Reverend Richard John Neuhaus may be the most powerful evangelical you have never heard of, at least if you are not a serious student of evangelicalism and politics.  Rev. Neuhaus was named by Time Magazine as one of The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America.  He is the Editor of First Things magazine and blogs regularly at their On The Square Blog.  A relatively complete archive of his writing can be found here.

Perhaps the most fascinating thing about Rev. Neuhaus is his conversion from a clerical Lutheran to Catholic clergy.  He explains himself here.  With his background in political activism and ecumenism he seemed like the perfect first interview for this blog.  We submitted our questions to Rev. Neuhaus as an email and he answered them promptly and directly.  We reprint the interview here for you.

Article Vi Blog: You are a signatory to a document, drafted in 1994 entitled Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium, which begins by seeking common theological ground and then moving from there to common social action and political ground.  Do you think such political unity is possible amongst religious groups that share less in common theologically than Catholics and Evangelicals?

Neuhaus: The heart of the original ECT statement, reiterated in subsequent statements, is that evangelicals and Catholics are “brothers and sisters in Christ.” But of course political cooperation is possible and desirable with those of whom that cannot be said, or cannot be said with theological confidence.

Article VI Blog: What role does religious affiliation play in your decision to endorse/vote for a specific candidate?  Relatedly, is there some religious affiliation that would, for you, disqualify a candidate from further consideration?

Neuhaus: I don’t endorse candidates. I suppose I could support, on the pertinent issues, anyone except an unambiguous atheist. The reason is that an atheist cannot give an adequate account of the constituting truths of the American polity.

Article VI Blog: As someone that TIme magazine named one of “the 25 most influential Evangelicals in the country” what do you see as the 5 most important issues for the ‘08 presidential election cycle?

Neuhaus: The most critical issues are the “life questions” – abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and related biotechnological developments. Second would be a realistic understanding of the nature of Islamic jihadism and the threat that it poses. Support for maintaining the historic definition of family and advancing parental choice in education would also rate high.

Article VI Blog: In 2003 you write a piece entitled Catholics, Protestants, and the Meanings of Freedom.  In it, you contend that Catholics and Protestants have (had) very differing ideas of what exactly “freedom” was and that this was at the root of much of the historical problems between the groups.  It is fair to say that Mormons, historically at least, pushed the concept of freedom farther than either Protestants or Catholics were willing to go.  [Lowell clarifies: One of Mormonism’s fundamental principles– perhaps the most fundamental of that faith– is that of “free agency,” or that the purpose of mankind’s existence is to allow individuals to choose between good and evil.] Do you think Mormons have a third concept of “freedom,” and if so, can it be reconciled with that of Protestants and Catholics?

Neuhaus: I do not know if Mormons have a “third concept of freedom.” The Christian tradition, most fully expressed by the Catholic Church, is that an informed conscience must be obeyed, and ideas, especially religious belief, cannot be coerced.

Article VI Blog: Your 1995 Congressional testimony argues strongly for “free exercise” of religion, particularly as a balance to the idea of “no establishment.”  Do you think there are limits to “free exercise”?  Consider for example the historical, though not current, Mormon practice of polygamy.  [Lowell adds: In Reynolds v. United States, a famous case involving Mormon polygamy the U.S. Supreme Court held that although religious beliefs were beyond the control of the government, religious actions were not.  Is that still a useful guideline for deciding limits to free exercise?]

Neuhaus: There are obviously limits upon actions that may claim the protection of free exercise of religion. Reynolds is a complicated question. The decision can be defended on the basis of defending the institution of marriage and family. But, as you know, there were also other considerations in play.

Article VI Blog: In your 2001 piece “Salvation Is from the Jews” you examine the passage from John 4 wherein Jesus encounters the Samaritan woman at the well and use it as a springboard to explore the very intertwined nature of Christianity and Judaism.  It could be argued that Mormonism sprung from Christianity in a similar matter. [Lowell adds: In fact, Mormons have the somewhat startling belief that Christianity and Judaism both sprang from the revealed religion that was lost from the earth and restored through Mormonism.  Leaving aside sectarian differences, that belief suggests that all three religious traditions are more intertwined than might be commonly thought.]  Do you think this a valid argument and if so, what does it say about the nature of political alliances between Mormons and Christians/Jews?

