Thanks for taking part in this eclectic journey!

EMERGENT CONCERNS: A Caution About Creativity

Thomas Edison, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Steve Jobs. Creativity and innovation are highly esteemed in our culture. But what's good for the world is not always good for the doctrinal development of the church.

As with the issue of diversity discussed in the August 2011 edition, creativity is rarely esteemed in Scripture as a Christian virtue. Believers who admonish others to “sing a new song” (Ps 33:3; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9; 149:1; Is 42:10) are probably stretching these passages too far by using them as proof-texts for innovation and creativity. Christianity is rather about staying on the “course” (Prov 12:28; Acts 20:24; 2 Tim 4:7, Heb 12:1), as status quo-ish as that may sometimes seem. In Scripture, some are condemned for their use of “strange” or “unauthorized” fire in Levitical worship (Lev 10:1; Num 26:61); this particular form ingenuity in worship was not appreciated. New Testament believers are told to maintain the apostolic tradition and the common faith (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6; Titus 1:4; Jude 1:3). While this may seem boring and unmarketable to many, there is safety in the status quo of Christian orthodoxy. Where innovation and creativity increases, clarity in the communication of truth must increase proportionally, lest the message is obscured by the method.

The creative efforts of Emergents were initially directed toward innovative worship. Kevin Corcoran confirms that the Emergent church movement began with “what can best be described as experiments in worship” (Kevin Corcoran, “Introduction: The Emergent Church,” Church in the Present Tense, p. xii). That seems to me a dangerous place to start. I do appreciate the fact that Emergents place more emphasis on sacred space and ritual and devote more attention to aesthetics as reflected in the Old Testament. However, the movement doesn’t deal with whether or not this attention to sacred space should transfer over to the NT or to what extent it should. There is creativity and diversity that can be very liberating and winsome, and a refreshing change from the tedium that infects most low-church services. However, innovation in worship can also produce a lack of stability and unsettling irregularity. Creativity, especially in the realm of worship, without proper parameters can quickly lead to culturally driven worship at best and heterodoxy and hetropraxy at worst.

Experimentation in the mid 1990’s soon broadened beyond worship as the emergent movement migrated from the British Isles to North America. Corcoran affirms that “the emerging church in the United States was from its inception concerned with rethinking and reimagining Christian theology as well as Christian practice” (Ibid., pp. xii-xiii.). Again, the risk of heterodoxy and hetropraxy is high. Alan Jones, for instance, suggests: “The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it” (Alan Jones, Reimaging Christianity, p. 132, emphasis mine). And, of course, churches who do not embrace the unbridled innovation of the Emergent movement are rebuked: “The wonder is that churches are not in more disarray. . . . They are standing pat, opting to uphold the status quo rather than undergo the upheaval. . . . Postmodern culture is a change-or-be-changed world. The word is out: Reinvent yourself for the 21st century or die” (Leonard Sweet, Soul Tsunami: Sink or Swim in the New Millennium Culture, pp. 74-75). The emergent movement typifies this post-modern value of change for the sake of culture despite the fact that this change may be detrimental to the church and the truths that it champions.

Speaking of Leonard Sweet, he provides a great example of how hyper-creativity completely obscures content. The book The Church in the Emerging Culture (2003) is a compilation of different views regarding the relationship between the contemporary Western church and postmodern culture. I frankly enjoy this dialog kind of approach and would like to see it utilized more in evangelical circles. As editor/ moderator of this discussion, Sweet tasks himself in the introduction of the book with trying to explain the varying approaches of the contributors, from the Reformed professor Michael Horton, to the Eastern Orthodox author Frederica Mathewes-Green to Emergent granddaddy Brian McLaren, and others. Sweet describes the various perspectives of the authors by likening each to the similarities and differences between a glen, a meadow, a garden, and a park. The problem is that probably ninety-five percent of Americans reading the book (and I’m certain that the greatest portion by far of the readership of this book is American) could not begin to identify the differences between a glen, a meadow, a garden and a park. I myself could not, and still cannot, despite Sweet’s attempts to explain the variations of these ecological arena. His use of creativity completely conceals the point that he is trying to make, and comes off as snobbish rather than helpful. An Amazon.com critique of the book summarized Sweet’s introduction by suggesting that it was “babbl[ing] on for a while with tortured metaphors and flowery language that reveals a certain paralyzing intellectual insecurity.” When the creative metaphor is even more incomprehensible than the content, it merely obscures the content. In fact, Sweet’s obsession with this metaphor so overpowers his argument that he oddly asks, “What if Christianity needs multiple ecosystems as much as it needs multiple Gospels?” (p. 18).

