The Most Ridiculous Story of the Week award goes to the controversy over Dallas evangelical pastor and Perry supporter, Robert Jeffress, calling the Mormons a 'cult'. Where is the story? There is nothing new about this evangelical view of Mormons, Perry (and others) didn't even bother to take the bait, and the comment was actually made by Jeffress in a private interview with journalists. Even stranger, the story keeps rolling through the GOP race like a clap of divine revelation - despite the lack of further fire and brimstone. It must have been a really slow news weekend!
The word 'cult' has a whole pile of meanings in most dictionaries, but Jeffress chose to use the most common theological definition. A cult , by this standard, is simply a religion that follows a person - in this case Joseph Smith - not a divine figure. It is a view shared by his Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant denomination in the world) and most other born again evangelicals. It is a little bit like the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter. Terrorists are nasty and evil - unless they are fighting to kick Satan out of your backyard! The word 'cult' has much the same quality. If you don't accept that Christ was divine - then Jeffress is the one involved in a cult. If you do accept Christ's unique divinity - then Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Islam, and most other faiths all become 'cults'. It all depends on your a priori beliefs. Jeffress at least gave a very clear definition, too bad no one was listening!
The media still can't seem to leave this issue alone, probably because 'cult' has come to have quite a different meaning in secular society. While reporters don't even attempt to define their words, they are clearly talking about things like Satanists, Waco, and Jonestown - all cases that might not even meet the theological definition since the devil is hardly human and Karesh and Jones only claimed to be 'prophets'. The point of the whole media reaction is that 'cult' is a very negative indictment. Yet, Jeffress admits that he would vote for Romney over Obama - claiming it is better to vote for a man that follows some biblical principles than a Godless liberal democrat. Not so negative after all, perhaps?
Still, the stupidest part of this whole farce is the idea that Jeffress' comments somehow cross the line between church and state. Really? The separation of church and state is all about the relation between the elected government and the people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring to elect a politician that represents your views - or faith! How many Mormons won't back Romney or Huntsman? How many pro-choice advocates would vote for a conservative evangelical - even if he/she was otherwise the most competent candidate? Voting is all about finding someone who mirrors your views, and if you go to Jeffress' church that is likely to be Rick Perry, or maybe Michele Bachmann.
The 'thought police' have had a busy weekend with this story and, as usual, they seem to have got lost in the semantics. A good case in point is the Gay marriage debate. I believe that most people in this country would gladly allow Gay unions with full legal rights, but a lot of people still get hung up on their demand to co-op the word 'marriage' - which is still a religious sacrament to many.
We may actually manage to tone down most of the right-left rhetoric if we could all manage to agree about the meaning of all those too often meaningless words we utter. Jeffress at least led with his definition - that is more than I can say for the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment