Article VI Blog

First we were too bigoted to vote for Mr. Romney, obviously the best choice for the GOP, and now we are so tied to the GOP that we are betraying our faith to vote for Mr. Romney.

Evangelicals cannot win with some pundits.

As my co-bloggers have noted (repeatedly), Evangelicals are a big group and it is weird that so few media people understand us.

In part, this misunderstanding is made worse by the Internet. There are two loud groups that are overrepresented on the Net, but have few followers. The first are the Hyper-Evangelicals, the sort that agree with the rest of us, but we wish would not. To these folk, the Illuminati looms as a threat and Mr. Obama may, in fact, be Antichrist. These folk are loud, but not so numerous.

They are like the Loud Uncle at the family reunion. The louder he gets, the emptier the room which makes it seem as if the entire room is in agreement. In the end, this is true, because the Cowed Aunt is the only one left with Loud Uncle. Most of the family, however, politely has moved on.

The second is the Evangelical left, proclaiming every year that this is the year that Evangelicals, especially young Evangelicals, break with the GOP. It hasn’t happened, isn’t happening, but yet this group still gets attention.

Why? Like liberal Mormons, there is the Dancing Frog effect. Most frogs cannot sing and dance with a top hat, so when one does it has the potential to draw a crowd. But one cannot generalize from the one dancing frog to frogs in general . . . and yet the media takes a Jim Wallis seriously, despite being a man whose influence on the election is similar to an Indianapolis drive time talk radio host on a Salem station.

The radio guy though is just one frog of many to the media and so the Dancing Frog gets all the attention, especially since he or she often can hop an Evangelical Jim Crow for his secularized betters.

What seems to have escaped many in the commentariat is that Mr. Romney has never asked me, not once, to change my view of this religious beliefs. I still don’t agree with them, still engage in dialog about my disagreement, but feel perfectly free to vote for Mr. Romney. Why not? My vote for Mr. Ryan will not undercut my disagreements with the Roman church either . . . nor did my vote for Mr. McCain indicate support for mere religiosity.

In short, my faith informs my vote, but it is the genius of the Founders to limit government enough so that the Faithful don’t have to pick only the Faithful.

There is a long American tradition of Evangelicals voting this way. We accepted Lincoln who only grew very religious during the War. We voted for Taft as a Unitarian, but didn’t abandon the importance of the Trinity.

In short, we care about politics politically . . . and religion religiously. We are happy when they don’t cross . . . when they do, we pick the candidate that best affirms our values.

In this case, for most Evangelicals and all Christians who attend  church weekly, that overwhelmingly will be Mr. Romney. After voting for him, my theology will be intact, Mr. Romney will be President and so our national will be intact too. That is a lesser good than theology, but still a good thing!

 

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Reflection #1

I recently had dinner with a good friend that was loudly pronouncing his intention to write in Ron Paul for president Tuesday.  He knew of my activities on this blog so he did not even wait for me to ask “Why?”  He launched right in.

His reasoning was straightforward.  Our nation and society appears to be in decline.  (I can’t argue with that.)  There is little essential difference between Republicans and Democrats.  (Not sure I agree with that, but I let him continue.)  All that happens when we elect Republicans is that we slow the decline.  (I agree with that assessment entirely.)  Therefore we need a truly new and radical approach, hence Dr. Paul.

OK, it was a very pleasant dinner and I learned long ago better than to argue with a Paul-pod so I moved the conversation on, but I have been thinking about it a lot, particularly because I agree so deeply on his comments about decline.  Where my friend and I would deeply disagree is that it is not government or politics job to reverse societal and cultural decline.  That job belongs to churches, schools, and to us as individuals.

The American form of government reflects the society and culture around it, it does not shape it.  That’s what it means to be a democracy.  This is what lies at the heart of de Tocquville’s now almost trite quote “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”  I agree with De Tocquville’s sentiment but I disagree with his pessimism.

If government acted in a vacuum, he would be absolutely correct.  But it does not; it acts in concert with any number of cultural shaping institutions  (that would be those schools and churches) that are counterbalances to the forces of greed and moral/ethical decay that seem to drive the world.  In church talk, this is a simple statement of our “sinful nature.”  In theology talk we would call this a consequence of “original sin.”

