Article VI Blog

We ignored it because it was a purely religous discussion, nothing really to do with politics, but Frank Pastore defended his description of the CJCLDS as a "cult" on Townhall last weekend. We'd continue to ignore it except for the fact that Evangelicals for Mitt raised some interesting points from it in a couple of posts.

The first point comes from Nancy's second post and is offered with a . Apparently Romney has manistream Christian ancestry. HEY! if polygamous ancestors count…

The second point is Nancy discussing her Church of Christ background. The CoC is non-creedal, but considered "mainstream." I will not bore you with the theological details of that, rather I will point out that it illustrates the somewhat arbitrary nature of our labels for these sorts of things. Particularly when it comes to the broader umbrella terms that cannot be defined by some sort of institutional affiliation - terms like "Christian," "cult," "sect." In such situations the terms are less about clarity and more about political power. Think about it…

Thirdly, Nancy says something really important to remember concerning Mormon reaction to Pastore's labels:

I think the point that many, many, many of you so eloquently made today in my inbox was that Pastore's definition of the word "cult" was too narrow and misleading. I grant that the word does conjure up some images of a giant red Kool-Aid keg party. That is obviously not what Mormonism is. However, please have grace for your evangelical neighbors who are struggling to articulate their deeply held beliefs about your deeply held beliefs. [Emphasis added.]

Finally her conclusion is just too good not to quote:

Otherwise, let's don't let theological differences prohibit us from joining forces and electing the first President…named after baseball equipment. There's really too much at stake.

Her point is in essence the same one I made yesterday when I said "The Mormon narrative is not presidential candidate Mitt Romney's narrative." If either party, creedal or Mormon, allows itself to get balled up in discussing all these issues we are playing directly into the hands of the MSM and the other forces that are arrayed against electing this candidate, and conservatism in general.

Which brings me to the overwhelming media presence of things Mormon at the moment. Movies, PBS, and now Newsweek/Washington Post are all jumping on the bandwagon. The question of the week at the later's "On Faith" web site is

After 175 years of existence, is Mormonism entering the mainstream of American religious life or are people still suspicious of it?

There are a number of good responses, most notably this week includes A6 favorite John Mark Reynolds who offered up a piece he orginally posted, and we reposted last year. (Yep, we scooped Newsweek!) Other good comments include Richard Mouw (also quoted here before), Cal Thomas and Chuck Colson who says

This question is prompted, I assume, by Mitt Romney’s candidacy for President. I do not believe, nor should any Christian believe, that there should be a religious test of any kind for public office.

Which cuts straight to the heart of the matter.

I have to say, that despite the good discussion, I object to the question because, as Colson points out, the "real" question is obvious. As Lowell has pointed out several times, this is where the much ballyhooed Kennedy analogy breaks down completely. No one ever asked if Catholics were "mainstream." There were no endless recountings of Catholic doctrine and history.

Besides, what the heck is "the mainstream of American religious life?" and who precisely decides? I figured they made the "mainstream" on numbers alone. Does no one look at the figures? I have run into Mormons in pretty much every place and position in society with the exception of the presidency. That's pretty mainstream.

While all of that may be interesting on one level it is completely immaterial to a presidential election. Consider, there have been 10 Presbyterian (my "brand") presidents in U.S. history. Now, if you were to do this kind of digging into Presbyterianism you would find:

Presbyterians, motivated in great part by their faith, were part of an assassination attempt on Mary, Queen of Scots
Presbyterians, in their Purtian guise, were behind the English Civil War
The first Presbyterian municipality, Geneva, was run on a totalitarian basis.

Doesn't sound like much of a formula for presidential success does it? Which is the point. It is about the candidate, not his religion. LATE ADDITION: Apparently, Bob Novak, indirectly responsible for the start of this blog, can pay lip service to that fact, but still insist Romney has to somehow address the Mormon past. I think Novak is self-revelatory, "I made three attempts without success to get his views of the movie." I'm beginning to wonder if the MSM is not becoming petulant just becasue they want The Question to matter and Romney is not letting it?

Which makes this very smart:

This weekend, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney will deliver the commencement address at a conservative Christian college campus — but don't expect a major speech on his own LDS faith.

Romney needs to be talking about what he will do as president, not his faith. No candidate has ever talked about his faith like people keep expecting Romney to talk about his faith. This is a presidential election - NOT A REFERENDUM ON MORMONISM! The press is desperately trying to make it such a referendum, and when we get all balled up in discussions of theology and labels, religious offenses and defenses, we are conducting the debate associated with the referendum instead of the election.

Romney also kept on point on Leno last night.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post