Romney’s Run: “A Crucible for Mormons?” And How Do Evangelicals Feel About This?
The Washington Post picks up this story by Rachel Zoll, religion writer for the Associated Press. Others, notably Suzanne Sataline of the Wall Street Journal and Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune, have addressed the impact of Mitt Romney’s candidacy on Mormons, but Ms. Zoll adds some notable quotations. (She also had the eminently good judgment to quote me and to mention our blog.)
Some interesting excerpts:
“It is prejudice,” said Richard Bushman, an emeritus professor at Columbia University, who is a leading historian and devout Mormon. “Underlying all these questions is that these beliefs are basically crazy so you’ve got to explain them to us.”
Well, right. Let’s call it what it is. As I’ve noted often before, no Catholic candidate is ever asked to explain transubstantiation or the Fatima miracle.
Then there’s this:
Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., said some Christian conservatives consider Mormonism not just a questionable faith, but also a rival political force. He lived in Michigan in the 1960s, when Romney’s father, George, was governor there. At that time, evangelicals weren’t deeply involved in politics. Many supported George Romney.
“What’s going on when his son runs and all of a sudden there’s this overt hostility that came out, which did not come out toward his father,” said Mouw, who is part of a group of evangelical and Mormon scholars who meet to discuss their theological disagreements. “I’m kind of ashamed of the way that a lot of traditional Christians have handled this.”
That one raises this question: Is there any kind of a discussion going on, even if quiet, within Evangelical circles about whether Mouw is right? Is he in a minority when he expresses some shame? John is traveling this weekend, but I hope he can chime in on this.
John answers the call: Just remember, Evangelicals are a diverse and large group. With regards to the shame issue, yes I think that that is a minority opinion. To be honest, the branch of Evangelicalism from which most of the shameful behaviors and attitudes emanated is very large, and politically powerful, but largely ignored by the other branches. The reason is because they play such nasty hardball with just about everybody. So, the people that would register shame have not been paying enough attention to note it. They are also far less political in their evangelicalism. These people are a simple numerical minority, so it is naturally a minority opinion.
Back to Lowell: Here’s my favorite:
“Gov. Romney has, perhaps without intending to do so, rendered the church a service,” said Robert Millet, a scholar of the church and professor at the LDS-owned Brigham Young University. “It’s served as a kind of wakeup call for Saints themselves to the fact that we’re not as well understood as we think we are. How can it be the case that Gov. Romney and his feelings about Christ and his feelings about religion have been so little understood?”
Oh, I’m pretty sure that the last reason Romney was running was to help his fellow Mormons see how other Americans feels about them. But I agree that Romney’s candidacy was a real service– not just to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but to people of good will everywhere.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Religious Bigotry | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
- Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
- RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
- Say What?!
- In The Wake Of Prop 8
- A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
- Being The Target
- Encouraging?
- Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
- And Now…Terrorism!?
5 Responses to “Romney’s Run: “A Crucible for Mormons?” And How Do Evangelicals Feel About This?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
ncultra on 09 Feb 2008 at 7:37 pm #
This article best articulates my personal reaction and feelings to the events of the past year surrrounding the Romney campaign. I agree completely with Lowell’s comments, those of Richard Bushman, and I was not surprised to read Dr. Mouw’s comments.
It is not insignificant that Dr. Mouw now has his own critics among his fellow evangelicals:
“Dr. Mouw’s comments were irresponsible, shameful and hypocritical. He bore false witness against many fruitful ministries that want nothing more than to present a clear and accurate case when it comes to the teachings of Mormonism and the presentation of the gospel and the Christ of Scripture. Given how he has defined ‘bearing false witness,’ we are unclear how Dr. Mouw can think his broad brush accusations were any less a sin than the stereotypes he claims have been foisted on Mormons. Dr. Richard Mouw owes an apology to the many missionaries and ministries he has undermined.”
The entire tirade is worth reading. See:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9561/is-dr-richard-mouw-bearing-false-witness.
My personal conclusion is that this overt hostility that the Romney campaign exposed (lured out from the rock under which it was hiding) is not just a fringe element - it is mainstream among conservative evangelicals, especially here in the South. And further, I conclude personally to keep the light exposed on this hostility and to do more to counter it.
I would also like to express deep appreciation to John for the fair and thoughtful way he has addressed The Question, and for how respectfully he has reminded he readers of his theological differences with Lowell and the LDS community at those times he felt such a reminder was necessary.
Marty on 09 Feb 2008 at 11:43 pm #
I have appreciated your blog, and read it every day. I hope that it will continue, even after Mitt has suspended his campaign. You address a very important topic that must come to the attention of voters during this election, and for future elections.
4thnephite on 10 Feb 2008 at 6:36 am #
By discussing the religious bigotry through the contexts of the US Constitution we find where people stand and how close they stand to true Christian principals. We know and understand our brothers and sisters by the way they act, let us not judge them by the way they think.
Mitt Romney has done a great service, not only to our beliefs, but also to God loving people everywhere, not only in this great nation, to the world at large who knows the future of Democracy is at stake.
God Bless America, Joe
twotwins on 10 Feb 2008 at 6:53 pm #
18 years ago - I helped make James Dobson, Ralph Reed, American Family Association, The Christian Coalition . . . . I helped make them rich. I bought every book, tape, video . . . . whatever.
I thought they were great to get so involved in politics. The Church I belonged to was not political at all.
From the age of 10 . . . . . I went Church Shopping.
Presbyterian, Baptist, Catholic Boarding School, went to Synagogue in New York with my husband. . . . .
I finally found the Church I loved. . . . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
I realize in the last few months . . . . . the Evangelicals I mentioned above, if they had known I was LDS. . . . .
Would they have taken my money???? And I mean . . . a lot of it!!!!!
My neice now refuses to go to any church with her friends, because she visited some of them and they talked trash about her “Aunt Penny”.
She could not believe her ears - they way they talked about “Mormons”.
Thanks a lot Evangelicals!!!! I am not sure your are what Jesus had in mind.
coltakashi on 11 Feb 2008 at 1:33 pm #
Perhaps it would help Mormons understand the way some Evangelicals have played politics over Romney’s faith if we remember what a “church” is to many Evangelicals. Specifically, their own church is a specific congregation that owns its own building and hires its own minister. It is affiliated with other churches that share its religious heritage, but in the week-to-week operation of the church, it is in a competitive environment in which it is competing with not only other denominations, but also other congregations of the same denomination. A successful church grows its membership and its buildings and its ministries, and may go from a few hundred people to ten or twenty thousand. How much money the local church sends to its larger organization, such as the Southern baptist Convention, or to various ministries olutside the local church, is up to the local church. If a faction of the members don’t like the minister, but cannot get consensus to make a change, they will walk out and found their own new congregation.
Thus, being, for example, a Southern Baptist means seeing your local church as a result of what can be political struggles and divisions, and relations with other Baptists churches being affected by the political competition within the Convention. And then there is the entirely added dimension of competition with nearby churches of other denominations. That competition affects the size of membership and the financial resources to not only employ a pastor but, honestly for many ministers, its ability to fund important ministries.
The conclusion I reach is that a very political kind of competition is the natural milieu of many Evangelical churches and their members. The fact that they apply that same pattern of competition to public politics as well should not be surprising. For Evangelicals in this context, it seems to me that politics and religion are inseparable, and so it is natural for them to apply religion to their public politics as well.
Contrast this with the LDS viewpoint. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a highly integrated organization. All land and buildings are owned by a single entity nationwide. Usually several congregations will share a single building. If the population of a congregation expands, a new building will be built, its location chosen by Church HQ, and the boundaries of each congregation revised by Church HQ. Congregations are purposely kept small so that there is a need for active participation by most of the members. Mormons will then attend the congregation and building that corresponds to their home address. The leaders of each Mormon congregation are not elected or selected by a popular vote or a local board, but by more senior leaders in the Church. None of the leaders are paid, so they have no income that will be increased oir decreased based on attendance. The curriculum is written at Church HQ. There is no opportunity to politic between LDS congregations. There are no campaigns at the national/international church level.
So politics is foreign to the operation of the LDS Church, and there is strict political neutrality on public politics. The Church does not dictate candidates or parties to its members. It does not allow its churches or mailing lists to be used for partisan campaigns.
Thus, when Mormons participate in public politics, there is a clear demarcation from their church. They can be members of the same congregation and run as candidates for opposite political parties. They can even serve together in the intimate partnership of a 3-man bishopric or stake presidency. Politics does not affect their religion, and their religion does not affect politics. They are not only independent, they are totally unlike environments.
By contrast, for many Evangelicals, it is hard to draw a line between the political competition that takes place within and between churches, and the political competition within the public between candidates and parties.
I think that, for this reason, Mormons see much Evangelical political activity as beyond the pale, while Evangelicals simply cannot believe that Mormons are not politicking through their church. Romney’s request to consider his religious denomination a positive but generic factor in evaluating him makes sense from a Mormon standpoint, but is an approach that some Evangelicals see as abberrant.
Evangelicals see Mormon unity and hierarchy and think it is anti-democratic and that Mormons must be politically unified, and therefore a threat.
So, in addition to theological differences, the fundamental differences in church organization and governance between Mormons and Evangelicals also leads to Evangelical application of their religion to politics, even as Mormonism takes care to not even endorse the only Mormon in the presidential race, with misunderstanding and suspicion on both sides of the distinct governing practices and standards of each side.