The Weekend That Evangelicals Got The Spotlight They Crave So
About That Forum At Saddleback . . .
Needless to say, it is big religion and politics news. The transcripts are here. We have only had time to skim them and had no time to watch. Frankly, I did not think it is that important, and so far, reaction and the transcript skim is proving me right.
I did not get that excited in advance because I suspected it would not be that relevant. My suspicions were confirmed when the morning of, Jack Tapper blogged an interview with Rick Warren that included this:
I noted that Mitt Romney — thought to be on McCain’s short list for VP — did not get a lot of evangelical votes during the GOP primaries specifically because of his Mormon faith.
“What did you think of that when that was playing out?” I asked.
“Well, I think there’s a fundamental difference because evangelicalism and Mormonism,” Warren said. “There’s no doubt about it. And there’s some things that Mormons hold to that are not ‘historic Christianity’ that all Lutherans, all Methodists, all Baptists, all Pentecostals, all Catholics, Protestants [hold true].
“For instance, all Christians believe in the Trinity. Mormons deny the Trinity. So that’s a fundamental difference,” Warren said. “All Christians believe in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Mormons believe in additional books that historic orthodox Christians reject. There may have been a misunderstanding on that. But I don’t even think that’s the whole issue. I think that there are other issues involved in terms of who has had experience, who has had leadership and who understands my problems.”
Warren gave a theology answer which to my mind disqualifies him as a serious commentator or interviewer when it comes to elections and a POTUS. Please note he stops short of saying religion is a disqualifier for office – he just goes to theology instead of politics in answer to an essentially political question. Warren’s phrase “who understands my problems” is, however key.
[Lowell: I found Warren's response almost incomprehensible.]
In the aftermath, the Godblogsphere is just eating up the Obama-McCain joint appearance at Warren’s church. Sadly, Evangelicals have come to view themselves in a kingmaker role and this was an opportunity to act like it. Many commentators have said the real winner in this thing is Warren, and that is astute political analysis – with this event he has clearly established himself as the new leader for Evangelicals. Beyond that this was a void.
Evangelicals are chewing it up because of tone, since they find political competition off-putting (which also means they love indecisiveness – how else could so many churches finds themselves in such messes?) and because Warren asked a lot of questions that “speak their language.” Personally, I found it a bit demeaning, as if I as an Evangelical am not intelligent enough to lift myself to the level of standard political debate.
Frankly, the whole thing was dangerously close to an identity test. It smacked of trying to get the candidates to sound like they fit the evangelical mold, at least enough to connect to Evangelical voters.
How about Evangelicals connecting to the nation?
The Economist thinks both candidates have a “religion problem,” which probably does explain why they agreed to this thing with Warren to begin with. There is a delicate line for a candidate between serving the voters, leading, and pandering. Frankly, given Evangelical behavior of late, I think more leading is called for.
Here’s The Evidence . . .
The weekend was full of stories about Romney’s evangelical problems, even for Veep:
But my favorite story on all this was from Jonathon Martin:
Mike Huckabee told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that he’s expecting a top-tier speaking role at next month’s GOP convention.
“It would be beyond imagination if I didn’t get a prime speaking spot,” Huckabee told the paper in an interview published last Sunday. “I came in second. I would think that I’ve earned the right to be there.”
First of all, Huck needs to check the vote count again – Romney came in second, Huck just kept running after he had lost.
But all this is evidence of Evangelicals getting just a bit too big for their britches. Whether it is the guys leading the Evangelical PACs trying to sound “judicious” in their evaluations of Romney as a veep candidate, or Huckabee sounding like a petulant child that has not gotten the invitation he thinks he deserves, it is all beginning to smack of panic in the face of defeat.
The big picture is obvious. The traditional organs and leaders of the “religious right” are not just on the ropes- they have lost. In fact they are so out of it, they cannot hear the bell ringing and are swinging wildly, thinking the fight is still on. Which goes back to the political analysis of the Warren forum – he really is the clear winner and this bunch are the clear losers. Warren still has a lot to learn and needs to put some meat on the bones, but he has played this reasonably smart.
That is to say, he has stayed out of politics in general, being a friend to presidents, but being essentially apolitical – the Billy Graham route. I am still waiting for real, effective, genuine Evangelical political leadership, but in its absence I will take this approach over what we have been seeing any day of the week.
So, Which Is It?
The Washington Post thinks Evangelicals will move towards Obama. The Washington Times reports on moves to the contrary. I think it is proof the press does not get this stuff.
Going Deep . . .
Richard John Neuhaus goes into some extraordinarily deep theology on Christians, history and eschatology and in the middle of it says this:
Obviously, we’re into deep theological waters here. What Christians can say about the particulars of God’s purposes in history leaves us stuttering and tongue-tied. They can attend closely to what is revealed; they can try to read “the signs of the times;” they can study, discuss, debate, speculate, and then pray for the grace to act in the courage of their uncertainties. But at the end of the day, they say with Paul, “Now we see in a mirror darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.”
