{"id":8,"date":"2007-06-28T18:15:40","date_gmt":"2007-06-28T18:15:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html"},"modified":"2007-06-28T18:15:40","modified_gmt":"2007-06-28T18:15:40","slug":"who-gets-to-define-christian","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html","title":{"rendered":"Who Gets to Define “Christian”?"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Orson Scott Card<\/a><\/strong>
\nEach time a group of Christians comes up with an unfamiliar way of understanding the scriptures and our relationship with God, there are other Christians who are quick to insist that anyone who believes like that <\/em>can\u2019t really<\/em> be Christian.
\nMuch blood has been shed over these doctrinal differences; wars have been fought, boundaries have been changed, and people have gone into exile.
\nWhether it was the often bloody struggle between Arians and Athanasians, between Lutherans and Catholics, between the Church of England and the Puritans, people have been willing, it seems, to die, to kill, and to deprive others of their rights as citizens over differences of Christian belief.
\nIn America, though, we long ago decided \u2014 though not easily \u2014 to put such things behind us. Many states refused to ratify the Constitution until it included provisions forbidding one religion to be given preference over others.
\nBesides the first amendment, there is this statement in Article 6: \u201cNo religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.\u201d
\nThis didn\u2019t mean that Americans stopped caring about doctrinal differences. Quite the contrary \u2014 America became a place where, if anything, we talked incessantly about religious differences.
\nI mean, what would have been the point of open religious discussion in Catholic France or Church-of-England Britain or Lutheran Sweden?
\nBut in America, we agreed that people who had very different ideas of what it meant to be Christian could \u2014 and must \u2014 get along without violence.
\nWell, mostly without violence. There were many places in America where Catholics were not counted as Christians. And when we Mormons came along, well, we were clearly beyond the pale \u2014 for precisely the reasons that Dr. Mohler outlines (though for other reasons as well).
\nWhile Dr. Mohler sometimes couches his summary of our beliefs in terms we would not choose, I am happy that his explanation is generally clear and fair-minded. (His characterization of the Book of Mormon\u2019s presentation of Christ is the exact opposite of the truth \u2014 the Book of Mormon makes every single point that he says it does not. But I don\u2019t expect him to be an expert on the book, or even to have read it.)
\nI am also happy to agree with him that when one compares our understanding of the nature of God and Christ, we categorically disagree with almost every statement in the \u201chistoric creeds and doctrinal affirmations\u201d he refers to.
\nThe only major point on which I could criticize Dr. Mohler\u2019s essay is that he begged the question in the first and second paragraph.
\n\u201cChristianity is rightly defined in terms of \u2018traditional Christian orthodoxy,\u201d he says. \u201cThus, we have an objective standard by which to define what is and is not Christian.\u201d
\nIn other words, he began the discussion by saying, \u201cWe win. Therefore we can define anyone who is not us as \u2018the losers.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n


\nWhen he defines \u201ctraditional Christian orthodoxy\u201d as \u201cthe orthodox consensus of the Christian church [as] defined in terms of its historic creeds and doctrinal affirmations\u201d he is ignoring the fact that these creeds were the result, not of revelation, but of debate and political maneuvering.
\nArians and Athanasians got along about as well as Shiites and Sunnis; the Athanasians generally prevailed by the authority of the Roman state and force of arms. It is hard for us Mormons to understand why ancient force and bloodshed, rather than revelation from God, should be the basis for defining the doctrinal consensus of Christianity today.
\nMany evangelicals have as many doctrinal problems with calling Catholics \u201cChristians\u201d as they have with us Mormons. While they accept the (Catholic) creeds insofar as the various Protestant denominations accept them, they reject other Catholic beliefs that were, prior to the Protestant reformation, every bit as \u201corthodox.\u201d
\nWhich is why the Catholic (i.e., \u201cuniversal\u201d) Church branded the Protestants as heretics, using precisely the kind of arguments that Dr. Mohler is using against us Mormons.
\nBecause Martin Luther (and his fellow Protestant reformers) rejected many parts of the traditional beliefs and practices of the Universal Christian Church as they had been defined for a thousand years in the West, they could not be considered Christians \u2014 they were heretics, and their ideas were forbidden for any good Christian to hear, let alone believe.
\nSo the Christian world has been down this road before. Thank heaven we live in more tolerant times, where our debate takes place on the internet or from the pulpit or in quiet conversations in people\u2019s homes, instead of on the battlefield or in the courtroom.
\nBut what if we don\u2019t let Dr. Mohler define the question in such a way as to specifically exclude Mormons before the debate begins?
\nWhat if we define \u201cChristians\u201d the way most people would: \u201cBelievers in the divinity of Christ and in the necessity of the grace of Christ in order to be saved in the Kingdom of God.\u201d
\nOr, \u201cPeople who believe Christ is the Son of God and the only way to please God is by following Christ\u2019s teachings as best you can all your life.\u201d
\nOr how about, \u201cPeople who believe that the New Testament is scripture and that its account of the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Jesus is true and that we should act accordingly.\u201d
\nWe can come up with a lot of definitions that do a much better job of describing what most people mean when they use the word \u201cChristian.\u201d
\nHow many ordinary Christians actually know or care about the \u201chistoric creeds and doctrinal affirmations\u201d that form Dr. Mohler\u2019s definition-of-choice?
\nI remember, as a Mormon missionary in Brazil, how many times I would explain our doctrine of the nature of God, and the Catholic or Protestant family I was teaching would say, \u201cBut that\u2019s what we believe.\u201d And they were telling the truth.
\nTheir theological-seminary-trained priest or minister certainly did not believe what we were teaching, but time after time we found that the ordinary church-going Christian already saw things as we did, and thought that our peculiar doctrines were what their church had always taught.
\nThe theologian is bound to say, \u201cJust because ordinary, ignorant Christians don\u2019t understand the doctrine of the Trinity does not mean that their ignorance should prevail over our more-sophisticated understanding.\u201d
\nI agree completely. When Baptist theologians define Baptist beliefs, it is their privilege to base it on as sophisticated an understanding as they please.
\nBut when we are defining words as they are used in the English language, we all get a vote. Dr. Mohler does not get to speak for all Christians. Nor does he get to speak for all English-speakers. The ordinary meaning of the word \u201cChristians\u201d definitely includes Mormons; and when you say Mormons are not Christians, most would take that to mean that Mormons \u201cdo not believe in the divinity of Christ,\u201d which would be flat wrong.
\nThat\u2019s why I appreciate the fact that Dr. Mohler made it clear at the start that by \u201cChristian\u201d he means \u201ceverybody but the Mormons,\u201d so that if we accept his peculiar definition of the word, the argument is, indeed, over.
\nBut it still makes me sad that he would single us out for rejection, when we really ought to be working together.
\nI remember a few years ago attending a conference with the Templeton Foundation, which brought together scientists, theologians, and science fiction writers to discuss the future of religion in relation to science.
\nThere was only one theologian present, a man highly trained in all those creeds that Dr. Mohler insists define Christianity. As we listened to a group of brilliant scientists \u2014 and some science fiction writers who, unlike me, were also trained scientists \u2014 explain with marvelous clarity some highly sophisticated concepts, I was impressed by how eager they were to communicate clearly \u2014 to be understood.
\nBut when the theologian spoke, he immediately did what the scientists could have done but chose not to \u2014 he plunged into the jargon of his own intellectual community, deliberately excluding non-experts from the conversation.
\nHowever, I had read and studied enough traditional Christian theology \u2014 and enough deconstructionist and multicultural mumbo-jumbo \u2014 to know the vocabulary he was using; and the more I listened, the clearer it became that with all his sophistication, this man did not actually believe in the literal existence of the God and Christ described in the New Testament. He didn\u2019t even believe in the literal existence of the Trinity described in the Nicene and later creeds.
\nIn fact, as I looked around the table, I realized that I was the only person in that room who believed that Jesus is the Savior of the world, the Son of God, and that God created humankind in his image for the purpose of bringing us to a joyful reunion with him, after we had learned to control the desires of the flesh and turn our lives over to him, and after the grace of Christ has cleansed us of our guilt for the many sins we have committed.
\nHe was an ordained minister of the Church of England who did not actually believe in the God of any official Christian creed.
\nI was an ordinary Mormon, holding no lofty office.
\nBut in that room, I was the only believing Christian.
\nYes, Dr. Mohler. You and I disagree on exactly the points you listed in your essay. You are correct in saying that we Mormons completely reject the neoplatonic doctrines that were layered onto Christianity long after the Apostles were gone.
\nAnd just as you would put any reference to Mormons as \u201cChristians\u201d in quotation marks, we Mormons refer to those who believe as you do as \u201cChristians\u201d in exactly the same way.
\nHere\u2019s the difference. While we have no patience with creeds that owe more to Plato and other Greek philosophers than to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, we do recognize and respect as fellow Christians anyone who confesses that Christ is the Savior of the world.
\nSo I can go to “The Passion of the Christ” and be moved by it, even though Mel Gibson\u2019s view of what the passion actually consisted of is very different from the Mormon view. I recognize and respect the sincerity of his faith, and I recognize that despite our doctrinal differences, his faith is in Jesus Christ.<\/em>
\nIt\u2019s like the ancient Hebrew penchant for referring to God as \u201cthe God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\u201d They did not try to subject God to the limitations of human understanding; they did not define him in ways that would say more about the limitations of their own minds than about the nature of God.
\nTheir definition, unlike yours, was simply to point to the great fathers of their religion and say, \u201cThe God they worshiped, that\u2019s the God we worship, too.\u201d
\nCan we not define God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in a similar way? \u201cThe God that Jesus prayed to, that is the God we pray to. The Jesus Christ of the New Testament, he is the one we believe has suffered to redeem the world from sin. He is the way, the truth, the life, as best we understand what he taught.\u201d
\nThat last phrase is a key to our getting along, I think. It is one of the central tenets of Mormon religion that our understanding is not perfect or complete, that we fully expect that many of our present ideas are incorrect, and we look forward to a day when we will be ready to receive a better understanding.
\nIn the meantime, we do our best with what light and knowledge we have received. We might be in error. So might you. We all struggle to puzzle out things that are, in fact, beyond the ken of mortal minds.
\nThe points of disagreement between us are not insignificant. In fact, they\u2019re so important that we do not recognize the efficacy of baptism performed by any other denomination, and anyone joining our church must be baptized \u2014 for the first time, we believe \u2014 regardless of any previous Christian baptism they might have received.
\nIn other words, at the level of religious practice we believe that we are the only Christians who act and speak with the authority of Christ today. So we can hardly take offense when Dr. Mohler and many other ministers and priests of other Christian churches return the favor and refuse to recognize us as Christians of their communities.
\nOn the level of theology, doctrine, practice, ritual, and even history, we Mormons stand alone, neither Protestant nor Catholic. Just as Lutherans and Baptists and Presbyterians generally don\u2019t accept the authority of the Pope, we don\u2019t accept the authority of anybody <\/em>except those that we believe hold the keys of the Kingdom of God on earth today.
\nAnd so when we send out our missionaries to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ as we understand it, it is perfectly fair for Baptist ministers and Catholic priests and any other religious leader to point out to their congregants precisely what we<\/em> point out to them \u2014 that our beliefs are very different from theirs.
\nThey call us wrong; we call ourselves right.
\nBut that\u2019s a matter of private belief and conscience. Those who put our religion to the test and come to believe in it don\u2019t do so because we fooled them into thinking we believe just like Dr. Mohler.
\nIf that was our message, who would join us? They could join the Baptist Church and accomplish as much (and it would be cheaper and easier, given the way we Mormons tithe and abstain from alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco).
\nWe openly state that we teach a version of Christianity radically different from all others. We proclaim it.
\nBut let\u2019s remember now why we are having this discussion. It\u2019s because Mitt Romney is running for President of the United States, and Mitt Romney is a Mormon.
\nMitt Romney is not running for Pope of America, or Head Rabbi, or Minister-in-Chief. He is not running for any religious office. He is a citizen of this country, who has a distinguished record of achievement in business and government, asking people to vote for him to become the leader of our country and, perforce, the leader of the free world.
\nHis religious beliefs are not irrelevant. Far from it. Americans should care very much about religious beliefs that will affect how a president would fulfill the duties of his office.
\nHere\u2019s a man who is faithful to his wife, without a breath of scandal associated with him; he is a devoted father and grandfather; he tithes to his church; he doesn\u2019t smoke or drink and never has. In other words, he not only claims to be a member of a particular church, he lives by the standards of that church.
\nI think that matters a great deal. It means he\u2019s not a hypocrite, pretending to be religious when he needs the votes. He has put in the time, made the sacrifices \u2014 he has walked the walk.
\nSo when Mitt Romney says, \u201cI believe this is the right thing to do, and I\u2019m going to do it,\u201d then American voters can be reasonably confident that he really does believe it and he really will do it.
\nThat\u2019s something that I would look for about any candidate, from any religious tradition. Does he live by what his religion teaches? Or is he a member in name only?
\nHis profession of membership in a Church gives us a way to find out about the standards of good and evil, of right and wrong, that his religion teaches. Where I would be worried is when we have a candidate who does not profess any religion, or does not live up to the standards of the religion he professes.
\nHow then would we find out what he really believes? What his standards are? How well he keeps his commitments? It\u2019s not impossible to determine that even with people whose religious commitments are, shall we say, skin deep. Certainly, for instance, it wasn\u2019t hard to find out what Bill Clinton\u2019s standards of truth-telling and word-keeping were before he was elected; he absolutely performed exactly as his past behavior had given us reason to expect. We got what we voted for.
\nSo by all means look at Mitt Romney\u2019s religion, and how well he has lived up to it. It\u2019s a fair test.
\nBut don\u2019t look at his religion as if it were a complete guide to how he would perform as president. There are those who fear a Romney presidency because somebody\u2019s been telling them that Mormonism is a \u201ccult\u201d and they think Romney would get all his instructions from Salt Lake City \u2014 or from what he imagined God might whisper to him.
\nMay I suggest that before you leap to that conclusion, you consider carefully: Senator Harry Reid of Nevada is also<\/em> a Mormon. As far as I know, he\u2019s a Mormon in good standing. And he\u2019s a Democrat \u2014 a liberal Democrat, on most issues.
\nIf Salt Lake City is telling Mormon politicians what to do, they\u2019re sure giving Harry Reid a different set of instructions from those they\u2019ve been giving to Mitt Romney.
\nLike Harry Reid, I\u2019m a Democrat. If my own party nominates somebody that I think would make a better president than Mitt Romney, I\u2019ll vote for the Democrat. If my party doesn\u2019t, and the Republican Party nominates Romney, I might well vote for him.
\nIt won\u2019t be because he\u2019s a Mormon. It\u2019ll be for a whole range of reasons \u2014 his political views, his announced plans, and my assessment of his character. And that assessment won\u2019t be based on mere membership in the same Church as me. It will be based on how well I think he lives up to the commitments that Mormons make.
\nYou don\u2019t have to be a Mormon to use those standards.
\nNow, what if you are an American citizen who absolutely hates every Mormon doctrine you\u2019ve heard about?
\nMy advice is: Don\u2019t join the Mormon Church if you feel that way. But what does it have to do with choosing a president?
\nDr. Mohler has gone on record elsewhere as advising evangelical Christians not <\/em>to vote for Mitt Romney, even though he\u2019s the candidate whose life practices and whose professed beliefs are the closest to fitting the political agenda of many or perhaps most evangelicals.
\nWhy? Because he fears that the election of Mitt Romney will lend \u201clegitimacy\u201d to Mormonism.
