Orthopraxis vs. orthodoxy in Mormonism

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

In the session for the Marginal Christianity, we had a special lecture on Mormonism by Mathew Bowman. In a succinct summary fashion, he gave us impressive information on Mormon history during the last century, which consisted of several themes, such as Mormon sacraments, priesthood and global presence of the Mormon Church. Bowman depicted 1890 as the pivotal year for the Mormon Church because they renounced polygamy officially. Six years later, Utah was regarded as the promised land for Mormonism and was admitted to the United States. Since then, Mormonism has been developed as one of world religions, thereby, one can see Mormon presence in the countries other than the United States. The interesting point he made is that Mormonism is a religion of “orthopraxis” rather than “orthodoxy” unlike traditional Christianity. Accordingly, he stated, theological discipline is not indispensable for being a priest in the Mormon tradition.

The lecture was interesting for us because most of us had little chances to hear about Marginal Christianity, especially about Mormonism. At the same time it was very strange and odd for us because we are unfamiliar with it. In this respect, the first reaction came from our discussion group was to ask the Christian identity of Mormonism. One tackled the category in the Atlas of Global Christianity because it categories the Latter Day Saints (Mormonism), Jehovah’s Witness, and Unification Church as Marginal Christianity. From his point of view, it is controversial whether they can be called Christian. Another member supported this idea that Bowman covered history of Latter Day Saints but did not talk about what they believe. Arguing that Bowman kept it to how Mormonism came about, one of our members made a point that in terms of religious freedom Mormonism is a good religion, but in terms of Trinitarian Christian beliefs they cannot be accepted under this label. As our discussion went on, we tend to think there is some difference between major denominations and marginal Christians that are based on theological concepts but Mormons focus more on the pious life (orthopraxis). Admittedly, we respect them in terms of morality and religious piety.

On the question whether diversity of marginal Christians hinders or contributes to the development of the global church, we agreed that it depends on which "marginal" it is referring to. That is because the marginal group is not the one body but the collective of several different faiths. Among them, there might be a religion that seems to never contribute to society, e.g. the Unification Church in Korean and Japanese society. On the other hand, one pointed out that regardless, their missionary focus and aggressive outreach strategy would contribute to their growth.

Gun Cheol Kim, discussion moderator

Considering Mormonism

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

On October 20th, we had a guest speaker, Dr. Matthew Bowman who presented the history of Mormonism and its international mission.

After the lecture, our group members shared our reflections: First, one student raised a question over the relevance of calling Mormon as marginal Christians. She said that Mormons have such different beliefs than ‘orthodox’ Christians. Apart from including familiar Biblical characters, their core beliefs are radically different from the basic tenets of the non-“marginal” Christian traditions. Thus, she asked, “is it not better, then, to define them as a “new religion,” rather than attempting a connection with Christianity?”

To her question, one student pointed out that we should know how Mormons view other Christians. If they think that Orthodox Christians are their targets for converting, then it is hard to call them Christians. In other words, if Mormonism considers itself the only path to salvation neglecting other Christian body, then we can call them new religion not Christians. In addition, we should know how they identify themselves. Do they call Christians or not? According to him, he rarely heard that Mormons call themselves as I’m a “Christian.” They would qualify: I’m a Mormon. Another student also suggested that we should think of a better term than grouping Mormonism under the title of “marginal” Christian groups.

After sharing the general reflection, I asked to our members whether their views of Mormonism changed after the lecture. Interestingly, all the group members agreed that our knowledge about the history of Mormonism is upgraded, but they told me that their basic views on Mormonism did not change that much. They remain reluctant to accept Mormonism’s argument.

Then, we turned to the question how does Mormonism’s spread affected the development of Global Christianity. To that question, one student thought that it hinders strength of “orthodox” Christians. And another student said that Mormonism allows for a new opportunity for reevaluation of how “orthodox” defines themselves in their relations to other faiths, how they will define themselves publicly in an understandable way to those outside the faith. But it is also a chance to practice showing “love.” To his opinion, all of us agreed.

For the remaining time, we talked about other marginal Christian group, Jehovah’s witness. Particularly, we talked about the persecution against Jehovah’s witness for their refusing to participate in the mandatory military service. Many of us were surprised because Korean government throws everyone who refused to do the military service behind bars. And we also heard from Korean students that there is ongoing debate whether Korean government should allow them to do some alternative service rather than military training.

