What are the implications of all this for the 2012 election?  These complexities suggest that it is impractical to apply confessional criteria to political candidates.  As is often pointed out, we are electing a President, not a national pastor.  Ultimately, the decision for whom to vote should be made on other grounds, and the “Christian perspective” on the election should not be reduced to the politics of identity.

In an article last week I argued that, yes, there is a Christian position on the 2012 election.  I also implicitly suggested that that this position has little do to with whether a candidate self-identifies as a Christian.  Rather, it has much more to do with assumptions deeply rooted in the Christian faith regarding the human condition and the limitations of what politics can accomplish.  I also observed that many non-Christians can and do share these same sentiments.

While current polls suggest that Mitt Romney will do quite well among evangelical voters this year, there are some who simply cannot bring themselves to vote for a Mormon.  The slightly more sophisticated version of this position holds that the election of Romney would be a bad thing because a false religion would be cast in a positive light.  All this is not terribly surprising.  After all, evangelicals have long been accustomed to viewing Mormonism as a “cult.”

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has clearly been intent to address this issue after the elderly evangelist’s endorsement of Romney last week.  According to TheAquilaReport, a page listing Mormonism as a cult on the BGEA website was taken down, and this week a brief article by Franklin Graham entitled “Can An Evangelical Christian Vote for a Mormon?” was posted.  In case you were wondering, Franklin’s answer is “yes.”  Nevertheless, there is clearly ambivalence within the evangelical community on this issue.

Awhile back I read an excellent article by Vanderbilt University religious historian Kathleen Flake in which she provides a helpful overview of the Mormon sacred writings.  Two points in particular are useful here.  First, she notes that the “Latter-day Saint scripture is profoundly adaptive of historic Christianity’s theological traditions,” and that this accounts for “Mormonism’s canonical similarities and dissimilarities with traditional Christianity.”

In light of this, it is not surprising that Mormonism has much in common with Christianity.  Mormons affirm the need for salvation, the reality of divine grace, and that salvation comes through the work of Jesus Christ (though these elements are defined and function somewhat differently in the Mormon context).   On the other hand, there are obvious and clear differences.  Mormons deny the doctrine of the Trinity.   Their view of the deity is much more dynamic than that found in orthodox Christianity—as Flake notes Mormons view humanity and the divine as on a continuum rather than in terms of the traditional Christian creator-creature distinction.  The resulting notion—that Mormons can themselves aspire to become divine—certainly gives us pause.  For these reasons, I cannot view Mormonism as “Christian” in the ordinary-language sense of the term.

Second, Flake notes something that is extraordinarily important for our understanding of Mormonism.  “Mormons,” she argues, “are not theologians or even particularly doctrinaire; they are primarily narrativists.  They inhabit the world of the book.  They read themselves into the salvation history it tells and orient themselves to the horizon created by its promises.” The Book of Mormon, we might say, represents an effort to extend the biblical story to America, and so to make it more relevant to the American experience.  But as history demonstrates, Mormon theology such as it is has been remarkably malleable over the years (that’s one of the advantages of claiming access to continuing revelation).

This is a point that those who come from my own tradition need to keep in mind.  In the Presbyterian and Reformed context we value fidelity to the historic Christian creeds and we prize conceptual clarity and logical coherence.  From this perspective the Mormon faith often looks like a theological train wreck.  But, as Flake argues, the attractiveness of Mormonism for many hinges on the narrative world that the Mormon writings evoke.  For example, with the story of Christ’s post-resurrection visit to America, Mormons are assured that God cares deeply about the Americas.  The Mormon emphasis on family integrity, reinforced as it is by narrative, is appealing in a larger social context characterized by the fragmentation and dissolution of family ties.

While Mormons are not Christians in the traditional creedal sense of the term, I also have little doubt that there are Mormons who are looking in faith to Christ for salvation. In addition, the argument can be made that Mormons are closer to biblical truth on some issues than many liberal Protestants.

What are the implications of all this for the 2012 election?  These complexities suggest that it is impractical to apply confessional criteria to political candidates.  As is often pointed out, we are electing a President, not a national pastor.  Ultimately, the decision for whom to vote should be made on other grounds, and the “Christian perspective” on the election should not be reduced to the politics of identity.

William B. Evans is the Younts Prof. of Bible and Religion at Erskine College in Due West, South Carolina, where he teaches courses in theology, American religion, and religion and culture.  He holds degrees from Taylor University, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and Vanderbilt University.