Neuhaus: Certainly Mormonism is inexplicable apart from Christianity, and in that sense “sprang from Christianity.” Judaism did not spring from Christianity. Both rabbinical post-Temple Judaism and Christianity are rooted in the history of the People of Israel. The “startling belief” of Mormons to which you allude is, from a Christian perspective, simply false. In this country the three communities are “intertwined” in complicated ways and certainly political cooperation is possible and desirable, although not on the basis of accommodating the “startling belief” of the LDS.

Article VI Blog: What is the interplay between your ecumenical nature and your activity on public policy?  Do you seek ecumenism as a means to consolidate political voice?  If so, how far are you willing to proceed towards ecclesiastical unity for the sake of that political voice?

Neuhaus: No, ecumenism, the quest for Christian unity, is an end in itself and not contingent upon its social or political utility.

Article VI Blog: In your opinion, if two people arrive at the same political position via different paths, say one based on their particular religious faith, and another by purely secular reasoning, can they be effective political allies?  What potential pitfalls lie in such an alliance?  How can they be avoided?

Neuhaus: Of course people can arrive at the same political position by different paths. For purposes of witness and action in the public square such convergences are to be welcomed and cultivated. The risk in all alliances or coalitions is the possibility of immoral compromise, but legitimate compromise is not immoral. The way to avoid the danger is to nurture and practice the cardinal virtue of prudence.

Article VI Blog: In your work, have you met and worked with Mormons on political issues?  Would you describe them as allies or opponents?

Neuhaus: Yes, and, if memory serves, always as allies.

Article VI Blog: I really enjoyed your piece, Augsburg and Catholicism: Healing the Reformation Breach.  Do you think there is any opportunity for similar dialogue between Mormons and Christians?  If so, what creedal or confessional document do you think might be an appropriate basis for such discussion?

Neuhaus: Such dialogue with Mormons would be very different. I welcome the fact that some Mormon thinkers are striving to find a possible reconciliation of Mormon teaching with the Great Tradition that defines historic Christianity. This is a very long term project and only God knows where it will lead. But any dialogue that would be similar to that between Catholics and Protestants would have to begin with texts such as the Apostles’ and so-called Nicene Creed as those texts have been interpreted by the authority of Christian tradition grounded in the canonical Scriptures.

Technorati Tags: Richard John Neuhaus, interview, ecumenism, religous political activism

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

A better week for Republicans. 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, talk of Obama and Hillary. (Shudder, wince, tic.)

Of all the ways evangelicals could oppose a Romney candidacy, the one suggested here just makes my skin crawl - past theological devisiveness, into naked self-interest.  Any evangelical “pastor” that would worry about interreligious competion, putting aside matters of theology, probabaly isn’t worthy of the title.

When I see anti-Christian bigotry this bad, I wonder if it doesn’t aid a Romney in the general election?  Although, most lefties that bigoted couldn’t tell the difference. 

The eternal struggle between a candidate’s “base” and an appeal to the greater population.  Same issue by someone different, this one a Mormon. (HT: Red State)

The Idaho appearance.

The News From Iowa.  Advisory Committee formed.  The Republican State Convention themes.  The Boston Globe take on the convention.

Comparing and contrasting religions.  Nothing to do directly with this blog, but I thought it was food for thought on the issues here in general.

This could make things interesting in ‘08.

This is a very Christian blog post, but I think it has some interesting things to say about what Christians should and should not fight over.

Tom Brokaw writes a piece for WaPO concerning the White House ‘08 race, draws a paycheck, and says absolutely nothing.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Analyzing, well bashing, the potential Newt run.

Leftie rose-colored glasses or is the far right mellowing?  What does this say about chances for a moderate Republican like Romney, if anything?

Romney and fiscal policy as Gov.