Fortunately, now that we have gotten to the church talk, there are also the concepts of grace, redemption and sanctification.  I do not want this to descend too deep into theology, but religion provides a means for us to overcome this continual decline, our sinful nature.  It is not the job of government to do that, it is the job of government to stay out of the way of religion, while religion does that.  (This is, in fact, a good yardstick for where it may be suitable for government to interfere with religion.  If religion teaches something that contributes to the social and cultural decline, as opposed to attempts to reverse it, then it may be up to government to decide such is an unsuitable religion for a decent nation.)

We have discussed endlessly here about the ways in which the Obama administration is interfering with the practice of religion – and then in fact contributes to the social and cultural decline.  However, a third party vote will not help stop that decline.  It will only acknowledge the decline – in a sense reflect it.   While I agree that a vote for a Republican will not reverse the decline, a vote for a Republican will move us in a direction where the church will be free to operate in our nation and IT will reverse the decline – provided it does it task well.  If the decline is not reversed, I must wonder if the issue is not more with the church than the government, but that is a discussion for another time.

Reflection #2

I have noted that my life has been increasingly unpleasant in recent months.  I am richly blessed financially and with friends and loved ones.  But it just seems hard to do things anymore.  I have heard people complain that things they used to be able to get done with a quick email to a government agency now require the completion of a 15-page form.  That’s just irritating and that irritation reflects in their attitude.  In my own professional experience dealing with government agencies I have numerous instances where that which was formerly a “fixit ticket” is now a severe fine-able offense.  This builds resentment in my clients and that resentment is reflected in their attitude towards customers and vendors.

I know of an emeritus professor (meaning “honored”) at a university that was recently handed, quite rudely, around the campus for hours in a simple effort to obtain a parking pass.  This by people he had worked with and along side for decades.

But even more deeply, I note “life on the street” seems more unpleasant.  My wife and I take long and extensive daily walks.  We live in a relatively quiet suburban neighborhood, but in the last few months our walks feel more like we are in Manhattan.  Crossing street is more a game of “dodge ‘em” than it is testament to California’s previously famous courtesy to pedestrians.  We were recently accosted by a woman who objected to our standing on the public sidewalk to “speak” to her cats.  Simple business transactions have grown increasing problematic.  I had the simple scheduling of an appointment stretch into a series of emails amongst four or five people that went on for an entire afternoon and resulted in accusations of personal insult.

I am willing to bet that you have similar stories to tell as well.

Folks, people are just not happy right now.  This is, I believe a reflection of both what is going on in the nation generally and of our elected leadership.  Let’s face it – Obama is a petulant, truculent, prickly pear of a human being.  It began with “I won” and it pinnacled in the incredibly sulky first debate performance.  When that first debate “outed” his sulkiness, he responded with an even more unpleasant biting nastiness.  When this is the tone set by the leadership of the nation, it seems natural that such would be the tone seen in the nation.  In this case the nation reflects its elected leadership.

Reflecting On The Reflections

And so, as the vote approaches we must ask ourselves what candidate best reflects the culture and society we want and what candidate sets the tone that we would most like to reflect.  Do we want a candidate that impedes the institutions that better our society and culture or one that will set them free?  Do we want a candidate that responds with petulance and biting sarcasm, or one that models grace, good will and confidence?

It is a stark and simple choice that the nation faces next week.  I truly believe that the majority of the nation clings to some concept and understanding of the Almighty because it is our deepest desire to live in a good, free nation and not to succumb to the forces that de Tocquville foresaw.  If you read this blog, you likely believe the same way.  In these last hours, we must all work to spread both our faith and our optimism – for such will work naturally towards the vote that we believe is necessary to preserve that faith and optimism.

I look forward to a long night, but a good outcome Tuesday.  And mostly I look forward to a post election nation where the gloom, clamor and nastiness recedes into the mists of history for another few decades.  I think we all do.  All we need to do now is press hard to get there.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Doctrinal Obedience, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I find myself torn this morning.  USAToday reports:

As the East Coast began to experience the initial flooding from Hurricane Sandy on Monday, Mitt Romney appealed to his supporters to consider donating to the Red Cross and to keep those in the path of the storm in their “hearts and prayers.”

I cannot agree more.  Initial reports, late last night, indicate that the devastation in lower Manhattan may be extraordinarily significant.  The press being the press, I have seen little of elsewhere; they do tend to be a bit New York centric.  Having served clients up and down Manhattan and the Long Island sound, I find myself preoccupied with their welfare.

