Megachurches, Reactions, Counter-Reactions and More…
Was It A Big Deal Or Not?
On Faith asked about the Saddleback thing and the responses are quite slow in coming in. I think that is reflective of the fact that the Civic Forum was really important in a relatively small circle.
However, it says something VERY important about Evangelical politics. USAToday points out that megachurches like Saddleback are not all that unique in their levels of political involvement. But my personal reflections today on all this center on this Blake Dvorak post at RCP’s VP Watch blog:
The two big notions floating around on the chattering circuit is that Joe Biden is up (true) and Mitt Romney is down. What’s spurred the Romney news is the pressure coming from Evangelical groups and Mike Huckabee. Both insist Romney’s religion has nothing to do with their opposition and that their concerns center around Romney’s flip-flopping on matters like abortion and same-sex marriage.
OK, let’s put aside the denials and take matters at face valu: If Romney is down it’s because of the Huckabee led pressure, and then it is because of religion, and that is where this past weekend’s forum gets important. (I am also not going to take on the main point that Dvorak makes later in his post, but I think he is wrong.)
As we analyzed yesterday, the real winner over the weekend was Rick Warren. That also means, to some extent, that the commonly touted voices that stand up for Evangelicals, Land, Dobson, Perkins, Huckabee - LOST. Warren, the weekend’s somewhat strained comments to Jack Tapper notwithstanding, has been far more circumspect on Romney and religion than the other bunch. Romney himself told me a couple of years ago that he had had several excellent meetings with Rick Warren.
The forum, by its very nature, location and host, served to marginalize the hotheads - Something we have been calling for on this blog for a very long time. John McCain’s extraordinary success in that forum paves the way for a Romney nod as Veep. The mainstream of Evangelicals - those that might be a little wary of, but hardly prejudiced against, Mormonism - now stand in front of Evangelical politics. McCain is free of having to worry about how the silly rabid bunch will react.
Here’s hoping he will act accordingly.
This; However, Will Not Help . . .
Frustrated by the treatment former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney received from the “religious right” in his run for U.S. president, a Layton historian has written a book documenting the anti-Mormon bias amidst the national GOP party.
The 244-page, softcover book, “A Different God? Mitt Romney, The Religious Right and the Mormon Question” by Craig L. Foster, lists for $24.95 and is now available online at Amazon.com and Barnes&Noble.com and is expected to reach book stores by Aug. 21.
Not being a Mormon myself, I cannot begin to tell Mormons how to feel about all that has happened, nor can I possibly deny that religious prejudice played a huge role in how the primaries went down. But having said that I think there are a couple of big mistakes that could be made in the wake of this cycle.
One would be for Mormons to play victim. Losing, even under these circumstances, is different than being victimized. Playing victim plays the same game the silly rabid bunch have played. I believe Mormons should, as African Americans should have, elevate the game. Don’t meet these people on their level.
Secondly, Mormons should not seek acknowledgment of religious claims out of this. The religious differences may never be resolved, in fact probably should not be. Large branches of orthodox Christianity will always view Mormons as worshiping a “different” God. But that is a religious question. The great American tradition is that even if that is true, it should not make a difference when seeking electoral office.
The religious and political issues must be addressed in separate manners and venues.
Lowell: Anyone can write a book, especially a softcover book with no apparent publisher. Craig Foster’s book, I suspect, will not be very widely read. Still, it is a mistake. What good does it do to point out obvious bias, especially when there are plenty of people who think that very bias is not only justified, but Godly? For every book on the Mormon side of that issue, there will be three in response on the anti-Mormon side, attacking Foster’s points with relish and self-righteous zeal.
It is foreign to Latter-day Saint culture to whine or complain, or to enshrine persecution. We do not talk much of the evil that was done to us in the mid-19th century, except in historical discussions. We are taught to pray for the enemies of our church. John is right: We should rise above the bigotry.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Reading List | 3 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!?
3 Responses to “Megachurches, Reactions, Counter-Reactions and More…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
jmh on 19 Aug 2008 at 8:47 am #
Have you ever seen the social dynamic where someone endlessly jabs another person with snarky comments, and then when the person finally reacts says ” you’re just too sensitve”?
Yeah.
VICTIM???
I don’t think so.
Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?
You bet.
Rusty on 19 Aug 2008 at 10:24 am #
Lowell is right in that very few people (not just Mormons) will take interest in Foster’s book. Those who follow politics closely already know what happened, those who don’t follow politics closely won’t want to read a political/religious analysis of what happened. There will always be those that can’t get passed the idea that others don’t/won’t agree with them (on both sides). They won’t be able to let it go and will keep returning to the subject.
Anyone can write a book and speak their opinion. I don’t think Mr. Foster’s book will be that last on this subject, and it definitely won’t be the last book trying to pull religion into the middle of politics. Bennion Spencer, running for Congressman in Utah’s 3rd Congressional District, has written a book he is waiting to publish called “How would Jesus Vote” and the local press has had a hayday on that news.
I’m not sure I agree with Lowell that “it is foreign to Latter-day Saint culture to whine or complain, or to enshrine persecution.” It is contrary to the doctrine of the church, but the culture is made up of doctrine mixed with human nature; and there are large pockets of folks who have trouble letting go, who like to revisit and savor passed wrongs like a fine vintage wine. (I’m even related to a few.) We can only try to keep the dialog open and put out the best arguments we can about where and when religious specificity truly matters.
CarlH on 19 Aug 2008 at 3:50 pm #
Despite the slowness of responses coming in to the On Faith question about the Saddleback Church Forum, some of the panelists have some very insightful things to say that are worth reading, both confirming John’s interpretation of what this really seems to have been all about, as well as re-articulating how inappropriate it seems to subject candidates for public office to a religious fitting room. Surprising (frightening?) myself, I found much to agree with in the comments of some typically viewed as part of the religious left–apart from their paranoia about faith in public life. Unfortunately, the Saddleback Church Forum may, despite Obama’s willingness to participate (and perhaps precisely because of some views of how poorly he did), become an iconic moment for the Left on which to mobilize yet again their attempts to purge (or at least delegitimize) faith and religious expressions and motivations from the public square.
As for the Foster book, I really can’t improve on Lowell’s comments from the LDS perspective. And John’s overall reaction is pretty much spot on. Having not read the book (and certainly not planning to do so), I don’t know to what extent Foster may be attempting to “seek acknowledgment of religious claims out of this.” The title is, at the very least, unfortunate in that respect because, for me (and I believe for many other CJCLDS members), the “different God” assertion evokes a visceral reaction very similar to that of the all-too-promiscuous use of the word “cult.” That is because it ignores–or at least glosses over–an important distinction between the understanding of the God whom both groups seek to understand and follow more perfectly, and the identity of God. This is not to suggest that a correct understanding of the nature of God is not itself a significant, and perhaps even an essential, aspect of the exercise of faith. But the language choice itself partakes of caricature and marginalization, as opposed to exposition and reasoned discussion of very real differences. Why is it not sufficient, in the interest of dialog (and even evangelization, if you will) to state the problem as one of a “different understanding of the nature God” or even “a profoundly different understanding”? The answer is at the heart of Mormon objections to the phrase.