Do You Think?…
Says Austin Hill, A DC talk show host:
The last Republican primary election cycle vividly illustrates this. During that time, Dobson devoted most of his public political commentary to critiquing the candidates, and, while from a distance it appeared that he thought highly of Governor Mitt Romney, he nonetheless declined to offer a public endorsement. Finally, on primary election day in his home state of Colorado, Dobson cautiously admitted in an interview that he voted for Romney, but made it clear that his vote was not to be construed as support for the Mormon Church, to which Romney belongs.
It’s possible that Dobson refused to endorse Romney because, had he done so, it would have appeared in the minds of many Evangelicals as an endorsement of a “cult member” – - and this potentially could have been harmful to Focus On The Family. If this is correct, then it appears that, perhaps out of necessity, Dobson chose to protect his organization, rather than publicly support his preferred presidential candidate. And thus, my question, what is the purpose of this movement – - to preserve its’ existing institutions, or to do what is necessary for the future?
I think most of the readers of this blog would agree with that analysis. It is one the of the reasons I don’t think the Evangelicals need a new leader. Leaders need things to lead more than things that need preserving. Sometimes I wonder if such institutional competition lies more at the heart of the Evangelical/Mormon divide than theological concerns. The theological gap is wide indeed, but it seems to be overcome for the sake of other alliances (take Judaism, for example – which does not place faith in Jesus Christ by any form or description).
Hill in his article seems to be asking who will replace Dobson. If his analysis is correct, one must ask if Dobson really was “a leader.” And while Dobson has a huge audience, is he that important? And finally, although Dobson played this thing way too coy, I’m not sure it would have mattered absent a Huckabee.
In fact, if you really get down to it, I think Huckabee was playing to “replace” Dobson, to become the new face of Evangelicals. How come nobody is asking who will replace Huckabee?
Lowell adds: I think Austin Hill’s analysis is spot-on. I also think Huck, who is nothing if not shrewd, played the Evangelical community like a fiddle. He knows that community very well and knew he could count on Dobson (and others like him) to stay quiet. I suppose there were plenty of behind-the-scenes phone calls from Huck allies to Dobson, making sure he knew the consequences of coming out for Romney.
Meanwhile, it’s interesting to note that Focus on the Family gave six times as much money to the Prop 8 effort as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did. That was one effort in which Evangelicals had no problem making common cause with Mormons. When will that willingness extend to Mormon candidates who share Evangelical values?
Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 7 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently Posted:
- Some Official Commentary on Mormons, Glenn Beck, Politics, and the Public Square
- When Mormons Disagree, Beck Dominates The Discussion, There is an Election – all that and maybe more
- Civic Religion and How To Lose
- News Of The Week – Romney and The Field, Presidential Religion, Rallies, and more…
- Crossing Weak Bridges and Blaming The Wrong Party
jdk on 09 Mar 2009 at 10:26 am #
An early (pre-Iowa) endorsement of Romney by Dobson changes the landscape entirely. If Dobson endorses Romney three weeks before the Iowa primary, Huckabee is unable to make his successful grass roots run at Romney there. That changes the landscape in NH also, slowing McCain. Romney’s early state momentum strategy then prevails. Romney gets the GOP nomination. Romney’s preparation, debate skills, energy, economic acumen, and fundraising have a better shot at defeating Obama than McCain ever did. (With all due respect to Sarah Palin, Romney would have made a full analysis and pick a highly competent VP running mate. One that the liberal press would not have been able to expose as “unprepared & unqualified”). Romney then wins the White House. We all know what that means for the economy, size and direction of government, administration post nominees, etc. We also know what it means for social issues like DOMA, abortion issues, SCOTUS and Federal bench nominees, ad infinitum.
So why does Dobson hold back on Romney until Election Day? The alternatives are:
1. God wants Obama to be President;
2. God is not talking to Dobson, for some reason;
3. Dobson is not listening to God, for some reason; or
4. He’s listening, but Dobson fears man (fellow evangelicals) more then God.
Based on his first six weeks in office, few good Christians would agree it’s number one. Dobson voted for Romney (note for the future Evangelicals, over Huckabee). Is it safe to assume that he voted for Romney after significant prayer and listening to inspiration from God? So two and three are out. Austin Hill floated number four. So if Dobson knew the answer, but feared man (evangelicals) more then God, what kind of leadership is that? The damage that Christianity, the unborn, and traditional marriage will incur because of failed leadership is incalculable. It’s only been six weeks and it feels like ancient Rome already. Thank you, James Dobson.
K.G. on 09 Mar 2009 at 11:37 am #
John writes: “Sometimes I wonder if such institutional competition lies more at the heart of the Evangelical/Mormon divide than theological concerns.”
Gee, John. Do ya’ think?
Lowell asks: “When will that willingness extend to Mormon candidates who share Evangelical values?”
Gee, Lowell. Whenever the Evangelical leaders get over their fear of competition,– that LDS leaders in high office will somehow lead the public to question whether or not Mormons are fiendish members of a Satanic cult.
And on a political level the divide is not so wide. LDS use the Bible as canon, believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. We believe in order to enter the Kingdom of God we must be born of the Spirit, which is nesessary to successfully following Christ.
LDS believe is being “honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men.” What voter would not want such a leader? A voter terrified of giving credibility to a certain religion with which they apparently feel inadequate to compete on theological grounds, it seems.
