Hotline quotes President Bush regarding Tony Snow:

"His attitude is one that he is not going to let this whip him. My attitude is that we need to pray for him."

First of all, all the best to Tony - he, and President Bush, can count on the fact that both Lowell and I are so praying.  [Lowell:  Yes, we are.]  Which is precisely the point of this blog.  If you asked Lowell and I to describe the God to whom we offered our prayers, you would get answers with some significant differences in some important areas.  But regarding the matter at hand, which is Tony Snow's health, precisely what difference does our formulation of the Trinity (Godhead) make?  Both of us want the best for Snow and both of us are willing to share that desire within our religious traditions.  If we can so cooperate on this most personal of matters, should we not do so on matters with much farther reaching consequences, like who is president of the United States?  Should we not feel compelled to do so?

There is an interesting question for a blog like this one about whether to link to and concern ourselves with small blogs far, far in "the tail."  Are they not the ranting of some kook?  (By the way, we are in the tail too, just not quite that far in the tail.)  Sometimes, they are; but sometimes, I think such posts reflect the whisperings in people's minds.   They may feel afraid to utter such whisperings because they know it is politically incorrect to do so, but those whisperings may affect their behavior in the privacy of the voting booth.

This post presents such a dilemma.  That link will probably triple the blog's traffic, but it contains a sentiment worth examining:

By electing a Mormon as President, the cult (and that’s what Mormonism is) would receive instance legitimacy as a “Christian” denomination.

We will set aside the "cult" term, we've dealt with that here and here.  Precisely how will the election of a Mormon grant that religion "legitimacy," let alone define it as Christian?  Is that not what the "separation of church and state" is all about?  As we have discussed before, the LDS is the fourth largest church in the nation.  That statistic is slightly skewed because of the lack of formal affiliation amongst the numerous independent evangelical congregations in the nation, but it is highly informative.  It is that statistic that grants the LDS "legitimacy" as an American religion, I don't care who is president.  Regarding the "Christian" designation - the government never has and never will make such decision.

Lowell:  The folks who fear that electing a Mormon president will "mainstream," or legitimize, Mormonism are probably beyond the efforts of this blog and others, like John Mark Reynolds, to reason with them.  Professor Reynolds commented directly on this fear:

I think this argument breaks down for three reasons, First, it assumes that Mormonism is not already a “normal” part of American politics. Mormons are already major players in at least three states (Utah, Idaho, and Arizona) and highly influential in Republican politics in general. Evangelicals need to “get over” their wish that Mormonism would vanish or is a small group that can safely be dismissed with the label “cult.” Instead, we should begin treating Mormonism as a large, respectable, and powerful competitor in the marketplace of ideas.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mormon doctrine, but then I work with pro-life Catholics while having very definite feelings about the Pope’s claim to be the universal head of the Church. Mormons never sacked Constantinople, the mother city of my church, like the Pope’s army did, but I manage to overcome serious historical and theological differences and join ranks with my Catholic pro-life comrades.

 

While we strongly disagree with Mormons and other religious groups (such as Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism), traditional Christians are wise enough to make common cause with them when we can. In the culture of free inquiry which traditional Christianity embraces, there is nothing dangerous about letting people get to know (or see us working with) people with whom we have serious disagreements, since we are confident in our theological arguments. I encourage my students to read the Book of Mormon and examine its claims seriously before engaging in any dialogue with Mormons. Knowledge, not the prejudice that is the result of ignorance, is our guiding light as traditional Christians.

 

If we could vote for Reagan, whose doctrinal notions were at best fuzzy, then my guess is that we can stomach Romney (whose theology is at least coherent). I don’t think my vote for my political hero Reagan converted throngs to Nancy’s well known use of astrology.

I don't know what else can be said about the issue.

This blog post is another example of this quandary, but again it is instructive.

I predict the more conservative evangelicals among us, right or wrong, will not even give him a nod. They tightly sealed their minds long ago when it comes to the Mormon faith. I've said this many times and I'll keep repeating it: if the Mormons would part with Joseph Smith and their kookie beginnings, and toss the book of Mormon out, then evangelicals may listen to them.

As I told the last LDS missionaries who knocked on my door, much to Lowell's regret , I do not believe that angels revealed tablets of missing scripture to Joseph Smith.  But, as I hope Lowell will attest, that does not mean I find him, or any other Mormon, unintelligent, incapable, or unworthy of participation in the great political process that defines the United States.

There is a simple logical disconnect in this approach.  What logical connection is there between the founding claims of the LDS and the ability of any adherent thereof to serve in government office?  "Kookie" is not a logical connection, it is a prejudiced dismissal.  Seeing such a connection where none exists says to me that many of us creedal Christians have an insufficient understanding of how our own faith intersects with our own public practice.  This thinking reduces our faith to mere label without substance.  I would hope we are more substantial than that.

Lowell:  Mother Teresa was recently beatified by Pope John Paul II and is on the road to sainthood.  One requirement for beatification is that the candidate must have performed a miracle.  In Mother Teresa's case, the miracle was a healing that

occurred on the first anniversary of Mother Teresa's death. It involved a non-Christian woman in India who had a huge abdominal tumor and woke up to find the tumor gone. Members of the Missionaries of Charity prayed for their founder's intervention to help the sick woman. 

Is it "kookie" to believe in the miraculous?  If so, are the millions of Catholics who accept the reports of this miracle performed through an appeal to Mother Teresa, or who believe Our Lady of Fatima appeared in 1913, "kookie?"  I don't think so, but regardless of anyone's views on that subject, I don't think we want to go down that road in the context of deciding who should be president.

The good news is I find myself confronted with this deep-in-the-tail dilemma.  It means the MSM and the chattering classes are increasingly silent on The Question.  Right now I think it is just because of the Thompson boomlet, but only time will tell.  Speaking of which, how come nobody is asking about his religion?

Lowell:  He is described here simply as a "Protestant."  I guess that takes him out of the realm of "kookie?"

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Stuff That Has Been Hanging Around
• Wrong-Headed Blogging
• Some Things Are A Little Hard To Swallow…
• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”