Today’s Reading List – May 23, 2007
As Romney continues to succeed, the real agenda behind the media's relentless beating of The Question drum seems to become apparent. The Washington Post ran a piece yesterday on the changing political face of Evangelicals and NBC News, via The Today Show, ran a related piece. Both pieces ostensibly are about the death of Jerry Falwell and the supposed shake-up that creates in the movement. Unfortunately, Falwell's influence waned long ago. In the last several years he has been more elder statesman and adviser than actual leader.
It is noteworthy that some Evangelical leaders could perceive Romney as a threat to the Evangelical order, although as the campaign proceeds, that concern seems to be moving to the side. That, in my opinion, represents the real origin of The Question. From the Evangelical side, there was a threat to power structures; from the left, there appeared to be a gap into which a divisive wedge could be driven.
On the Evangelical side, the threat was never that real, and such became apparent early – which is why the left, through its media mouthpieces, has gotten more and more shrill. The TV piece here centers on Giuiliani as the real "threat" to Evangelical power (his stances on social issues that is and frankly I think he is more of a threat to it than Romney, but the precise extent of that threat remains undetermined) which may signal a change in tactic from the left. There is little doubt they want to drive that wedge somehow and pick up some Evangelicals for themselves.
If that change in tactic is real, The Question should quiet down considerably, only time will tell. If; however, Romney gets the Repblican nod, look for stuff that will make what we have seen to date look paltry.
An excellent speech by Charles Chaput on religious tolerance.
Here’s my point. People who take the question of human truth, freedom and meaning seriously will never remain silent about it. They can’t. They’ll always act on what they believe, even at the cost of their reputations and lives. That’s the way it should be. Religious faith is always personal, but it’s never private. It always has social consequences, or it isn’t real. And this is why any definition of “tolerance” that tries to turn religious faith into a private idiosyncrasy, or a set of personal opinions that we can have at home but that we need to be quiet about in public, is doomed to fail.
The mentality of suspicion toward religion is becoming its own form of intolerance. I have seen a kind of secular intolerance develop in our own country over the past two decades. The modern secular view of the world assumes that religion is superstitious and false; that it creates division and conflict; and that real freedom can only be ensured by keeping God out of the public square.
But if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual. If the twentieth century taught us anything, it’s that modern states tend to eat their own people, and the only thing stopping this is a resistance based in the human spirit but anchored in a higher authority—which almost always means religious witness.
Note that the Bishop's discussion here is theologically generic, but discusses the importance of faith in public service. Given what we looked at above, how can we hope to keep God in public discourse if we discard one such voice simply because his precise concept of God differs from ours? There simply is a bigger question, that is the general question of higher authority.
Finally from that most fundamentalist of corners – Bob Jones University quoting Bob Jones III, the founders grandson:
He likes a lot of what Mitt Romney says and isn't troubled by the Mormon's religion and "unless he confuses that with Christianity, I don't have a problem," Jones said. "As long as I don't see that, I can be happy."
Lowell adds: In a way, Jones III's statement highlights the difficulty of Romney's situation. I hope that if Romney makes it clear that he believes in Jesus Christ, Jones III will not consider the Governor to be confusing his Mormon faith with Christianity. But who can predict?
Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Jim Sweeney on 25 May 2007 at 10:27 pm #
This may fall into the vaguely-defined category of religious comments that you’ve been censoring, but I’m so mystified by the Bob Jones quote that I simply had to respond. The rallying cry of most pro-Romney sites has been “relax, Mormonism is just another type of Christianity”, and here John goes spilling the beans and publishing a quote that basically says “Mitt’s not a Christian and as long as he doesn’t pretend to be, he’s OK with me”. Clearly the answer to the question of whether or not Romney is a Christian will have enormous political implications for evangelicals everywhere, and frankly I’d be stunned if you were willing to entertain it.
LowellB on 26 May 2007 at 1:45 pm #
Jim: Thanks for the comment. John and I are resolute that we will not debate theology or doctrine here, although in extraordinary cases we have made an effort to clarify doctrinal beliefs. Our publication of Bob Jones III’s comment was meant only to report that comment, not to endorse it. As to whether or not Romney is a Christian, that is a matter of labels and we do not believe it’s relevant to whether or not to support Romney’s candidacy.
Having said that, and speaking for myself, I think it’s terribly important to be very careful when claiming Mormons are not Christian, for the reasons we posted long ago here and here. I made some personal comments here . The plain fact is, Jim, when you say Mitt Romney is not a Christian, you mean he is not an orthodox or creedal Christian, unless I am mistaken. Many readers (including most LDS folks) think you mean he does not believe in Jesus Christ. To Mormons, that is not a fair or accurate description, and most of us find it hurtful, outrageous, and flat-out wrong. But I will stop here. This discussion really belongs in church or in a seminary.