Today’s Reading List – April 23, 2007
The Chicago Sun-Times carried an op-ed last Friday that trod what has by now become old ground, albeit arriving at the proper destination. The first point that needs to be made about the piece is that it marks the second time we have encountered such a piece (Frank Pastore's Townhall column from last week being the first) that says there should not be a problem for a creedal Christian voting for a Mormon but spends far more ink(electrons) spelling out the problems with the LDS faith than its political legitimacy.
What this tells me is that the religion issue battle on the right (the left is still warming up) is won in the sense that no one will just come out and say we should not vote for a Mormon, but that prejudices remain strong. Which brings me to my second point. Consider the opening of the piece:
As a teenager, spiritually educated in the Southern Baptist church and conservative evangelical Christian school I attended, I learned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a cult, and that its members, the Mormons, most certainly were not Christians.
I heard repeatedly in lectures from Bible teachers briefing us on the LDS church's strange theological beliefs and from church folk training us how to counter Mormon evangelistic efforts with our own that Mormonism was a threat to "real Christians."
If one sets aside the overuse of superlatives, the lack of grace in the descriptions, and the harsh vocabulary, there is truth there. When it comes to evangelistic efforts, LDS and Evangelicals are in competition and are therefore "threatening" to each other. However, what in the world has that got to do with presidential politics? I seem to recall an intramural basketball game or two in high school where I knocked the wind completely out of the guy I voted for class president. (No foul call by the way) Competition in one field does not necessarily translate into another.
Which brings me to the third part in John Mark Reynolds six part series on the intersection of religion and politics, rather beguilingly entitled "This Next Presidential Election 3/6: Truly and Impartially Administer Justice (or Why Mitt Romney Should Never Be King of England!)" As with the earlier two parts, this part is too meaty for ready encapsulation, but it illustrates how, in addition to ignorance about Mormonism, our nation is rampant with misunderstanding about the nature, limits, and functioning of our government. Hence we mistakenly think that competition in intramural basketball translates to competition in student elections, if you will. It is the limitations of our government that prevent that intersection. Part Four of the Reynolds series also went up over the weekend.
This is sarcasm, it is false, but remarkably it sounds almost exactly like what some would contend would come out of Salt Lake City. I think there is an important lesson there.
News from the old home front. All I can say is, if Salt Lake City is going to dictate policy, they really need to get their act together.
Mary Kathryn Ham has a brief interview with Romney. No mention of religion, but it contains a very interesting exchange that I think says volumes about how the campaign intends to handle The Question:
MKH: Have any horror stories, worst moments with the MSM?
MR: You know, I’m sure I do. There’s probably more than one, but I’ve never liked people who engage in too much whining, so I’ll skip telling you about the worst that’s happened.
Those that insist Romney's religion problem comes from the right, might want to consider this Editorial cartoon from Friday's Philly Inquirer (HT: K-Lo at the Corner)
The voice of religion in America politics won a small and rare victory the courts last week, and this is how the left reacts. If WE of the "religious right" exclude a candidate on the basis of his faith, should it not be obvious that others will begin to exclude us on the same basis? This cartoon is a shot across the bow for any religiously motivated voter. Next time it may not be just a cartoon, it may be a ballot.
Update from Lowell: This PBS broadcast from last Friday also covers much-trodden ground. We have polygamy myths; the fear of a Mormon U.S. president kowtowing to his church's leadership; church critics quoted as authorities on what the church believes (and making mistakes in their statements); and so forth.
This is all pretty tired stuff; I will address only one true howler in the piece, this statement by Dr. Phil Roberts, president of the Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary:
One of the conditions for being temple-worthy is that you have to swear allegiance to the Mormon president whom they believe can receive from God direct revelation.
Any Mormon who holds what we call a "temple recommend" will read that statement and wonder what Dr. Roberts is talking about. It is simply an ignorant comment. We do not "swear allegiance" to any man. We do acknowledge in the course of an interview for a temple recommend that we sustain the president of the Church as a prophet of God. That just means that in ecclesiastical matters we believe no one else is authorized to exercise the full divine authority on earth. It has nothing to do with political matters. If the president of our church really were calling political shots for Mormon officeholders, how could Harry Reid (a committed, temple-going Mormon, and Mitt Romney (also a committed, Temple-going Mormon) hold such divergent political views?
Again, anyone who really want to know what Catholics believe should ask a Catholic, not a critic of Catholicism. The same is true of any faith.
John comments: In one sense Lowell is right – yada,yada, yada – seen this all before. However, the power of television communication gives this a new flair and impact not seen in the print pieces. It also provides a handy outline for differences between creedals and Mormons, they are twofold – theological and historical.
The historical ones are just that HISTORICAL, meaning they are no longer applicable, so why bring them up?
When it comes to the theological ones, this piece, like every piece before it, fails to connect the dots. Here's the formulation: Mormons believe differently; that's a problem for Mitt Romney; here is what they (Mormons) believe, reported to varying degrees of accuracy. They never explain why the differences are problematic in public service. Such a formulation creates the illusion of a problem where none actually exists. Differences do not equate to problems.
This piece structurally tries to appear point/counter-point, interviewing Evangelicals followed by LDS leadership, but fails to actually achieve balance. It is quite notable that the Evangelicals presented are not, save one, in positions of great leadership. The one authoritative Evangelical voice cited is in a position of doctrinal, not political leadership, and even at that, he is from the minor leagues.
The most notable lack of balance; however, occurs in using that semi-authoritative voice to present the old "SLC-in-charge" accusation — which is never answered from an LDS official. The piece then immediately spins off into purely doctrinal stuff that has no political ramification whatsoever. I'd call that trying to disguise a political attack in religious clothing.
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post