. . . It’s The Same Old Song and Dance.

“Pastor, Conference speaker, Professor, Talk Show Host, and Columnist” Tony Beam said on the Crosswalk blog:

One thing is for sure . . . religion is now front and center in the race for the White House and it is showing no signs of retreating.  It proves that Americans care deeply about the religious convictions of their leaders.

Boy is that the truth and I am not sure we are better for it.   In my lifetime we have had several presidencies fraught with scandal, criminality, and ineptitude and the lesson we have learned from them is that character matters.  Religion is certainly a huge factor in the development of character, but there is no equation between religious conviction and character (think Bill Clinton), and certainly not between religion/character and competency (think Jimmy Carter).  It is not a question of “caring about the religious convictions of our leaders,” it is about putting those concerns in the proper context.

This is something we are not doing.  Sarah Palin is being painted largely with the same religious brush that was used to whack Romney.   Said Andrew Sullivan:

She is a long-time member of the Assemblies Of God. That’s all you need to know.

Now frankly, Sullivan is hardly anybody to worry about when it comes to attacking religion.   The man is so overwhelmingly obsessed with justifying his own homosexuality that he lashes out indiscriminately at anybody that might even hint that they think homosexual practice is a violation of the created order.  But that notwithstanding, his very offensive utterance brought a raft of response:

• Patterico said the obvious - “Andrew Sullivan is a religious bigot…”
• John Mark Reynolds wonders - “Does the Atlantic Despise Pentecostals and Charismatics?”
• And Christianity Today gives us a primer of AG history and theology.

The thing that is saddest to me about all this is that (1) it was entirely predictable, and (2) when similar attacks on Romney went “unpunished” (Jacob Weisberg is still editor of Slate; and Sullivan was even harsher on Romney than he is on Palin, and he got a better deal at The Atlantic than he had going at Time)  the door was not only left open for this stuff, it was encouraged.

Now what is really sad is that there has been much more “offense” taken at this statement by Sullivan than at any of his very harsh statements about Romney.   One of the primary theses of this blog was that if religious attacks on Romney were allowed to stand, it would harm not just Mormons, but Evangelicals as well.  Frankly, on a theological level, Pentecostals are pretty distant from the Evangelical center, not quite as far off as Mormons, but they are out there - I know any number of Southern Baptists types that would describe Pentecostals as “heretics.”  And yet here we are.  Identity politics just don’t help much, do they.  Even if “‘Values Voters still love Romney.”

Where Does All This Come From?

Well, the press has certainly been no help.   Speaking on a panel at Fordham last week, SLTrib reporter Peggy Fletcher Stack, who quoted this blog in that paper often, stated:

“I was appalled by the way Romney was treated by the press,” said Stack, senior religion writer for the Salt Lake Tribune, “I do not believe every adherent should be responsible for his pastor’s or church’s belief. I wish the questions posed [by the media] were more directly related to the job, especially in this time of national urgency.”

And we keep getting treated to these little anecdotal bits  trying to link labels and candidates.

The thing that is really sad is the inadequacy of the labels.  The spectrum of people behind a label is so diverse that by the time the transition from journalism to history is made, the label is rejected almost completely by the historian.

So What Is A ‘Christian’ Voter To Do?

Well, Joe Biden says we should raise taxes:

“Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most….”

Uh, yeah Joe, but that same doctrine says that is the Church’s responsibility, not the government’s.  As Patrick Hynes notes, Biden is not helping Obama in the religious arena.  The Wall Street Journal also responds.

But the sub-head question brings us back to the Beam piece that opened this post, which he concluded:

Evangelicals will play a major role in this election.  I pray that we will all pray our way through the political static and allow the Word of God and the Holy Spirit of God to be our guide as we choose our next leader.  Whoever wins this election, history will record that religion and religious voters played a major role in shaping both campaigns. 

And a piece by our old friend Joe Carter at his new gig.  Joe, who we had some significant differences with during the primary campaign seems to be growing up just a bit.  Although he previously announced his concurrence with the Joel Belz “Mormons lie” contention, Joe now says:

In general, I remain optimistic about the role of politically conservative evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons, and Jews. 

