Are Mormons Christians?

My daughter Jamie commented on one of my posts and it was important enough that I wanted to start a new post to respond to her comment.

Jamie asked "Am I not a true Christian?" I am sure one reason she asks this question is my reference to becoming a Christian myself earlier this year after being a life-long Mormon. That description of me is more a reflection of my relationship (or lack of) with Jesus before being born again and not necessarily an indictment of Mormonism. I was a not a true Christian because I did not have that relationship. I was a Mormon who was not a true Christian. Not because I was a Mormon, per se.

But let's look at the question "Are Mormons Christians?"

Short answer: I believe that a member of the Mormon church can be a true Christian and that only Jesus Christ can make that judgement. I believe that the Mormon church can be included in the Christian label because it claims to believe in Him. Finally, we all recognize that the Mormons believe in a Jesus Christ different from the traditional Christian denominations and it is appropriate to point that out without resorting to name-calling.

Are Mormons Christians?
Let me say that calling Mormons "non-Christian" strikes me as name-calling (see below). And it hurts the cause of Christian evangelism. First, even "nominal" Mormons will throw up a wall when they hear that description. Even those who may not have a strong testimony of the Church feel an affinity to the Church and will be defensive. Also, people who are not Mormons will be suspicious of such a description because they may know someone who is a Mormon. "I know Joe down the street and he's a Mormon and he has a picture of Jesus in his house ..."

Who can define what a Christian is? The term was originated by Gentiles as a moniker for anyone who was a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Christian). They did not bother to differentiate among the individual sects or churches but painted all believers (those who claimed to follow Christ) with the same broad brush.

Eventually, this originally pejorative term was adopted by the early church. And today, it is the Christians themselves who seem to want to define the term. I see two problems with that.

One, which "Christian" group or denomination gets to define which beliefs or doctrines qualify another denomination as being truly Christian? There are some significant differences in Christian doctrine among the so-called traditional Christian denominations (e.g., Catholic versus Protestant) and some of today's church movements are viewed as straying from the Biblical basis for the body of Christ (e.g., Word-Faith, Seeker Sensitive and Emergent Church movements). Who gets to referee the application of this term to a particular Christ-professing group?

Two, an individual's identity as a Christian requires a judgement as to whether that person truly believes and has been born again (John 3). No one but our Judge and Lord, Jesus Christ, can make that call. I believe there are Mormons who are true Christians just as there are some Methodists who are NOT true Christians. Membership in a particular Church is not the criterion; belief in Jesus Christ as our Savior is.

Using the original definition, the Mormons can be called a Christian religion because they claim to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as our Savior, and the term was applied to any who made that claim.

Isn't Mormonism "disqualified" because they preach a different Christ?
The very nature of the restoration message of the Mormon Church implies an understanding of the nature of God that is not in line with traditional Christian churches. Does the Mormon belief in Jesus as a literal (flesh) son of God and not a Triune God mean that Mormons cannot be Christian? Does their emphasis on works invalidate their understanding of grace and disallow them to be called Christians?

I prefer to eliminate the "Christian" label from the debate. Isn't it more effective and more honest to discuss the objective and concrete doctrinal differences rather than try to frame the debate with an subjective judgement for which we have not been called to make?