I cannot help but reflect that it is precisely that uncertainty that Neuhaus discusses that makes it impossible for Christians to apply religious tests to civil elective office. We just do not know the mind of God that well.
Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
fitzwdarcey on 18 Aug 2008 at 6:36 am #
So, should I take from this that an individual must have a demonstrated belief in the trinity to be elected to executive office? I think Thomas Jefferson, who thought the Nicean Creed was nonsense and who did not believe in the trinity or the entire old and new testament would find that interesting as would others.
I have tried with some effort to understand why some evangelicals would be “nervous” about how a faith they don’t understand and think so poorly of might affect a person’s actions. However, when it comes down to it, not one has been able to show me a reasonable reason for that position. Not once!! Clearing the evangelical test is no indication of being a good conservative or a good president (Jimmy Carter). Not clearing it has yet to indicate a failure to do well serving one’s nation. It really is starting to look like a lot of make up to hide stubborn ugly bias and bigotry.
As they sing in Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, “we don’t like what we don’t understand; in fact it scares us.” I think there will be just enough doubt raised that McCain won’t pick Romney for fear of hurting the ticket and evangelicals will, once again, feel that they are the kingmakers; possibly at the expense of more capable government.
K.G. on 18 Aug 2008 at 12:19 pm #
I have a question if anybody know the answer: What would have happened if a Mormon had been one of the two candidates? Would he/she have been invited to participate at Saddleback? I’ve heard Mormons are allowed to sign up for their pastor-training classes. However, would they have been allowed to speak in Saturday’s format or as a guest speaker as I believe both Hillary and Obama have done in the past?
Would Saddleback members have picketed with placards, etc if a Mormon were allowed to speak on the campus?
Lori on 18 Aug 2008 at 3:14 pm #
Warren surprised me with that answer. It was very polarizing pitting Evangelicals against Mormons, calling Mormons trinity deniars and believing in unorthodox scripture. He even pitted most major Christian religions against Mormons. It was not very good answer from someone who should value religious freedom.
Furthermore, that his answer was theological as you stated tells you he is one of those anti-Mormon Evangelicals. What he should have said is that “we have work to do among our own to eliminate the bias against those who do not believe in our faith.”
But he holds this bias himself and sees nothing wrong with it. He was on Sean Hannity’s radio show today decrying Black Liberation Theology in terms harsher than those he used against Mormonism. I doubt he can overlook a person’s faith and cast a religion neutral vote.
My opinion of Warren has been greatly diminished over the past couple of days.
jmh on 18 Aug 2008 at 5:49 pm #
I remain disheartened by the extent that religous qualifications for elected office have become the norm in this election cycle. Relgious affiliation ( or even lack thereof) has never been an indicator of character. Even though some of the questions at the Saddleback forum may have been insightful, it still seemed to me to be an exercise in religous pandering, and gives far too much power and visiblity to voters( and leaders) of a particular religous stripe.
I do not understand for the life of me, why Evangelical Christians are deserving of special favors. Just imagine how an invitation for these same candidates to participate in a forum held at the LDS tabernacle in Salt Lake, moderated by a leader of that church, would be received.
I did find it interesting that Rick Warren, prefacing one of his questions said – paraphrasing here- that leaders are not stubborn, and sometimes they change their position based on new information, this is not flip-flopping, but is growth based on new insight….
A bit of common sense that should be apparent
However, perhaps this can be used to once and for all put an end to the ridiculous flip-flopping charge that is always aimed at Rommney ( as if he was the only candidate to have changed positions!!)
Of course,that would mean that the religous bigots out there will have to find another meme to make sure that Mormons need not apply.
Doug King on 18 Aug 2008 at 10:05 pm #
Abraham Lincoln was said to have been approached by a group of ministers who asked him to remove Grant as a General because of his drinking. Lincoln replied, “I can’t spare the man — he fights.” Another version of the story has Lincoln reply, “I wish I knew what whiskey he drinks: I would send a cask to some other generals.”
Those well-meaning ministers had no clue about what it takes to win a war.
Fable or fact, the story illustrates an important point: What qualifies someone for a tough job is experience, talent, and grit to do difficult things, NOT personal compatibilities. When I climb on an airplane or go in for surgery, I don’t fret over the race or gender or religion of the pilot or surgeon. I don’t worry if my lawyer or financial adviser is a vegetarian or owns a dog or donates to a certain charity. What matters is experience and ability to do the job well.
All this fuss over theology is irrelevant. And it’s making a lot of otherwise good people look silly and prejudiced. They seemingly struggle to trust someone not exactly to their liking, and yet they expect the rest of us Americans (who differ from them) to trust only one of their kind.