\nGuess what, Dr. Mohler. Mormonism has<\/em> legitimacy. Millions of American citizens already believe in it. And not the dumbest American citizens, either. We\u2019re above average in our education. We\u2019re also above average in our religious activity, our charitable donations, our marital fidelity, and the time we spend with our families. We try to be good neighbors and good friends.
\nWe are as legitimate, as citizens and therefore as potential officeholders, as anybody else in America. Because there is no religious test for holding office in America.
\nAnd if you try to impose one, by saying that all persons belonging to this or that religion should never be elected president, then who is it who is rejecting the U.S. Constitution? Who is it who is saying that people with certain beliefs are second-class citizens, for no other reason than their religion?
\nI urge all evangelicals Christians who are worried about a Mormon as president to consider this:
\nWhat if somebody were saying that no evangelical Christian should be elected president, solely on the basis of his religious beliefs?
\nOh \u2014 wait \u2014 they already are.<\/em>
\nThink about it. How often has President Bush been mocked because he believes he was born again? How often have his critics ridiculed him because he believes that when he prays, God hears him and even, sometimes, answers?
\nHow many have, in effect, claimed that evangelical Christians have no business holding the office of President \u2014 that they are unfit for such a vital public trust precisely because of their beliefs about how God and human beings interact?
\nWe Mormons don\u2019t agree with you on many vital points of doctrine. But I hope we all agree with each other about this: In a time when a vigorous atheist movement is trying to exclude religious people from participating in American public life unless they promise never to mention or think about their religion while in office, why are we arguing with each other<\/em>?
\nYou don\u2019t want your kids to join the Mormon Church; well, I don\u2019t want mine to join the Baptist Church, either. That\u2019s because you think you\u2019re right about your religion, and I think I\u2019m right about mine.
\nBut I would rather vote for a believing Baptist who lives up to his faith than for a Mormon who doesn\u2019t take his religion seriously or keep the commandments he\u2019s been taught.
\nAnd vice versa. Don\u2019t you feel that way, too?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Orson Scott Card Each time a group of Christians comes up with an unfamiliar way of understanding the scriptures and our relationship with God, there are other Christians who are quick to insist that anyone who believes like that can\u2019t really be Christian. Much blood has been shed over these doctrinal differences; wars have…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-are-mormons-christian"],"yoast_head":"\nWho Gets to Define "Christian"? - Blogalogue<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Who Gets to Define "Christian"? - Blogalogue\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Orson Scott Card Each time a group of Christians comes up with an unfamiliar way of understanding the scriptures and our relationship with God, there are other Christians who are quick to insist that anyone who believes like that can\u2019t really be Christian. Much blood has been shed over these doctrinal differences; wars have…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Blogalogue\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-28T18:15:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"prothfuss\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Who Gets to Define \"Christian\"? - Blogalogue","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Who Gets to Define \"Christian\"? - Blogalogue","og_description":"By Orson Scott Card Each time a group of Christians comes up with an unfamiliar way of understanding the scriptures and our relationship with God, there are other Christians who are quick to insist that anyone who believes like that can\u2019t really be Christian. Much blood has been shed over these doctrinal differences; wars have…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html","og_site_name":"Blogalogue","article_published_time":"2007-06-28T18:15:40+00:00","author":"prothfuss","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html","name":"Who Gets to Define \"Christian\"? - Blogalogue","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-28T18:15:40+00:00","dateModified":"2007-06-28T18:15:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/#\/schema\/person\/3c8775a31b49ebc7036eaf7f92829115"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/2007\/06\/who-gets-to-define-christian.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Who Gets to Define “Christian”?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/","name":"Blogalogue","description":"Debates About Faith","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/#\/schema\/person\/3c8775a31b49ebc7036eaf7f92829115","name":"prothfuss","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/8b6\/8b67d3e576b12bdb6a322e49ec7bb959x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/8b6\/8b67d3e576b12bdb6a322e49ec7bb959x96.jpg","caption":"prothfuss"},"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/author\/prothfuss"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/47"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/blogalogue\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}