So, if the source of the evanglical tone of the current White House is the newly resigned Gerson, what’s to prevent Romney from hiring a few Evangelicals himself?
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

John:  The Evangelical Perspective 

Continuing our blog through the May ‘06 issue of The American Enterprise, we turn to David Gelernter’s artcicle “Puritanism Lives.”  In this article, Gelernter has three basic points.  The first is the heavy role that Puritans played in the settling of the North American continent as they fled the oppression of a Stuart-led England, and how their particular flavor of Christianity may have faded as a religion, but that it became a culture - the American culture.  This is rooted primarily in the idea of freedom from oppression as a religious value.  Which leads to his second point, the use of Christian imagery by the Founding Fathers in various settings, including the proposed national seal depicting the Israelites fleeing Egypt.  It is worthy of note that this image was proposed by the Unitarian deist Jefferson.  The final point is the abiding faith of Abraham Lincoln, and the formative role played by that most Puritan of literature, John Bunyan’s “The Pilgrim’s Progress.”

Because of its focus on Lincoln, much can be said about this article that was said about the one we examined previously on George Washington’s faith.  We’ll try to avoid repeating ourselves here.  The second paragraph of the piece may sound the tone of its entirety:

Understanding the strongly Puritan and Hebraic character of American is indespensible to a clear picture of the country.  You don’t have to be a Christian or Jew to believe in America.  You can also hum the opening measures of a Bach mass without converting to Christianity - but Christianity inspired the Bach mass.  And Christianity inspired America too.

It is important to look at the themes that Puritanism established in America.  Gelernter’s article sets for the the first and most important, that is freedom from oppression.  As the Stuarts reasserted control of England after the period of Cromwell and the Purtian led Engilsh Civil War, the Puritans were severely persecuted - thus the migration to America.  Here the idea of freedom took on the deep-seated value that made it so that the colonists could recognize the problems presented by things like the Stamp Act.

The other great theme of Puritanism in America is the so-called “work ethic.”  The simple idea that hard work should produce reward and that it is, in fact, its own reward.  This is the idea that makes capitalism work so well.

Both of these themes are not, if you think about it, “religious” ideas.  They flow out of religion, but they are not strictly matters of theology, epistemology, hermeneutics, or exegesis.  This means that while they may have flowed from a particular branch of Christian faith, they are not limited to that branch.

So now, the question becomes, “Are these values and themes that Mormons can share with Christians in general”?  I suspect I know the answer as I write the question.

Lowell:  The Mormon Perspective  

Yes, John, you do know the answer:  Mormonism is imbued with all those values and themes.  The overwhelming majority of American members of my church would take to them like a duck to water.  There are several reasons for this, one of which I discussed at length in our last post:  Mormons believe that God literally brought the Puritans and other settlers to America, which is a land “choice above all other lands,” set aside for His purposes in these latter days. He also inspired the Founders, whether they were Deists, Congregationalists, or Quakers.  We revere and respect all of those folks– Puritans to Founders– for their sacrifices and contributions.

Separately, as a cultural, as opposed to religious, matter, I think it is significant that the early Mormons (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young) all came out of that Puritan-influenced tradition.  They were mostly New Englanders.  I am a fifth-generation Mormon, for example, but have ancestors who were, before they converted, from that part of the country, and who were Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Quakers.  I am fairly typical of that strain of long-time members. 

There are other manifestations.  If you look at a Mormon hymnal today you’ll find many of the hymns that were sung in those churches– and are still sung there today.  And anyone who has paid much attention to Mormons, or knows many of us, is aware that we do share that Protestant work ethic, even though we are not Protestant.   The state seal of Utah revolves around a beehive, symbolizing industry. Hard work and productivity are part of the culture.  We even joke about our collective tendency to obsess over self-improvement and to hold ourselves to impossibly high standards. 

I have lately felt that on this blog I am often explaining Mormonism and Mormons to others.  I hope that is not offensive, and that it is in fact a service.  If Mormon beliefs and culture were better understood generally, I think relationships among Christian evangelical faiths and Mormons would be much better.  I like to think that Mormons are generally a wholesome, friendly people from whom no one has anything to fear– at least that’s what we aspire to be.  I also think that with better understanding there would be less attention paid to Mitt Romney’s religion and more paid to what he has to offer as a candidate– and I guess that’s the whole point of this blog, isn’t it?