Sadly, there is a growing list of fine conservative LDS politcians on the scene: Flake, Huntsman, maybe more, who can never hope to hold high office in the USA unless Evangelicals can come to their political senses.
But who will lead the way?
Jerald on 09 Mar 2009 at 1:08 pm #
Well, I think one thing that people want to avoid talking about is how one becomes a “leader” in some Evangelical circles.
First of all, most potential Evangelical leaders need an income, and the customary way of getting one is to become a preacher either in a regular church, mega church, or television program, or by writing Evangelical oriented books, etc., to derive an income from donations from and sales to the faithful.
The leaders and their ministries are totally dependent on this income stream coming from the faithful, who by the way, are known to be very fickle and switch their support to other Evangelical preachers/leaders very quickly. Thus, every Evangelical preacher/leader and their organization are trapped between “leading” and turning off their audience. Even a well-meaning person has tough “economic decisions” to make every time a sermon or message is given.
Not surprisingly, much of the preaching or leading tends to be slanted toward what the customers (I mean faithful) want to hear or avoiding what they don’t want to hear. Since deceitful Mormon bashing has proved to be very profitable and any support of a Mormon or the LDS Church has proved to have very negative effects on the bottom line resulting from lower donations and a loss of customers (I mean faithful), many potential Evangelical leaders may be placing their purse before their conscience for a long time to come.
The hatemongering against several groups of other Americans that is used as a tool by some Evangelicals to boost their followership and incomes is a cancer that is running unchecked among Evangelicalism and is seriously damaging and drowning out the truly important messages of the movement.
This may be a case of the patient being more afraid of the cure than the disease.
John Schroeder on 09 Mar 2009 at 1:34 pm #
Jerald:
There are many in professional Evangelical ministry towards whom your cynicism is valid – However – I would ask that you remember, most who minister in that fashion do so out of sincere commitment to Jesus Christ.
Let’s not overstate things here.
Jerald on 09 Mar 2009 at 5:04 pm #
John, I tried to state “some”, but I guess I didn’t do it loud enough. I apologize.
My observation is that the Evangelicals (and Mormons) that are truly trying to follow Jesus Christ aren’t the problem. They are not trying to demonize each other and especially aren’t trying to make a living off misrepresenting the other side.
I must also share that my experiences with Evangelicals is mostly with the Southern sects, rather than with those like you represent.
I would rather believe what you tell me than to continue thinking that deceptive misrepresentation of non-Evangelicals is being used as a success formula by some and that this is leading some of the flock to attack or withdraw support from other Evangelical leaders that dare befriend or speak positively about someone belonging to a targeted group.
I would be much more convinced if the teaching and preaching involved a sincere effort to be as factual and truthful as possible. I’m sure you understand what I am talking about.
I should be more careful not to be offensive. I guess what I wanted to discuss is the huge amount of pressure placed on individual Evangelicals by other Evangelicals for being Christian toward non-Evangelicals that are targeted as mentioned. Am I misguided in thinking there is a sub-culture, however small, that is feeding the discord with non-Evangelicals for less than honorable reasons?
Or is it more like a discouraging inclination I found among some Intermountain West “heritage” Mormons (I’m from the West Coast) to treat non-Mormons in their midst like outsiders?
K.G. on 09 Mar 2009 at 5:20 pm #
But, John, those who fight against Mormonism, I believe, do so out of a “sincere commitment to Jesus Christ.” As long as they are convinced they are acting out of such a commitment by defeating Mormons in high office, how will this situation ever be resolved?
Dobson had an opportunity this last go around, but now he’s gone. Richard Land supported Romney as did the president of Bob Jones U. Parents threatened to pull their children out of the school.
If there are no national Evangelical leaders that Evangelicals will listen to, how will it end?
pdale on 10 Mar 2009 at 12:22 am #
On February 26 & 27th I had the opportunity to attend a palliative care fellowship for clergy and chaplains held by the largest hospice here in Arizona. I was the only Mormon in a group that included pastors and leaders of several denominations, as well as a Rabbi and a college professor of philosophy. I have a good LDS friend who is an air force chaplain…I know there are quite a few of those….., but I don’t think there are many LDS hospice chaplains. We spent half of each day learning about hospice care, and the other half paired up with an experienced hospice chaplain, visiting with dieing patients and their families in PCUs (palliative care units) and in homes.
It was an absolutely amazing experience, due largely I’m sure to the setting. When someone is about to die, the priority is to give them comfort, whatever form that might take. If a Catholic who hasn’t been to church forever wants to see a priest the arrangement is made. Ditto for any faith, including non-Christian faiths. One of the two Evangelical chaplains I worked with sang to two different sweet little ladies, one of whom joined right in. It was beautiful. The other chaplain didn’t sing, but we read scriptures, and took turns praying with patients. I don’t know that anyone listening could have identified the Mormon from the Evangelical from our prayers. I was reminded that when it boils down to what really matters, there’s a lot that we have in common.
Each of the chaplains I worked with thanked me, encouraged me, offered help. There was unity of purpose that brought us together. Doctrinal differences were put in storage so important work could take place.
Huckabee brought the differences out of storage and milked them to get what he wanted. I always liked Dr. Dobson, but he was simply afraid to stand up when he needed to (and apparently wanted to). The American culture is pretty much on the line. I hope someone with Evangelical pull can eventually persuade a few more voters to back away from the notion that the only acceptible candidate is one who sings from the same hymn book they’re comfortable with.