But the press is also full of reports, articles and punditry on the election and religion.  The beat goes on.  Therefore, I pray hard for the entire eastern seaboard and ask you to join me.  But with that placed firmly in God’s hands I find I must turn to the normal business at hand.

For the second day in a row, we run into an article saying Mormons were socialistic in their founding.  I find this charge leveled now and at Mormons truly odd.  There is a long history of socialist thought in Christianity generally.  (I wonder if a reporter ever read Acts 2?)  I have often marveled at the fact that this “charge” was never leveled at any candidate claiming Christian credentials.  This is not a place where Mormons and normative Christians part company, and yet they seem to want to make a big deal of it right now.  This reveals deep political motivations on one hand and a total misunderstanding of Christianity on the other.

Entire treatises have been written this subject from a theological and sociological perspective.  I cannot begin to unpack it all here.  Let’s try and sum this up simply.  There is a major and important distinction between a community that holds all things commonly on a voluntary basis, driven by religious impulse – that’s charitable – and a society in which the coercive force of government is used to confiscate all things and distribute them in accordance with some perceived hierarchy of need.

And while we are thinking deeply, if you have not seen this creepy apocalyptic pro-Obama ad, you really should check it out.  It is black-and-white, featuring small kinds singing.  Here’s a sample of the lyric:

We’re the children of the future
American through and through
But something happened to our country
And we’re kinda blaming you

We haven’t killed all the polar bears
But it’s not for lack of trying
Big Bird is sacked
The Earth is cracked
And the atmosphere is frying

The ad is frightening both in the power it assigns the presidency and the hope it places in the man it seeks to support for the job.  I have taken a lot of heat from some quarters in the last couple of years becasue I honestly did not believe that Obama could do as much damage as he has.  I thought that the checks and balances of our government would serve to temper his natural inclinations.  It looks at this juncture like the ultimate check – the vote – will do that job – but a lot of amazing stuff has transpired between votes.  We almost don’t remember now, but there was a huge turnover in the administration in the first couple of years.  In retrospect, it was the adults leaving the building.

When Obama was elected, I looked at his appointments and figured that the obviously under-experienced president was surrounding himself with old hands that would temper his unchecked youthful exuberances and the results would not be too extraordinary.  But then the old hands started leaving like rats on a ship going down.  Clearly, this was a guy that would not listen to reason and that you could not work with.

G.K. Cheaterton once said:

When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.

I see that maxim so clearly illustrated in this ad.  It really is frightening if you think about it.

Finally, I want to turn briefly to this call for Christians to abstain from voting.  It is an interesting argument, actually couple of arguments.  On the one hand it calls for disengagement from politics if politics has become some sort of idol.  Political idolatry is precisely the sin we see in the ad we just examined.  The answer; however, is not withdrawal from politics, anymore that starvation is the answer if food has become an idol.  One must learn to balance one’s commitment to God with the world in which we live.

The other argument the author advances by quoting Thabiti Anyabwile :

It seems to me that if we really believe the system is broken but we vote anyway, we simply nullify our contention that the system is broken.

I find this to be extraordinarily binary thinking.  God KNEW we were broken, but He did not abandon us, rather he redeemed us.  The system is not functioning well, but is it irredeemable?  I doubt few would claim that.  And its redemption comes not from holding it at arms length, but by diving in and seeking to correct.

I understand the distaste for much of politics, particularly in light of ads like the one we looked at a moment ago.  But the only way to make it tasteful is to get busy.  The best way to start getting busy is to vote next Tuesday.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Doctrinal Obedience, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Reading List, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The president never seems to get it “just right.”

Benghazi seems to be eating the presidency alive.  Read though this Powerline post and follow all the links, or peruse Instapundit for all the latest.  This is inescapable for Obama.  He can talk all he wants about finding out who is responsible, etc., but by his own admission he is ultimately responsible.  I personally think he made the important decisions personally, but we will for sure not get the answer to that question until after the election.  But even if he did not, he built an administration so full of ineptitude that we stood by and watched Americans die in an attack on our nation – when we could have prevented or minimized the deaths.

I heard a little buzz amongst the liberals at church Sunday about the wonderful pacifistic impulses.  It would take a very long time to theologically unpack pacifism and faith.  I am still chuckling over Whoopi Goldberg’s weird fail on The View a couple of weeks ago to paint Mormonism as pacifist.  I find it hard to believe that Goldberg is that ill-informed, rather I think she was making a political strike, trying to make Romney look bad because of his draft deferment related to his mission.  They say there are no atheists in a foxhole.  I have also thought there were no pacifists once the shelling began – but it appears there may be.  All I can say is it takes a cold disregard for human life to allow people to die rather than shoot back – Christ’s example not withstanding, He was after all coming back, something not available to the rest of us.

Nor do I think Obama is going to get the so-called “Frankenstorm” just right.  The Gulf oil spill has already proven the man cannot get his head around a natural disaster.  Unlike Benghazi, where he did waaay too little.  Look for O to overreact to the storm.  He is already loosening up federal dollars (That is to say driving the nation deeper into debt) even before the damage is assessed.

Regardless of how this storm plays out eventually, I look for it to turn the election litigious.  Chris Cilizza is trying to make it look like the storm will freeze the campaign in place.  That I doubt.  The eastern seaboard is not really in play anymore, Romney seems to have sewn it up.  The real fight is in the Midwest which looks to only be nominally affected by the storm.  Time will tell, these things never work out like we think.  However, I do expect many people claiming they could not get to the polls because of of effect X from the storm, not to mention ballot boxes going missing in transport and other sorts of shenanigans – hence the litigation I foresee.  Hold tight.

Meanwhile the left continues to try and make mountains out of molehills with regards to Mormonism.  I found this WaPo story about the absence of Mormon action in the current Maryland same-sex marriage battle almost humorous.  It is as if they have no clue that Mormonism is a pretty regionalized faith, and there just are not enough Mormons in Maryland to make a difference in that battle.  Despite allegations to the contrary, it has nothing to do with the Romney campaign – it is pure demographics.

And while we’re laughing, Salon, yes Salon, is trying to define Mormon belief.  Come on, you know that is funny.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Governance, News Media Bias | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

WARNING: This post is not our usual religiously tinged political analysis.  This is pure Christian testimony.

I am amazed at how many people around me are still deciding to vote for Mitt Romney.  I honestly don’t know anyone still thinking about voting for Obama.  I know a lot of people that are going to vote for him, but their minds are made up – they are past the “think about it” stage.  But Romney is a different story, it seems like so many know a vote for Obama is not a smart thing, but they are still hesitant to pull the lever for Romney.

These people seem to come in three groups.  One group is those in total despair – they simply think it’s over.  America in in inevitable and irreversible decline.  We need to pack up the things and  hide in the storm cellar.  The second group are those that have a hard time voting for a Mormon.  They know Romney is the right vote in purely secular reasoning, but they fear that voting for someone from a religion that they consider grossly errant is wrong.  And finally there is the group we first learned of yesterday, the “Paleo-Evangelical“:

In Kidd’s definition on the Anxious Bench blog, paleo-evangelicals are Evangelicals who hold the GOP at arm’s length because they’re suspicious of American civil religion, they do not expect any political party to do much good, and they disagree with the party position on certain issues (such as war and immigration). Yet they tend to vote Republican because that party is less hostile, at least, to their convictions and priorities than the Democratic Party is.

For those in utter despair, I have one “word of testimony” and for the Paleos and those with Mormon issues I have another.  Let’s start with those in despair.  The daily devotional that I read comes from my friend Mark Roberts.  This morning’s devotional speaks well to those in despair:

Psalm 12 begins with a dire description of a culture on the road to ruin: “[T]he godly are fast disappearing! The faithful have vanished from the earth!” (12:1). In particular, the psalmist sees neighbors lying to each other and violence done to the helpless (12:2, 5). “[T]he wicked strut about, and evil is praised throughout the land” (12:8). The bonds that hold society together are being severed as people lose the ability to determine right from wrong.

Sound familiar? Have you ever found yourself listening to the evening news, thinking that the godly are disappearing and the faithful have vanished from the earth? I know I have.

[...]

When things seem to keep on getting worse, many people throw up their hands in defeat. They figure they cannot make a difference in the world, so they choose to live for themselves and their momentary pleasures. Others sink into a pit of cynicism and negativity. Still others find the moral resolve to try and fight back, to stand for goodness in the face of mounting evil.

Scripture is clear that God’s people should be found in this last group, those who try to make a positive difference. But Psalm 12:1 reminds us that our starting point should not be ourselves. When we see life crumbling around us, our first response should be to cry out to God: “Help, O Lord!” The Hebrew word translated in verse 1 as “help” is, in fact, hoshi’a, the first part of the Hebrew expression we know as hosanna. Hoshi’a can also be translated as “save.” It’s a cry for God’s assistance, a recognition that God alone can save us from the mess we’re in.