This is all a long way of saying, John, that you have hit on yet another example of deeply shared values between Mormons and evangelical Christians.

John adds:  Lowell, I, for one am appreciating your explanations tremendously.  I think it is safe to assume that the majority of our readership has some minimal understanding of tradtional Christian teaching and thought, but that Mormon teaching and thought may be somewhat foreign.  It is certainly never my intention to put you on the defensive.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Think about these negotiating skills on an international/political scale.

Interesting questions for defining a conservative.

The Republican base and strategery.  Frankly, while this column is about the ‘06 mid-terms, I think it hits on the theme on which my personal decision about Romney rests - Can he win the moderates, independents, and swing voters?  If so, he is the guy for the general election; which makes him my guy for the primaries.

The Romney profile grows.  Check out the speaker this Friday night at the Idaho State GOP Convention.  From the Boise paper.  Why is Romney’s religion mentioned, but not that of any other person cited in the story? [Lowell adds:  Sigh.]

Right to Life concerns and potential ‘08 Republicans.

Now this could make Romney a front runner in a big hurry.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

John: The Evangelical Perspective The May '06 issue of The American Enterprise was dedicated to the issue in the title of this post. It contains a number of interesting articles about the role religion — and Christianity specifically — played in the founding of our society. Lowell and I thought it would be a good idea to devote a few posts to looking at some of these articles. The first one we'd like to look at is entitled Washington's Faith and the Birth of America. The piece is a good magazine length sketch of George Washington, themed on two primary narratives. The first narrative is highlights of Washington's career in the founding of the nation. The other narrative is that he he was a genuine practicing Episcopalian. The article makes, I think, two points that this blog has sought to make over and over. The first is that religion shapes people, and people govern. So when we are deciding who we want to govern, we ask not what a candidate's religion is, but if their religion has shaped them into good people, fit to govern. The article makes this point by continually pointing out the what a good man Washington was, and how that affected both his military leadership and his governance. The article spends almost no time discussing his theology, nor his stance on specific issues with which he was confronted. The second point is that differing religions can still make good men that can govern well. Consider this quote from the piece

Thus, it can be no surprise that at the first meeting of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, in September 1774, when news was received of the sudden outbreak of war in Boston, the very first motion on the floor was for a prayer to seek the guidance of Almighty God. Resistance immediately erupted—not because prayer was thought inappropriate, but because John Jay and others protested that they could not pray in the same terms as other people present (Anabaptists with Quakers, Congregationalists with Episcopalians, Unitarians with Presbyterians). Sam Adams settled the dispute by announcing loudly that he was no bigot and could pray along with any minister so long as he was a patriot. And so George Washington meditated alongside Patrick Henry, Edmund Randolph, John Jay, Edward Rutledge, and Richard Henry Lee. In a letter written to Abigail a week later, John Adams described the electrifying effect of that prayer, which was from Psalm 35. “It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that morning,” he explained to his wife. “It has had an excellent effect upon everybody here.”

Amongst the religions mentioned there are some that my particular religion tells me will not make it to their final reward, and yet all produced good men, and those good men forged this great nation. It is important to remember that religion concerns itself with both the temporal and the eternal, the physical and the spiritual. Government on the other hand is purely temporal and purely physical. Different spiritual states may produce the same temporal/physical results, and thus this kind of unity is possible.

This quote would certainly make it appear that Christians and Mormons should be able to work together to govern, if Anabaptists and Unitarians and Presbyterians could.

Obviously, the newness of Mormonism prevents it from playing a role in the founding of the nation, but it has very significant roles in its development, and particularly in the settlement of the west. Most people know of the enmity and the Mormon migrations, but do they know of the role Mormons played in building the transcontinental railroad, or as outfitters and suppliers for the great western migrations? Such is Lowell's tale to tell, but I wonder, who are the Mormon heroes in the development of the nation? I am certain there are some.

