Pathetic – Just Pathetic
Out of a Raliegh-Durham paper comes a story about a conversation between Franklin Graham and Barack Obama that, after briefly recounting the conversation between the two, says this:
A recent survey of 35,000 Americans showed that 70 percent of Americans and 57 percent of Christian evangelicals believe there are many roads to eternal life.
The survey, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, showed that evangelicals — defined as those belonging to evangelical denominations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention — are remarkably accepting of religions other than their own.
Now, I happen to think that is fairly accurate, and yet many,WAY too many, Evangelicals choose publicly to appear to fly in the face of such statistics, especially when it comes to Mormons, usually out of simple dunderheadedness. Yesterday I worked very hard to keep a more even tone in the face of yet another illustration of this point, but today it is simply more than I can bear. What pushed my button? A CBS interview with Richard Land.
CBSNews.com: And what about Mitt Romney?
Richard Land: I think Mitt Romney would be an excellent choice. There are people in the evangelical community who would have a problem with his Mormonism. I am not one of them. I mean, I’m very clear that I do not believe Mormonism is a Christian faith. But that does not disqualify someone from being President or Vice President. And my guess would be that, probably, about 15 to 20 percent of the evangelical community would have a problem with his Mormonism.
That is simply one of the most politically silly statements I have ever read. There are two essential things wrong with it. One, Richard Land probably does need to get word to John McCain about the state of evangelical thought on a Romney choice, but he sure as heck does not need to do it publicly – which brings me to me second point. Admitting to something like that publicly, not just with denial, but without condemnation, is problematic – it is a failure of leadership.
I am truly sick and tired of Evangelical leadership (think Land and Dobson) trying to walk some razor’s edge between placating their politically bigoted constituencies and what they flat out know is what is best for the political issues and concerns that are their stock in trade. Those politically bigoted constituencies are just wrong – and that needs to be said- loudly.
It is often said that the Islam has a problem. Everybody knows the violent ones are a minority, but peaceful reasonable Islamic leadership is loath to condemn, correct, or excomminicate those violent ones. I am beginning to see a non-violent, but very distasteful, analog amongst Evangelicals.
Do people like Dobson and Land risk losing their followers by condemning them? Yes they do – BUT, and this is a big “but” – by allowing that bigotry to stand they rob themselves of political power as well. If Romney can be disqualified on the basis of faith – SO CAN THEY. And I can promise you, the left will waste no time in using this to neutralize them.
The only option Evangelical political leadership has is to marginalize the religious bigots amongst us. It may result in a temporary setback, but temporary is far better than the permanent political banishment that will result if we let this stand. And now, by the way, is the perfect time to adsorb that temporary setback; we took a beating in the primaries – what’s one more black eye when you are already on the canvas bleeding? Better now than when we are looking good.
Too many pastors and psychologists trying to be political leaders – they are different games with different rules. If we are going to play politics, time to learn those rules and play by them.
Posted in Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 9 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
K.G. on 08 Aug 2008 at 9:50 pm #
Amen, John. In the first intimations of Romney’s run, most of us Mormons thought: Don’t even try; there are just too many people out there who would not vote for a Mormon. Now I am angry.
How is it in America that a child born into a Mormon home has no chance of becoming POTUS, or even VP? This situation is just plaing wrong and should be addressed by the so-called evangelical leaders in no uncertain terms.
My blood boils over Huckabee, who was all-too-willing to take advantage of anti-Mormon sentiment rather than denounce it. He and all the other primary candidates should have been sitting with Mitt at College Station–and in the spirit of Ich bien (eine) Berliner, been holding signs stating: I am a Mormon.
The anti-Mormon element among the “Christian” Conservatives needs to be marginalized forever. John is right; this is the best time to absorb the effect. I hope that McCain chooses Mitt, making it clear that he will not succumb to the bigotted extortion of those who would not vote for any Mormon.
I hope that straight-thinking, fair-minded evangelicals will call upon their leaders to be stand-up Americans and renounce this evil.
TVHall on 09 Aug 2008 at 10:56 pm #
Between John’s original post and K.G.’s addition, we begin to approach the crux of this issue. Many of the evangelical leaders are complicit in the fostering of this anti-Mormon bigotry. In fact, John’s analogy with Islamic radicalism is apropos on another level as well. Just as madrasas teach hatred of Jews and others, some evangelical Sunday Schools have done the same with Mormonism, and certain other faiths.
Although it would be great if some of these evangelical leaders would step up in the manner suggested by John, they have made it clear that none of them has the backbone to do it. They and any others like them have rightly earned the label given to the Sadducees and the Pharisees, hypocrites.
John Schroeder on 10 Aug 2008 at 7:28 am #
I would ask for some restraint in language here. Richard Land is not a bigot – He was at Romney’s College Station speech on faith and I spoke to him. He was and is, as he indicates in the comments I quote in this piece, a Romney supporter. Richard Land is not PERSONALLY an anti-Mormon bigot.
The anger I express in this post is of a limited nature – it is about a failure TO LEAD. It is probably difficult for a Mormon to understand because our churches are structured so differently, but being a leader in many mainstream Christian churches is a very precarious position.
A person in Land’s position must ask himself how best to communicate to his flock the message that it is “OK” to vote for Romney. Land has, in my opinion, errantly, judged that using condemnatory language would only cause the people he is trying to speak to to stop listening and would therefore be counter-productive.
I agree with him that they will not listen, but I am at the point where I don’t think they ever will, so, in the political sense, and the political sense only, let us be done with them. Land is legitimately afraid that “to be done with them” politically would also be interpreted as being done with them spiritually, and thus he treads lightly.
Again, I disagree with his judgment, but I do think this falls short of “hypocrisy.” One cannot be a hypocrite when one is sincerely trying for a legitimate outcome and errs in the attempt. Were Land doing this in an effort purely to feather his own nest, then we would be in a different position, but that is not the case. He is simply wrong in how he perceives it is best to lead on that issue. His wrongness may, in part be steered by fear for his own position, but that is a different thing than genuine deceptive hypocrisy.
Inappropriate and over strong language is part of what got us in to this mess. The problems that some Evangelicals have with Mormons are based on using condemnatory language when only “mistake” language is called for. There is an inherent “unfairness” in asking my Mormon readers to live up to a higher standard than my Evangelical brethren, but then I would remind you I do ask the same of them.
K.G. on 10 Aug 2008 at 3:12 pm #
I quite agree that the solution to the problem is not a lot a heated accusations from Mormons, who are in a definite minority and basically powerless. We must appeal to the justice and mercy of evangelical leaders.
In a way Mormons are like blacks were in the past: A minority without power to obtain justice on our own. We must depend on outside voices with the power to persuade others. Richard Mouw apparently took a lot of hits when he stated, “We have born false witness. We have sinned against you.”
It seems the problems is evangelical leaders have a lot to lose and little to gain by fighting for Mormon justice . . . except peace of conscience, knowing they had the courage to do the right thing.
Evangelical leaders could, however, get some cover by speaking with one voice on this issue.
Lowell Brown on 10 Aug 2008 at 4:22 pm #
I do not think Richard Land is a hypocrite. I do not find him admirable, but I don’t condemn him either. He is essentially a politician and is acting as such. I don’t mean “politician” in any negative sense. But like all politicians, Land has made a deal with reality, in order to survive as the leader of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).
Land’s consistent position throughout the Romney candidacy has included these three points:
1. Mormons aren’t Christians;
2. Still, it’s OK to vote for Romney and I like him; and
3. Some Southern Baptists will not be able to bring themselves to vote for a Mormon.
Land is straddling a chasm within his own faith group. In #1, by insisting that Mormons are not Christians (and even warning Romney during the primaries that if the Governor professed Christianity, that would alienate many Southern Baptists), Land throws a bone to a large sub-group within the SBC. (As anyone who reads this blog much at all knows, I find Land’s very narrow non-dictionary definition of “Christian” almost childlike, terribly misleading, and very prone to misuse by anti-Mormons of truly ill will.)
Then in #2 Land says he likes Romney and thinks Baptists should vote for him, and can do so without violating their conscience. This is Land’s effort to nudge Baptists toward a candidate he thinks really will advance the values voter position on key issues, and is electable, unlike Huckabee. He’s trying to give them “permission,” in other words, to vote for Romney.
#3 is the one that bothers John and me most: It is Land’s effort to make it clear that he is not walking away from that subgroup within the SBC that cannot vote for a Mormon. In short, “Romney’s not a Christian, but I can vote for him, although many Southern Baptists are too anti-Mormon to do that, and that’s OK.”
I think this is an issue of courage rather than of hypocrisy. I like to think that I would be troubled about being president of an organization containing a large segment of bigots who are so powerful or otherwise consequential to me that I must never offend them, even if I must suppress my own conscience in order to avoid doing so.
But that’s just me. I do not know Richard Land’s heart. Those are simply the kinds of compromises leaders make in the political arena. I am happy I don’t have to consider making them.
TVHall on 10 Aug 2008 at 11:09 pm #
If you say Richard Land is neither a bigot nor a hypocrite, I’ll take your word for it. You certainly know him better than I. I’m not sure I would group him together with Dobson either. Dobson has come off as “too cute by half” with his attempts to have it both ways. But this is beside the point I was trying to make, which was more general in nature.
Just where is it that this mindset has come from? And who is it that has fostered it? While Dobson and Land are not responsible for its genesis, even you have stated that they are allowing it to stand without condemnation. How would these, or other, evangelical leaders respond if their flock was engaging in some other form of un-Christian behavior?
The actions of Dobson and Land are actually quite logical. Their livelihoods are dependant on their flocks’ acceptance of their message. In essence, it is the same relationship as a politician and his, or her, constituents. A delicate balance comes with the job. As with anyone else, however, there are times when one must choose which master they will serve.
I’ll be the first to stipulate that what is expected is very difficult. That’s why I don’t see it happening, at least not anytime soon. My intention is merely to point out the nature of the problem.
K.G. on 11 Aug 2008 at 9:47 am #
What makes it “happen” is the same thing that happened with the blacks. I am old enough to remember all the justifications for “separate but equal”–and worse characterizations justifying why blacks couldn’t so this or that.
At some point there was gradual then definite groundswell, making overt racism a grave social sin. Racists became the pariahs they ought to have been. Someone in evangelical leadership needs to condemn the “No Mormons Need Apply” meme in no uncertain terms.
No doubt there will always be some covert antipathy, but overt refusal to accept a Mormon POTUS, VP or member of the SCOTUS needs to be demonized by the same folks who demonize Mormonism as a faith.
Y’all are corrrect. It’s a matter of courage and professional survival. However, I repeat: There is safety in numbers. If a large number of evangelical leaders would speak with one voice, they would give each other cover.
But why would they do it even then? Answer: As a matter of conscience. I believe the Constitiution was inspired of God. If God didn’t want members of certain faiths to serve as president, He would have inspired the writers of the Constitution to say so.
Or, there would have been no Article 6.
The very existence of Article 6 reveals the will of God on this issue.
Lowell Brown on 11 Aug 2008 at 11:09 am #
TVHall, you and I are on the same page. Dobson and Land are doing a delicate dance and cannot take a position of true integrity, IMHO, without damaging their livelihoods. I see them in this context as rather tragic figures who have, if you’ll all pardon the expression, made their deal with the devil.
coltakashi on 11 Aug 2008 at 1:31 pm #
I recall that Southern Baptist leaders were quoted some months ago as saying one reason that the SBC lost a net 40,000 members in 2007 was the public perception that Baptists in that denomination are mean spirited and judgmental of those not in their flock.
Wouldn’t it be remarkable if the leadership of the SBC, or any other Protestant denomination, were to make it a focus of teaching to emphasize God’s fatherhood over all mankind, and the teaching of the Savior to love our neighbors, even those who are of religions that we reject as deviations from our own standard? Christ did not tell the parable of the Good Samaritan to bolster the legitimacy of the Samaritan religion (which still exists, and rejects all prophets after Moses), but to point out that the Mosaic commandment to love “strangers” is one of the ways we fulfill the great commandment to love God. There is nothing inherently wrong with someone believing that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or any other denomination, is not the proper way to salvation, but taking the stance that the believed falsity of Mormon doctrines means that Mormons are either stupid or lying hypocrites is to assert that one’s own way of thinking is the only way that an intelligent, informed and rational person could view reality. That viewpoint is a manifestation of pride, and a rejection of the love that God has for all mankind.
While Mr. Land is not himself a hypocrite, the fact that he is willing to tolerate hypocrisy among the people he leads, when it amounts to a basic rejection of one of the fundamental teachings of the New Testament, even as those people claim to have the most legitimate understanding of the Bible, creates a lack of institutional integrity that I believe is manifested in the shrinking of the SBC membership. People for whom institutional integrity is important, in other words the best kind of Southern Baptist, are going to be discouraged and disheartened by the toleration of hypocrisy and hatred. Just as Mainline Protestantism has been weakened by the attempt to please those denomination members who want to appear socially relevant, just so the SBC and other Evangelical churches can be weakened by the attempt to please the elements of their membership who are least willing to follow the Second Great Commandment.