After we turn to the Lord and seek his help, he may very well call us to participate in his work of making things right again. But instead of relying on our own strength, and instead of exhausting ourselves trying to right every wrong, we will respond to God’s call to focus on a particular need. Moreover, we will seek to address this need, to make right what is wrong, by the power of God at work within us through the Spirit.

OK, it’s not really my word of testimony, it’s Mark’s, but you get the point.  God is in charge.  No matter what – He can fix things.  To despair is to place your faith in other than God.  Which leads me to the word of testimony I have for the other groups.

Last Sunday I had dinner with two very devout Catholic friends in the Washington, D.C. area.  They told a very moving story from their worship attendance that morning.  (My wife and I attended Chapel at the Naval Academy that day – it was beautiful.)  They told of a very new widow in their church.  She came to church early and knelt before the alter in deep and painful prayer.  They also told of a young man in their church suffering Down Syndrome to the point of severe inarticulateness.  This young man is; however, enthusiastic about church and comes early every Sunday and sits near the front.  My friends relayed that as the new widow’s prayers resolved into sobs, the young man with Down Syndrome stood up, walked over to her and simply hugged her.  He had no words, he could not – he simply held her and made her feel loved.

There was no theology.  The young man could not say anything even resembling theology, nor could he begin to understand it.  But that young man was unquestionably God’s instrument in that situation.  He gave that woman what she most needed in that moment – something that none of the wise and articulate thought to do.

And so, in these two “words” we see that God is in charge and that He often acts in ways and through people that defy our understanding and comprehension.  You might want to consider that if you are still thinking about voting for Mitt Romney.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Doctrinal Obedience | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Dear Spice,

Thank you for your kind notes.

We do not agree (always!) politically, but your work to free slaves globally is a model of Christian service.

You ask a reasonable question . . .

One thing I’ve had a lot of trouble with about Romney as a Mormon candidate is the implications of Mormon theology of America as the new Zion in foreign policy. I’m curious about your thoughts on that, if you have time.

First, I know you well enough to know that charges of bigotry are unfounded. You agree with me that religion is important in assessing a candidate, but that Mormonism (by itself) should not disqualify a person.

Second, asking a question is a good thing. Many partisans just develop an idea about Mormons, evangelicals, liberal Protestants and go a’ranting.

Mormons do have a elevated view of American’s role in sacred history compared to other faith traditions. Both of us know enough crazy religious and secular people to know any idea can be perverted by the fringe. My belief that God has a continuing work for the Jewish people now and in the future can be twisted into unthinking support for the modern, secular state of Israel. Secularists disdain for religious thinking  has a few to “go soft” on tyrants, think Chinese communists, who support their secular worldview.

It probably would not be hard to Google us up some fringe-Mormons.

However, I think there is an easy misunderstanding of what the role of America might mean to a sophisticated Mormon.

The place for America in Mormon thought seems geographical to me and not so much political. On my (outsider) reading of the Book of Mormon, there is no implication for this political order, just a (reasonable) view that God cares about North and South America. In fact, some people in our communities often treat the new world as an after thought in Sacred History. Mormons are not likely to make this mistake!

Just as thoughtful dispensationalists need not confuse modern Israel with the “final” Israel of history, so (I don’t think) Mormon scholars need to attach any significance to any particular American moment.

In fact, we have one-hundred and fifty years of Mormon comment on world affairs. The norm has been to argue for the USA as an exceptional place, but years of persecution by the Federal government did not leave them naive about the state either. After all Joseph, the Mormon prophet, was murdered by an American mob! In short, Mit Romney’s foreign policy pronouncement seem well in the mainstream of American politics: Reagan-like.

Harry Reid does not agree with Mr. Romney and this suggests that while Mr. Romney’s foreign policy is (in his mind) consistent with his Mormonism, it is not demanded by his religious beliefs.

Finally, let me suggest a good reason to think Mr. Romney will be more sophisticated in his view of the world than most Americans, in part because of his Mormon heritage. Mormonism is booming globally. Mr. Romney spent years in France and is fairly fluent in that language. Mormons are more likely to be international in experience than many Americans.

I do not think, therefore, there is any good reason to fear a Romney foreign policy. I disagree with aspects of his plans, such as his defense of torture (as has President Obama effectively), but it is not threatening or abnormal.

Your chum under the Mercy,

 

John Mark

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post