In another example from Sweet, he works so hard to be creative that he sounds more akin to universalism and the new age movement than to historic orthodox Christianity:

“Spirituality refers first of all to the universal gift of aliveness that exists within all religions and outside of religions. It breathes out the air that ‘inspires.’ Those who have been in-spired with aliveness by the kiss of God will ‘con-spire’ to kiss others into coming alive to the spiritual dimensions of existence. ‘In-spire’ means to breathe in. ‘Con-spire’ means to breathe together. ‘Conspiracy’ enters by the same door as ‘spirituality.’ A world gagging on smog and smut needs a breath of fresh air. The New Light movement begins as a fresh air conspiracy of ‘aliveness.’ But it is more than that. Spiritual consciousness can be something greater than aesthetics or aliveness. The Bible tells us that the human species has been twice kissed by the divine” (Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality, p. 298).

Yes . . . you’re right . . . I don’t know what on earth he’s talking about either. Whatever point he is trying to make is completely obscured by his “innovative” infusion of new age language and tortured etymology.

Leonard Sweet can keep his creativity; at the risk of being slightly boring, I’ll stick with Biblical Christianity!

POLITICS: Is Mormonism A Cult? Part 1: Cultural and Sociological Definitions

The word “cult” is frequently misused and misunderstood and has resurfaced recently in relationship to Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Thus it is imperative to understand what the term means and how it can convey either positive, neutral, or negative connotations depending on the context in which it is applied.

The pop culture use of the word “cult” usually carries a positive connotation. When a show or movie is called a “cult hit,” the word bestows a sense of credibility. It suggests that though the show or movie may not have performed as well according to conventional media standards, it was hailed and praised by a small but highly devoted following. I think that three factors work in concert to determine whether something is a cult hit: a relatively small fan base, an uncharacteristically enthusiastic fan base, and a relatively small amount of material. For instance, Star Wars or Star Trek would not be considered cult hits. These franchises contain a large amount of material, such as numerous movies, TV shows and novels, and the size of the fan base also precludes them from being cult hits. Examples of cult hits with a small but enthusiastic fan base include Rocky Horror Picture Show, Blade Runner, or our own beloved Firefly. Again, in these instances, the term “cult hit” usually carries a positive connotation that bespeaks admiration for the show or movie.

In addition to the cultural use of the word, there are also sociological factors that determine if a religious or philosophical movement is mainstream or if it is a cult. Some of these factors are explained using neutral terminology, as they should be, but some depart into unnecessarily negative language. An oft utilized definition of a cult is one by American sociologist James T. Richardson formulated in 1978: “A cult is usually defined as a small informal group lacking a definite authority structure, somewhat spontaneous in its development (although often possessing a somewhat charismatic leader or group of leaders), transitory, somewhat mystical and individualistically oriented, and deriving its inspiration and ideology from outside the predominant religious culture” (James Richardson, “An Oppositional and General Conceptualization of Cult,” Annual Review of the Social Sciences of Religion, vol. 2, 1978; p. 31). I would disagree with his assessment that cults typically lack “definite authority structure” because I rather believe that cults are very authority driven and can have a small but tight hierarchy. Also, I disagree that cults are “transitory” and I think that the size and structure of an organization speaks more to its sociological status as a cult than does its duration. Either way, these are not pejorative or subjective considerations but rather neutral explanations.

