Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Creed Screed Edition)

Bryan Fischer, sir, you are the gift that keeps giving for providing the fodder for blog posts. On your radio show Friday, you segued from a discussion about a scripture passage on marriage in heaven, to a discussion of (a) why gays can never be married, and then to (b) Mormon teachings on marriage in heaven are different from yours, so we should grill Mitt Romney about what sort of whacky Mormon things he believes in.

Let’s take those points in turn, shall we, Bryan?

The purpose of marriage, ultimately, is children. That’s it. Now there are other purposes: it’s there for pleasure; it’s there for companionship, and all of those are celebrated in the Scriptures. But the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage is the procreation of children.

Oddly enough, the passage you were preaching from doesn’t mention this as the purpose for marriage, or even as a purpose, though it’s all about marriage and what marriage will be like in heaven.  If kids are the purpose of marriage, you’d think Jesus would have noted that there will no kids born in heaven, so no need for marriage. Instead, we get stuff about giving and taking in marriage and which of a widow’s seven widowers will be her husband in heaven (trick answer: none of them!).

There are some bits at the beginning about Mosaic law dictating that a brother must marry his brother’s widow so as to “raise offspring for his brother.”  Do you think that should happen today, too, Bryan?

Nor does the very first passage in the Bible about the purpose of there being both man and woman created (Gen. 2:18-24) ever mention children.  It just says that “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And, at the end, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” That’s all about marriage — but there’s no mention of children at all, Bryan! What’s going on?

And God has designed that relationship – one man, one woman – that’s why we can never call homosexual relationships “marriages” because procreation is impossible. It is a biological impossibility with them. When you have a married couple that wants to conceive and can’t, that’s a tragedy. Homosexual couples – conception is an impossibility, biologically. And that’s why we never should dignify those relationships with the term “marriage” …

Can we let them marry and just call it “a tragedy,” Bryan?  I mean, you  haven’t really addressed the case of infertile couples, but we still let them marry, even where “procreation is possible.”

How about couples who don’t intend to have children at all, Bryan?  Should we “dignify their relationships” with the term “marriage”?

[We were] talking in the first segment about Jesus’ teach and the resurrection and about marriage. This is interesting, by the way – remember, Mitt Romney is fully intending to run for the presidency in 2012. I read an article this morning – well, I just kind of scanned it …

Nice research on which to base an attack on another person, Bryan!

… – talking about the fact that his Mormon theology could be a serious problem for him in 2012 and I believe frankly that his Mormon theology ought to be an issue in 2012. I mean, we’re talking about the most powerful person in the world.

Religious convictions are out most deeply held convictions. These are the deepest part of us; things we believe to be true about God and God’s truth and God’s will. And Mitt Romney believes that there will be marriages in Heaven, that you will populate your own planet and will be siring children for all of eternity. This is flatly contradictory to what Jesus teaches. He says quite directly “in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” I mean you can’t get any more direct than that – they neither marry nor are given in marriage. And yet the LDS church teaches that people will be married for all of eternity.

Because they have an extended scripture that says some things beyond just the Old and New Testaments, Bryan. Remarkably enough, that means there are differences between what you believe, theologically, and what the Mormon Church believes.  That would explain the “flat contradictions” and all the “and yet” moments.

I know — it’s shocking that anyone would believe something other than your understanding of the Bible, Bryan.  Deal with it.

So a direct contradiction between Mormon theology and the teaching of Jesus Christ himself …

As recorded in the scripture you attribute to Jesus Christ, Bryan.

… and so I think it’s appropriate for Mr. Romney to be asked about the various distinctions of LDS theology, does he believe them.

And if he does?

There’s no Christian that has to be embarrassed about publicly embracing any of the fundamental elements. You take the Apostle’s Creed, the great creeds of the church and you ask any Christian candidate for public office “do you believe in the Trinity?”A Christian has no hesitation to saying “yes.” Do you believe in the inspiration of the Scripture? Absolutely. Do you believe in the sinless life of Christ? Absolutely. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ? Absolutely. Do you believe in the universal church? Absolutely. Do you believe in the second coming of Christ? Absolutely.

Actually, Bryan, you could probably find some folks embarrassed about some of the “fundamental elements” of Christianity, depending on how you define them.  I mean, the Trinity?  Even priests hate having to talk about that concept during Trinity Sunday because it’s a tough one to actually understand, let alone explain.

No Christian needs to have any hesitation about publicly embracing the fundamentals of Christian theology and I think it’s important to ask Mr. Romney, does he embrace the fundamentals of LDS theology and let the American people decide whether they want somebody with those convictions sitting in the Oval Office.

That’s fine, Bryan, just fine, just one, teeny, tiny, minor, trivial question:

Who cares?

Tell me how it will make someone a better President if they believe in the Trinity.  Explain to me how a faith in the “catholic and apostolic church” does (or doesn’t) improve the ability to defend the nation, grow our economy, take care of our people, win the space race, boost employment, or any of the various other things we ask a President to do.  Does believing in the inspiration of Scripture make you a better world leader (assuming we can all agree on what it means that Scripture was “inspired” — are we talking about literal and inerrant truth of Scripture, or something more nuanced?)?  Tell me how they check off the box on Faith vs Works, or the Virgin Birth, or the Intercession of Saints, makes a difference in the Oval Office.

If Mitt wears Mormon underwear, or thinks Joseph Smith found some gold tablets at the behest of an angel, or that we get married a zillion times in heaven, or that the American Indians are the lost tribes of Israel, … is pretty meaningless to me as to his presidential aspirations (unless it impacts his treatment of American Indians, I suppose).

What are his policies?  How does he lead his life?  Does he believe in justice, and mercy, and treating others well, and defending the weak, and protecting the nation?  How does he treat the help? How does his faith (if any) inform his day-to-day or larger policy directions — and what are those?

I am much more concerned about those things than about which lines of the Nicene Creed a given candidate agrees with wholeheartedly, agrees with as metaphor, or thinks are kind of goofy.  If his or her faith is an issue to me, it’s in (a) how does it drive his what he’s going to do, and (b) does he seem particularly reality-impaired because of it (whether it’s Bad Mormon Archaeology with the whole Lost Tribes thing, or Bad Creation Literalism with some sort of Young Earth beliefs).

(I realize some of my atheist friends might consider any religious faith reality-impairing, but I’m considering here beliefs that potentially have a direct impact on public policy, or that demonstrate a willingness do ignore substantial bodies of evidence in favor of a their religious mythos.)

Oh, and I’ll throw in (c) does he practice what he preaches, or is his faith worn on his sleeve to win votes, and then discarded once in power to the benefit of himself and his supporters? Is he honest, or not?

Those are the questions I’d rather people ask Mitt, or Newt, or Michelle, or Roy, or (of course) Barrack.  Not which academic points of theology they concur with.  And, I strongly suspect, that’s how most Americans feel, too. Yeah, they may get a bit hinky over some of the odder (through lack of exposure) Mormon theological and cosmological tenets, but just as with John Kennedy’s run as a Catholic (which also raised some “he believes weird stuff!” hackles), I think most Americans are more interested in performance than theory, and in fundamental behavior and principles behind it rather than esoteric creedal box-checking.

Maybe that’s why you feel you have to convince folks otherwise, Bryan.  Because otherwise, how can you make sure only the right side of the Us vs Them conflict in your world will get candidates elected?