Hye Jin Lee, discussion moderator

Mormonism in South Korea and India

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

In our October 20 class session we were privileged to have an informative and energetic presentation on “Mormonism as a Global Religion” by Matthew Bowman. After a brief introduction to the history of the movement and its subsequent accommodation to American culture in the late 19th century, he addressed its progress in the 20th century. A dedication to evangelism, the extension of the priesthood to people of African decent, and the standardization of worship and practice around the world have resulted in a large increase in the movement outside of North America. But that very standardization has also meant that Mormonism has not been contextualized in local cultures as have been some of the other Christian movements. In the long term that might hinder its growth as people look for religious experiences that make sense in their own local contexts.

In our discussion group we shared perspectives on the Latter-day Saints tradition from our different contexts. We had one person from the U.S., one from South Korea, and one from India. None of us had been familiar with the development of the movement as our lecturer outlined it, so it was good to learn of the issues that Mormonism has faced and its unique leadership structure. Our Korean member shared that Mormon churches have not grown significantly in his region, but another group from the Marginal category, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, has experienced significant growth. He said that in Korea Latter-day Saints do not use the aggressive evangelization techniques that are more common among Evangelicals in the country. Our Indian member shared that in his region neither group has been successful at attracting large numbers of participants.

Despite their small numbers in Asia, worldwide Latter-day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses together make up 92% of the Christians in the category of Marginal Christians (according to the Atlas of Global Christianity). Why are they so much more numerous than other marginal groups? One of our members suggested two reasons: an emphasis on mission/evangelism and the strong piety practiced in the two traditions. We agreed that that made sense. Significant attention to attracting new members would seem to be an important growth factor. As both traditions seem to have a reputation for strong piety among the laity, they likely attract people from other traditions in which the zeal for the faith has lapsed or where piety among the laity is no longer evident.

With the emphasis on lay leadership at the ward level, we wondered to what extent there might be a mistrust of theological education in the Latter-day Saints tradition. If so, what were the influences that might have caused that?

Bruce Yoder, discussion moderator

Definition of a Christian?

Editor’s note: The following post arises from small group reflections from The Rise of Global Christianity, 1910–2010, taught by Dr. Todd Johnson at Boston University in the Fall of 2010. Led by doctoral students, the small groups discussed lectures given by Christian scholars in various disciplines, including significant changes that have occurred in global Christianity over the past 100 years.

On October 20th, Matthew Bowman spoke about the history of Mormonism, particularly over the last 100 years. It was an outstanding tour through the major shifts within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it has grappled with becoming an international church. After he left, our group gathered together, and began to ask questions about Marginal Christianity, those groups identified in the Atlas as “Christian,” but somehow distinct from the rest of the Body of Christ.

What makes a group marginal? The first person to respond pointed out that a charismatic leader frequently starts marginal groups, and their organizations often reflect and help to enforce the supremacy of the founder. While we recognized the truth in that statement, it was not entirely satisfying. Further suggestions that marginal groups have departed from Trinitarian theology, or that they change the meaning of common Christian language were helpful additions that illuminated other traits of marginal groups. Nevertheless, one could ask, tongue in cheek, whether or not Jesus was a marginal Christian. Was he not a charismatic figure? Does not his organization exalt him as supreme? Was not his preaching rather weak on Trinitarian doctrine? Was not Jesus infusing new meaning into common religious language?

One student interjected, “All those who identify themselves with Christ are Christian. Who am I,” he asked, “to judge whether they are truly Christian or not?” And yet…

And yet, no one was content to leave the matter there. The same student who was willing to apply the term Christian to anyone associated with Christ, found it difficult to embrace Mormons as truly Christian. A student from Korea, likewise, felt that Moonies should not be counted in the Atlas of Global Christianity because the claims of Rev. Moon diverged so widely from Scripture and Christian tradition.

While everyone seemed anxious to demonstrate what one student called, “a changed attitude,” and be willing to embrace a wide range of Christian beliefs, in the end no one was completely comfortable with an unlimited open-endedness. There must be a line somewhere, some traits that marks a person as “in” or “out” of Christianity.

As the conversation wound down, exhausted by its inability to solve the problem, a new question was introduced: How would marginal Christians have written the Atlas? How many of us, in this group, would have been counted as Christians? Time expired before we could answer, but the question posed—in a different form—the troubling issue of how Christianity is defined, and who gets to define it.

Daryl Ireland, discussion moderator