From a sociological standpoint, I prefer the criteria laid out by historian Robert Ellwood where he says that a cult,

1) is a group that “presents a distinct alternative to dominant patterns within the society in fundamental areas of religious life,”

2) is relatively small with distinctive belief and practice,

3) possesses “strong authoritarian and charismatic leadership,”

4) is “separatist in that it strives to maintain distinct boundaries between it and the ‘outside,’ ” and it requires “a high degree of conformity and commitment,”

5) has a tendency “to see itself as legitimated by a long tradition of wisdom or practice of which it is the current manifestation”

(Ellwood, “Several Meanings of Cult,” Thought 61 [June 1986]: 218-224). Again, I resonate with these criteria more, but the broader point here is that these are neutral assessments of cult tendencies that do not intend to be condemnatory nor pejorative.

An example of sociologists loading their definition of cult with too many negative connotations is provided by Robbins and Anthony, who claim that “certain manipulative and authoritarian groups which allegedly employ mind control and pose a threat to mental health are universally labeled cults. These groups are usually: (1) authoritarian in their leadership; (2) communal and totalistic in their organization; (3) aggressive in their proselytizing; (4) systematic in their programs of indoctrination; (5) relatively new and unfamiliar in the United States; and (6) middle class in their clientele” (T. Robbins and D. Anthony, “Deprogramming, Brainwashing and the Medicalization of Deviant Religious Groups,” Social Problems, 29, 1982, p. 283). Robbins and Anthony's use of phrases like “manipulative,” “mind-control,” “aggressive” and “indoctrination” catapults the discussion of cult in an unnecessarily negative direction, and I think sociologists should strive to utilize more objective criteria. On the other hand, it does make one wonder if the word “cult” can be completely stripped of negative associations, or if negative factors are inherent to the word itself.

We have seen definitions of a cult from both a cultural and a sociological perspective, and with both positive, neutral, and negative connotations. In the second installment of this study (later in this same edition of The Eclectic Kasper), we will consider theological criteria for the word and we will make some implications for the current discussions regarding Mormonism and the 2012 election.

Pictured above is the Salt Lake Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah.

CHRISTIAN ETHICS: The Wedlock Debate – We’ve Lost the Semantic Battle

By Guest Writer (and My Lovely Wife!) Martha Kasper

Although the war rages on, Christians have lost the semantic battle when it comes to the “same-sex marriage” debate. How quickly we have forgotten that just a few years back evangelicals would shrink from juxtaposing those three words in the same sentence! Now they are common terms on the radio, at the water cooler and on our own lips. The debate used to be whether we would call such a partnering a “civil union” or a “marriage” but alas, the battle is adrift. The terms “homosexual marriage,” “gay marriage” and “same-sex marriage” have crept into our vocabulary. It is stunning to hear Christians use the secular media terminology, parroting terms which undermine our foundational beliefs, mixing the perverse with the consecrated. Isn’t “homosexual marriage” in effect an oxymoron? Instead of reserving “marriage” for the special relationship between a male husband and female wife, our culture has stretched it beyond reasonable meaning, cheapening the very building block of civilization. I’m afraid the battle over proper terminology has been decided and evangelicals have lost much ground.

The secularists have succeeded in searing our collective conscience. Some may call it the change of culture, some may say we are desensitized . . . I call it a failure. It may be just an ideological battle, but we have caved. In the first decade of this millennium, the debate was couched in terms of “civil unions” a rather blanket term which referred to same gender couples hooking up and pretending (on paper and for their legal and health care benefits) to masquerade as married folk. But now the conscious of the American people has been coached by the media into using the term “homosexual marriage.” It is a union, not a marriage, but through repetition, we are collectively forced to think that it is a marriage. When was the last time you heard it described as what it is: a “same sex union” or a “civil union”?

The institution of marriage has not changed. It is a unique relationship, created and blessed by God for union between one male and one female, for companionship, mutual satisfaction and procreation.

Webster’s dictionary, at least for now, defines marriage as “the mutual relationship between husband and wife” and “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.” Founding a family is a biological impossibility with homosexuality. (However, adoption by homosexuals is on the rise and this disturbing trend raises the gender confusion of the next generation to epic proportions. God have mercy on our cultural mess!)

Homosexuality, by its basic definition disqualifies itself from using the term “marriage” because it includes two biologically incompatible people. If we accept the opinion that homosexual couples can become “married” then by this same thinking, are we ready to accept that three people can constitute a marriage? Or why not a “marriage” between two women, and . . . a squirrel?

I believe the essential issue is this: Do we have the right to redefine marriage to be something it has never been? If I park a bicycle in my garage, does that make it a car? If I start calling my computer a toaster, will that make it now function as a toaster?

Too often emotions ignite this debate and Christians become side-tracked by issues like whether homosexuals can have loving relationships, whether they can love children or even if they are good citizens. They can do and be all of these things, however, by essential definition they cannot not be “married.” Homosexuality intrinsically does not fit the basic recipe for marriage: male and female.

However, any linguist worth his salt would argue that words have meaning but those meanings change with time. Therefore the implication is that as culture changes, we can stretch, modify or downright change our words to mean something else. My own linguistics professor in college drilled that concept into his bewildered students: “Language changes!” he would shout in nearly every class. But here’s the rub: as people of the WORD (The Holy Bible) we have to ground our meaning in biblical truth-- words whose meaning never change but are eternal, trustworthy and not culturally bound.

Such is the tight-rope challenge of our day, communicating to a YouTube saturated generation-- whose attention span is the nanosecond of a mouse click-- that words have meaning that pre-date our personal preferences. This generation has learned to think with its feelings and does not recognize that some words have inherent meanings that have no regard for personal opinion or public dispute. Essentially this semantic debate is a debate of worldviews. Who is the author of marriage? Is marriage a man-made arrangement that is open to change? Or did it begin back in a garden by a creative God who made man and woman for a special relationship?

It is the siren wail of this modern generation which challenges authority with a raised eyebrow and serpent-like glee inquiring, “Did God really say . . . ?” (Gen 3:1). Like Eve, the target for Satan’s attacks is established truth. If Satan can only get us to doubt, to question God’s goodness . . . then everything is open to debate, including what constitutes a marriage. Did God really author and design marriage? The answer, whether we believe it or not, is a resounding “yes.” Therefore He defines the parameters of marriage.

So, a closing challenge. The next time you hear someone say “homosexual marriage” or “gay marriage” either on TV, at work or at church, correct them by stating politely that it is rather a “civil union.” The war on language continues and although we are not winning, we are not without hope.

OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD: To Boldly Go Splitting My Infinitives

I have more than once been corrected on my propensity to boldly split infinitives. This article is a tirade against those who tirade against split infinitives. For some it’s a mere academic pet peeve. For others, their cause against split infinitives is more akin to a global jihad. To all such folk, I have two things to say: “Bah” and “Humbug.” Or perhaps, “To boldly Bah Humbug.” OK, I’ll spell this out a more. First of all, the very idea of a two-word infinitive is an illusion. I have studied several languages, both Western and Eastern, and I do not know of any other language that has a two-word infinitive that is split-able. German and Spanish, for instance, have a distinct single-word infinitival form as opposed to a present tense form or participial form. But the infinitive is just one word. Chinese, which is notoriously difficult to learn, does not even have distinctive verbal forms. The tense or mood (an infinitive is closer to a “mood” than a “tense”) of a verb is understood from the context. I eat, I ate, I will eat and the infinitive to eat are all the character that we transliterate, chī. So, even though attempting to learn the twelve zillion characters that make up the Chinese language is nearly impossible, the grammar itself, seems relatively easy (of course, I have a lot more Chinese to learn, and the verdict on the ease of Chinese grammar is still out!).

Which brings me to the second item that I want to mention to all anti-split-infinitivalists: Relax! Take a deep breath. Get a hobby. Get a life! Don’t get all bent out of shape over . . . well . . . shape! The world has pandemic diseases and endemic disasters. The occasional split infinitive is probably among the least of our problems. I am pretty sure that the human race will withstand this particular bane to our existence. After all, Western Civilization has endured tyrants, economic crises, famines, and Bette Midler. I think that we can survive some split infinitives here and there. But until the time when Homeland Security considers them to sufficiently be a national crisis, then I intend to boldly and frequently pepper the world with split infinitives.

DIMENSIONS OF WORSHIP: Part 3, Worship is For God and For Man

It is perhaps preferable to understand worship not with a precise Biblical definition, but as a multi-dimensional activity that strives for balance between extremes on a variety of Biblical continuum. Last month we argued that worship must be both theocentric and Christocentric. That is, there must be balanced attention given to praise directed to the Father as well as to the Son. To ignore one or the other in our regular diet of Sunday morning worship is to risk sliding into practical Unitarianism or modalism.

As argued previously, worship is valid only when it is directed to the one true God, either the person of the Father or of the Son. The participants of the worshipping community, however, are also the beneficiaries (though not recipients!) of worship, and the praise of a local parish has a character- forming effect on the parishioners. So perhaps, we could clarify the title of this article by suggesting that worship is always and exclusively directed toward God, but even though it is primarily for God’s benefit and glory, the worshipers benefit from worship as well (of course, that would make for an awkwardly long article title!).

In fact, it is difficult to escape the man-ward function of edification that is often assigned to the corporate gathering of believers in the NT (Acts 2:42-47; 1 Cor 14:26; Heb 10:23-25). Similarly, Paul suggests that the use of music in the corporate settings is for the purpose of edification (Eph 5:18-19; Col 3:16; see also Deut 31:30 - 32:47). Paul seems to demonstrate this method of exhortation via song lyrics as he utilizes texts that were probably taken from the early church’s liturgy to instruct one of his protégés (1 Tim 1:15; 3:16; 2 Tim 2:11-13).

Thus, the adoration of God and the education of man are not mutually exclusive concepts. “The glorification of God and the edification of the saints occur concurrently. Worship music functions as an integral part of the teaching ministry. Pulpit preaching has greater power to explain the text logically, but music has greater power to inculcate the text, to take the text more profoundly into other parts of the hearer’s being” (Leonard Payton, “How Shall We Sing to God?” The Coming Evangelical Crisis, John H. Armstrong, ed. [Chicago: Moody Press, 1996], 192). Discussing the worship of the primitive church, Sharon Clark Pearson suggests, “The songs of the early church performed the vital service of defining what was specifically Christian. They became the center for Christian worship and then they became the foundation for instruction that was incorporated into the New Testament” (Sharon Clark Pearson, “Sacred Songs/ Sacred Service,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 32 [2], Fall 1997, p. 17).

This is why the substance and content of what we sing on Sunday mornings is so important. While the songs of our worship are directed toward God, they have an educational and character-forming function for believers. A few hymns are, unfortunately, little more than sentimental drivel, and many modern “praise choruses” are ecclesiastical placebos. However, on the whole, hymn text authors were more conscientious about portraying the substance of the Christian faith than contemporary worship texts seem to be. The chart below compares the difference between the content of hymns vs. praise choruses like we did last time with Christology. The statistics from the contemporary worship music (“CWM”) books are compiled from popular praise chorus volumes put out by three different publishers. The statistics regarding hymns are from three denominational hymnals which were published before the 1970s, and thus, they do not contain any praise choruses. Like last month, this chart reflects what percent of songs in the CWM books or hymnals mention or refer to the word or concept in the column on the far left:

We can readily see the difference: hymns mention faith and grace three times more often than CWM songs. Hymnals address sin and pardon four times more frequently than their contemporary counterparts. The cross, the Trinity, or the afterlife for believers are mentioned six to seven times more often in hymnody than in the praise chorus corpora. This does not mean that hymns are inherently better than praise choruses, but it does reflect a greater measure of attention to substance on the part of hymn text authors relative to CWM authors. There is grave danger that the substance of our faith is slowly draining from the songs of our worship.

A local congregation of believers is shaped by the quality of the texts and music used in its services. The use of music in worship “can either facilitate healthy character development, or accentuate and promote ungodly ideas and patterns of behavior” (Peter E. Roussaki, “The Significance of Music in Worship,” Journal of the American Academy of Ministry, vol. 2, no. 1 [Summer 1993], p. 40.). However, not only are the Godward and manward elements mutually inclusive, but they are also mutually dependant. “Worship is both for the glorification of God and the sanctification of persons, but it can only aid the latter if its focus is on the former” (Henry H. Knight III, “Worship and Sanctification,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 3 2[2], Fall 1997, p. 12.). In both cases, the crux of the issue is the quality of content of the song texts being employed and their ability to effectively and fully communicate the truths of the faith: God is glorified by truth (Mal 2:5-6; John 4:23-24) and believers are sanctified and purified by truth (John 17:17-19; 1 Peter 1:22). Both purposes are related to the quality of truth that is being sung and proclaimed.

