So declares a court in Arkansas. Well this might come as a shock to some, but orthodox Christians have never considered Mormonism Christianity since it fails to understand the core doctrine of Christianity, Christology, in an orthodox manner. A newspaper out there offers this bit:
Joel Mark Rownak and Lisa Monette Rownak agreed in their 2005 divorce to raise their children “in the Protestant faith.” The decree bars them from promoting another religion without the other’s consent. In May 2007, Benton County Circuit Judge John R. Scott found Joel Rownak in contempt of that decree based on evidence that Rownak had “candidly acknowledged” promoting the Mormon faith to his sons. Rownak led his sons in Scripture reading and daily prayer, involved one son in Boy Scouts at a local Mormon church and had one son baptized at the church, according to an opinion written by Judge Sam Bird and agreed to by Judges John Robbins and Robert J. Gladwin.
What I find so amazing here isn’t the Judge’s decision (that Mormonism isn’t Christianity)- but the fact that the Judge offered a theological opinion and he just isn’t qualified to do that. Whether or not Mormonism is a branch of Christianity is a decision to be made by theologians, not judges. This judge overstepped his bounds.
Judge Bird, you have acted inappropriately. With thanks to Antonio for pointing this story out.
Jim,
The judge was acting within the confines of consent degree that stipulated the children would be raised in the “Protestant faith.” In the hearing, the father himself said that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latterday Saints wasn’t a “Protestant faith.” So the Judge didn’t need a theologian. All he needed was the testimony of the father himself to reach his decision. Had the father claimed that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latterday Saints was a “Protestant faith” by his understanding, the judge might have had a problem and might have been out of line with his ruling without expert evidence. But here he acted on evidence presented by the father himself.
The question of 1st amendment rights is likely not relevant here either. While I am far from an expert in this area, if the father signed a consent decree with the stipulation that he would raise the children “in the Protestant faith” than he may have given up any 1st amendment rights he might have had with regard to his children.
By: Duane on October 10, 2008
at 3:04 pm
What is considered Christian depends on what one thinks defines Christian faith. Orthodoxy doesn’t affirm Mormonism. But, orthodoxy is a philosophical “truth” of understanding Christian faith. Tradition is not science, but an art. Science, at the same time, has wrought “havoc” (in some people’s minds) on what Christian faith should be about…and some think that a grounded scientific ‘faith” sould define Christian faith. I think this is reasonable, as any other kind of faith is superstition. And Mormonism and some brands of Christian faith are just superstitious.
While orthodoxy is understanding theology through philosophy, some think that Chirstian faith is about orthopraxy. If one defines Christian faith on behavior, then Mormonism is moral and is within the realm of Christian orthopraxy.
So Chirstian faith can be defined by behavior or belief.
By: Angie Van De Merwe on October 10, 2008
at 4:31 pm
Oops, one forgets that Mormonism used to adhere to polygomy, which in some instances is still practiced. But, then, polygomy was practiced in biblical times…so…some wouldn’t agree that Mormonism in the traditional sense could be considered “Christian”…
this couple’s dilemmas stems from training children in certain belief systmes, and defining what the “Protestant Christian faith” is about..and it seems that if the father did understand the definition of the terms, which might be hard to prove, then it doesn’t “hold water”….
By: Angie Van De Merwe on October 10, 2008
at 5:29 pm
Jim you said “Whether or not Mormonism is a branch of Christianity is a decision to be made by theologians, not judges”. It doesn’t take any theological ability to see that Mormonism isn’t Christianity. Would you object if the judge had said that Islam, or Hinduism, or Wicca, or a host of other religions are not Christianity? This isn’t a matter of theology, it is just plain common sense.
By: Matthew Hamilton on October 12, 2008
at 5:48 pm