It is good to know some seem to be learning from the mistakes of this cycle.   But in the same piece Joe says something that I need to address:

Our political alliances, therefore, will often be tenuous and shift based on particular issues. Adherence to our principles trumps loyalty to those who simply share our religious identity. Several years ago at Family Research Councils’ Values Voter Summit, the Southern Baptist leader Richard Land said he’d vote for a Jewish pro-life politician who promised to raise his taxes before he’d vote a Christian pro-choice candidate who promised to cut them. The rousing applause he received would be as disturbing to most Republicans as it would to most Democrats. But Land knew how the issues should be prioritized. We should too.

6) Our allegiance to any political party should be modest, contingent, and made with a full awareness that Republicans/Democrats will attempt to distance themselves from us as quickly after the election as possible. Both parties have always done so and will likely continue that tradition until the eschaton. Our goal, then, should merely be to attempt to usher in the side that will slow the process of disorder, allowing us the room to maneuver so that we can begin to re-strengthen and fortify other institutions within society.

I disagree with this analysis to some extent.  Being a good, reliable political ally is the best possible way to achieve our ends.  On the day before Super Tuesday I wrote:

There is much discussion in this cycle by evangelicals of feeling like they are “taken for granted” by the Republican establishment. There is some truth to that, but there are two vitally important points I want to make.

The first point is - grow up. It is politics, not church. This is not about making friends and feeling good about yourself. It is about gathering enough support, meaning people, to your particular cause, concern, or issue. That is definitionally about “using” people. Once you have secured someone’s support, you have to move on to the next someone. Is that taking you for granted? In a way, it is, but no more so than your employer that fits you in a spot on the assembly line. And if you quit your job because you think your employer takes you for granted, all you really lose is a paycheck. Best have someplace else to go before you make that move, I don’t care how “hurt” you “feel.”

A brief personal aside on this point. Through the course of things it has been my privilege to meet Mitt Romney on multiple occasions. I have had extensive and personal conversations with some of his family. Over the years, I have met presidents of this country in intimate settings, and I have met presidents and potentates of many other nations. Almost all of these people have referred to me as their “friend.” When I was young, I thought that meant we were going to start hanging out and having beers together - yeah, right. But when Mitt Romney called me his friend, I knew that if time allowed, there might not be beer involved, but we could enjoy some conviviality. Simply put, the man is as genuine in his connection to the people he meets as the circumstances can possibly allow - more so than any individual of such position, and higher, that I have ever met. I can assure you, Evangelicals could never be “taken for granted” by Mitt Romney. They might get less attention than they think they deserve, but that is their problem, not his.

The second point is a far more important one. Party politics is how you get things done in this nation. In those rare instances where independents manage to get themselves elected, they are relegated to the role “the speech everyone sits through politely” or the “class clown” a la Jesse Ventura. Accomplishing things in government requires rounding up enough of the right people - yeah, it’s social networking. Political parties are the infrastructure necessary to build that network.

Political parties thrive on loyalty. If they cannot, at least from time-to-time, take you for granted, they have to move on to people and groups that they can depend on so that they can accomplish their goals. It is a simple exchange. You give the party your dependable loyalty and in return they give you the means necessary to make your voice heard.

The political process of this nation is what it is, and so long as it does not demand of us that we act outside the bounds of our religiously based morality, we owe that process our best efforts.  “Above the fray,” is a formula for ineffectiveness.  If Evangelicals, or Mormons, or Catholics, or… want to be a truly viable political force the best thing to do is engage, not limit engagement.

This will mean compromise on non-critical issues, but the party is big enough to handle that.  Our loyalty to party will be rewarded by loyalty in return.  Our loyalty will be rewarded by our issues moving from the fringe to the mainstream of the party’s activities, provided that we are also doing our other job - you know the real job of the church - converting people - and taking our faith as more than a label.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » |  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!?