POLITICS: Is Mormonism A Cult? Part 2: Theological Definitions and Assessment

We have previously discussed cultural and sociological explanations that lie beneath the concept of "cult." We now turn to a theological definition of cult and then we will assess Mormonism and discuss and implications for our current political context.

Responsible faith systems must have basic theological standards for identifying whether a sectarian group is a cult or not. These standards need not be negative nor derisive but merely analytical. Anthony A. Hoekema’s 1963 book The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, pp. 53-54), lists five common characteristics of a cult from a Protestant theological perspective. Hoekema asserts that, typically:

1) cults have an extra-scriptural source of authority (that is, an authoritative document or book that is on par with or supersedes the authority of the Bible),

2) cults deny justification by grace alone,

3) cults devalue Christ’s person and work,

4) cults consider themselves to be the exclusive community of the saved,

5) cults consider that they have a central role in eschatology.

These criteria are not condescending, but rather they force us to evaluate religious groups using essential doctrines and practices that have defined Christianity for almost two millennia.

So let’s consider Mormonism first through Ellwood's sociological grid and then through Hoekema's theological criteria.

According to Ellwood’s sociological factors, Mormonism really doesn’t fit the definition of cult. To Ellwood’s first criterion (that a cult “presents a distinct alternative to dominant patterns within the society in fundamental areas of religious life”), Mormonism doesn't fit that category because it shares values with many other religious individuals in society, including evangelicals and Catholics. Second, speaking to a cult's size, Mormonism is relatively large at about 12-14 million worldwide. For comparison’s sake, there are about 14 million that practice Judaism around the globe, about 7 million Baha’i, 4 million Shinto (Japanese spirituality), and about one million Hare Krishnas. Relative to size, Mormonism also has its own internal structure of sects, offshoots, and denominations – one usually doesn’t think of a cult as having “denominations.” This prompts me to believe that, from a sociological and organizational standpoint, Mormonism has outgrown its cult status.

To Elwood’s third point I am not aware that Mormonism currently has “strong authoritarian and charismatic leadership,” or else it wouldn’t be so fragmented. I think that this particular characteristic points to someone more along the lines of a Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Marshall Applewhite. Regarding the fourth point, I don’t think that Mormonism is (or could be!) much more separatistic or exclusivistic than some segments of mainstream Christianity are (for better or for worse). And, as with the fourth point, also with the fifth point: I don’t think that Mormonism sees itself as “legitimated by a long tradition of wisdom or practice” anymore than do many segments of Christianity. So, by sociological definitions, I would say definitively that Mormonism is not a cult. In fact, I would be far more inclined to grant Mormonism full world religion status, especially since its size and organizational complexity rivals that of Judaism, Jainism, Shintoism and Baha’i.

Relative to the theological definition provided by Hoekema, on the other hand, one would definitely have to categorize Mormonism as a cult (though, note my qualification to this in the next paragraph). Mormonism has extra-scriptural sources of authority, namely The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Ultimately, it does not accept an evangelical understanding of justification by God’s grace and mercy (Acts 15:11; Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3). And Mormonism denies the full deity of Christ (and the related concept of the Trinity) and aligns itself more closely to certain heresies that plagued the early church. On Hoekema's last two criteria, I only offer speculation (and would be grateful for any informed input from any of our readers on these points). I assume that Mormons see themselves as an exclusive community of the saved. I frankly don’t know much about Mormon eschatology, except for the oft cited, but probably misunderstood, Mormon concept that people can ascend to the status of a deity. However, the fact of Mormonism’s denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, and the denial of the Trinity and the full deity of Christ clearly puts Mormonism outside of the bounds of Biblical Christianity.

But allow me a qualification when it comes to the terms that are used to describe Mormonism: I may prefer to see that Mormonism is not just a cult, but rather a full-fledged world religion that has only minimal connection with true Christianity. Just because Mormonism speaks well of Christ doesn’t make them Christian. The New Age movement affirms a “cosmic Christ” and Islam views Christ as a great prophet (the Quran even affirms the resurrection of Christ in Surahs 4:158 and 19:33-34!). But just talking well about Christ doesn't make a religious movement Christian.

The bottom line is, What do people mean when they say “cult”? If we are discussing Mormonism from a sociological perspective, then I believe that Mormonism has grown beyond a cult into a full-fledged independent religion. If, however, we are referring to objective theological criteria from an evangelical perspective, then we can clearly suggest that Mormonism is either a cult or simply a completely different religion from Christianity that just happens to utilize some of the same lingo and characters. Thus, I believe that Pastor Robert Jeffress, who introduced Rick Perry on October 7, 2011 at the Values Voter Summit in Washington can rightly say from a theological perspective that Mormonism is a cult. But politician Rick Perry, who is not a theologian and would be more likely to speak from a sociological perspective, can rightly claim that Mormonism is not a cult. This just reflects how important it is to specify in context what we mean when we say something is or is not a cult.

Also, when an evangelical refers to Mormonism as a cult from a theological perspective, that is not a pejorative statement of emotion, judgment, nor condemnation. Rather, it is a statement of simple and responsible evaluation based on the essential doctrines and practices of our faith. I don’t hate Mormons; in fact, I had some Mormon friends growing up, and in general, I have found Mormons to be some of the nicest people in the world! The evangelical definition of a cult is purely evaluative and no more condemning than evaluating a dachshund and determining that he is not a golden retriever.

So, two implications here: the first is, two of the eight people running for the Republican nomination are Mormon: Mitt Romney and John Huntsman (former governor of Utah!). Can an evangelical vote for an individual who, based on theological considerations, is a member of either a cult or a totally separate religion? On the other hand, we’re not electing a theologian or a pastor, but rather a political and economic leader. Perhaps we can still vote for an individual for president, despite their religious affiliation, who has conservative values that reflect our own and who possesses sufficient private and public sector experience to be worthy of the role. And can we at least admit that Mitt Romney, who I believe to be deluded by the cult of Joseph Smith, would be a far better leader than the current President, who seems to be deluded by a cult to himself?

Secondly, Mitt, don’t demonize those who assert from a theological perspective that Mormonism is a cult. Mormons may refer to themselves as whatever they want (cult or religion), but according to the above theological criteria, as well as many other theological definitions (such as the Nicene Creed), they simply cannot refer to themselves as Biblical Christians. Mormonism’s own beliefs prohibit them from living under that tent. That’s not a condemnation, but simply, a theological fact.

YOUR FEEDBACK: More Eclectic Questions

Note: Since this was written the “Eclectic Questions” and “discussions tab” functionality has been removed from Facebook pages (drat you, Facebook!). Anyway, we don't have these questions listed anymore like we used to, but if you want to sound off on any of these issues feel free to simply post your reply on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page.

We have several new “Eclectic Questions” on our The Eclectic Kasper Facebook page. These have not had much traffic, so we would to encourage you to chime in on some of these discussions.

Last week we asked if the Occupy Movement is Occupying Wall Street Or Just Wasting Time? Do you resonate with their concerns? Do you agree with their tone and their methods?

Also, in light of our two articles on Mormonism in this edition, we simply ask, Is Mormonism A Cult? Are you swayed by either the sociological or theological definitions of “cult?” Would you consider Mormonism a legitimate expression of Christianity, a Christian cult, or a full-fledged independent religion?

Additionally, we want to stir up the pot on the worship issue. We are in the middle of a series on the “Dimensions of Worship,” so we want to know, Which is Better: Hymns or Praise Choruses? Its an open-ended question, and we would love to get your input!

And, as always, feel free to send any other thoughts, questions, criticisms or accolades to feedback@eclectickasper.com. We really appreciate your kind feedback and enjoy the chance to interact with you over a variety of issues!