Lowell: The Mormon Perspective

Nothing delights me more than to speak of American patriotism, and of the unique patriotic tradition and beliefs of my church. I like to think that once my evangelical friends understand the spiritual basis for my faith's ardent patriotism, they will see how much common ground we have there. Indeed, they may well be surprised. When the discussion is about how faith creates societies, I believe Mormons and evangelicals are on pretty much the same page.

The Founders

Evangelicals and others don't have to believe Mormon doctrine on the divine mission of the United States of America, but an awareness of it will help understand Mormons' reverent patriotism. Mormons believe that God has clearly revealed, in our time, that the United States Constitution was divinely inspired, and that the Founders were men raised up by God for the very purpose of creating America.

That's not such a stretch to believe for any religious person, actually. As William Bennett said in a recent NRO interview, the world had not seen a concentration of men like Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and others all on one place at the same time since the time of Golden Age Athens:

I gotta tell you a few hundred square miles in rural Virginia produced philosophical, political, practical thought that rivals anything ever done in Athens. As lawgivers, Solon, Pericles, Hammurabi stand behind Madison.

So in answer to John's question, "who are the Mormon heroes in the development of the nation?" I can enthusiastically say, the Founders are. We believe God saved them for the time in which they were born and placed them on Earth to fulfill a divine mission– to found the United States of America. We revere them. Our American heroes are your heroes, my evangelical friends. We have more common ground there than you might imagine.

There is more. We believe that America is a land choice above all other lands, destined to thrive in freedom and without kings, and that Book of Mormon prophets saw the founding of America:

And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land [of America] for their inheritance . . . . And it came to pass that I . . . beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity [the early settlers of America] did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

 

And I beheld that their mother Gentiles [the British] were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. . . . And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

And I . . . beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

Here's a kicker for you: We also believe that God has told many of His prophets — both in Book of Mormon times and in these latter days– that there is a condition to America's freedom:

Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ, who hath been manifested by the things which we have written.

Not bad for a religion that some claim is not Christian!

I won't impose any more LDS scripture on our readers, but I think it's helpful for non-Mormons to understand the depth of our belief in what people now call "American exceptionalism." It doesn't get much more exceptionalist than we Mormons see it. John's comments above center on how faith creates societies, and we accept that notion quite literally: In our view, God established the United States.

The Mormon Battalion

Enough of core religious doctrines. John mentions the conflict early Mormons had with the government– both state and federal. Yet they remained very patriotic. Even as the Mormons were leaving the known United States to settle Utah (and to escape their persecutors) Brigham Young agreed to form the Mormon Battalion, 543 men who joined the United States Army in 1846 to fight in the Mexican war. I would include those men as Mormon American heroes; they are remembered to this day, and as this brief history concludes:

The men of the Mormon Battalion are honored for their willingness to fight for the United States as loyal American citizens. Their march of some 2,000 miles from Council Bluffs to California is one of the longest military marches in history. Their participation in the early development of California by building Fort Moore in Los Angeles, building a courthouse in San Diego, and making bricks and building houses in southern California contributed to the growth of the West.

The Battalion were the first to carry the American flag into Los Angeles, in 1847. The monument to that event stands on Hill Street, near downtown.

Mormons at The Service Academies

A number of cadets and midshipmen at the military service academies are Mormons. Here's an interesting example of a Mormon cadet at West Point who also was on the basketball team and left for two years to serve a mission for the Church. At this writing, the top midshipman at the Naval Academy is a Mormon; so is the top cadet at the Air Force Academy.

We have living heroes as well. If you walk into any Mormon meetinghouse in the United States, you'll find a display case with the photos and addresses of the young men and women who are serving as full-time missionaries for the Church. Alongside the photos of the missionaries will be photos and addresses of any member of that ward (congregation) who is serving in the military.

I could go on and on (and some might say I have done that already). If you're looking at Mitt Romney as a candidate and wondering if holds American patriotic values like yours, or if he reveres America and its meaning as deeply as you do, you can rest assured that he does. I believe any devout Mormon American does.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »