December 3rd 2007
Most Romney-friendly observers cheered when they say this video of Romney going toe-to-toe with Jan Mickelson, an Iowa radio host who apparently wanted to lecture the Governor on Mormonism. Romney did not know this exchange was being taped, so his comments are especially riveting. There are no “gotcha” moments here, just Romney taking an insolent and ill-informed interviewer to the woodshed.
November 26th 2007
Lowell comments: John and I both think this Huckabee ad crosses a line. The candidate begins by stating that his faith “defines” him, which is well and good, I suppose; but then the ad goes on with “Christian Leader” as its first super, followed by video excerpts from his speeches, addressing hot-button “values voter” issues. My own view is that Huck sees Iowa as a chance to slingshot himself into pre-eminence as the “conservative values candidate.” If he beats Romney there after a late entry into the race and spending comparatively little money, Romney will be wounded and Huck has a claim to the mantle of the leader of values voters (read, conservative religious voters). So if Huck is clearly making a push: If he can attract enough Evangelicals to vote for him, he might just win. So he’s openly running as the “faith” candidate. It appears to me that he is speaking a lot of code while he’s doing it.
John adds his thoughts: Marc Ambinder quotes a Salon interview with Huckabee and flat out says it:
What Gov. Huckabee is telling Salon’s Michael Scherer is that Romney’s religion can be a criteria by which people judge him, and that he believes that Romney ought to be subjected to questions about the content of his religious faith — questions that Huckabee asserts have not been asked before.
Now watch the ad a third time.
A stout defense of Huckabee would point out that, with the media so obsessed about Romney’s religion, any mention of Huckabee of his own faith — a faith which, by all accounts, is central to his politics and morality — would be illegitimate. Clearly, Huckabee has every right to try to win over voters on account of his evangelical background. In doing so, he challenges the consensus view that certain attributes, like religion, ought not matter. Of course, Huckabee is saying, they matter, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.
Is Huckabee playing the Mormon card, even unwittingly? Hard to say. His campaign says absolutely not. And intent matters, of course. But this being a postmodern political world, so does reception: it depends on the extent to which the targets of his television ad are aware that Romney is Mormon and are prone to object to it.
“Unwittingly”?!? — “Reception matters”?!?!?!? - “are aware” - ?!?!?!?!? - PLEASE! The whole country knows Romney is a Mormon unless they simply are NOT paying attention. And as THE EVANGELICAL here, I can tell you everybody is getting the context here and seeing the religion card played. It’s not necessarily in the sound bite - it is in that “Christian Leader” graphic. As Dean Barnett points out:
What takes this spot into unexplored territory is the fact that the term “Christian Leader” pops up during this seemingly shopworn attack. Was the term “Christian Leader” supposed to draw a contrast between Huckabee and another candidate, maybe the Mormon one he was referencing when the term swept onto the screen?
What’s most disturbing about this spot is it hits the Mormon angle with the same kind of elusive slickness that John Edwards used to go after Dick Cheney’s daughter. The Huckabee campaign has the same kind of plausible deniability with this ad that Edwards had after his debate with Cheney.
Did Dean just say “slick”? Oh yes he did - say hello to the new man from Hope.
This thing really does defy the limits of a reasonable invocation of religion in politics. Huckabee is very specific, and he implicitly calls the faith of other candidates into question with that “defines me” crack. This language is very common in certain creedal Christian circles. There is no question what is being said here - NONE.
May 3rd 2007
"I just think there is something a little hypocritical to say as an evangelical, I can’t support this guy because he is Mormon."
The latest Article VI Blog Interview is with Mark DeMoss, probably the leading figure in the Romney for President campaign's outreach efforts to conservative Christians.
Mark founded The DeMoss Group, an Atlanta-based public relations firm, in 1991. The firm describes itself as specializing in serving Christian organizations and causes and as the largest such agency in the country. Their clients include:The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; Samaritan’s Purse & Franklin Graham; Prison Fellowship and Chuck Colson; Campus Crusade for Christ; Focus on the Family; Bishop TD Jakes; American Center for Law & Justice; and Teen Mania.
Prior to starting the firm Mark served as chief-of-staff and spokesperson for Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, Virginia for 8 years, a period which included the height of popularity of the Moral Majority. The DeMoss Group has worked closely with more than 100 faith-based organizations in the past 16 years and Mark has provided strategic communications counsel to dozens of religious leaders during that time. In March 2007, Thomas Nelson publishers released Mark’s first book, The Little Red Book of Wisdom. Mark describes the book, already in its third printing, as "presenting wisdom for your professional life and wisdom for your personal life."
Mark has assisted the Romney campaign, as a volunteer, since the fall of 2006.
The interview took place on April 27, 2007.
______________________________________________
JS: Well, it’s early morning here in Southern California and mid-morning in Atlanta, and we are here with Mark DeMoss. Mark is the founder of The DeMoss Group, which is an evangelically-oriented public relations firm; and Mark is certainly one of the most well known and influential evangelicals in the country. Mark, you have a book out, less than a month now, I believe, called The Little Red Book of Wisdom, which I haven’t had a chance to read, but it sure does look great. What caused you to write this?
MD: Well, I have been fascinated by the topic of wisdom most of my life. I have been fortunate to spend most of my life around wise people and I felt like most people feel like, they somehow think wisdom is reserved for the best educated and the highest paid and the most powerful people in our society. I think that is a shame. I think wisdom is available to me and to my children and everybody and so I wrote a little book, it’s 23 short chapters that I divided into two sections: wisdom for your professional life and wisdom for your personal life. It is full of stories and principles that I have gleaned from other wise people, from the book of Proverbs, in the Old Testament, which I consider the textbook on wisdom, and from my experiences in public relations and working with leaders of a lot of great organizations. I am excited about it. I have gotten a good response to it. It is my first book and we will see where it goes.
JS: Hard work, isn’t it?
MD: It is hard work, but it is worth it, especially when you see it on as shelf and you get letters from people telling you how it impacted them and that they have gotten copies to pass on to other people. It is very rewarding.
JS: Now, just because I’m interested, Mark, I’m old enough to remember Chairman Mao, are you making any references to him in your title?
MD: Not really, although, as a golfer, there is another little red book that golfers are fond of, by Harvey Penett. So, there are a few other little red books out there. But I have not read Chairman Mao’s red book. Maybe it was the original little red book, I don’t know.
JS: I don’t know either. I did not know about the golfing red book. I’m afraid I am not ingrained in that sport. So, I really loved some of the chapter titles, they are — you have one about wisdom, or is it integrity is costly?
MD: Honesty Can Be Costly.
JS: That’s right. Is that one of your personal experience things or did you get that from somebody else?
MD: That’s really a business principle of ours here. Unfortunately, the public relations industry is known more for spin and hype than it is for honesty and truth telling, perhaps. And I don’t like that. But, I believe in telling the truth even if it costs us business. And it often does. By that I mean that if we tell a client or a potential client what we believe to be true, not what they want to hear, necessarily, sometimes people decide they don’t want to hire that kind of counsel. And that is just fine with me.
JS: Well, thinking of telling the truth, you had a piece appear in Politico this week, dated April 24, about why evangelicals could support Mitt Romney, which certainly Lowell and I think is a lot of truth. Before we dive into the contents of the article, just a couple of questions about the circumstances surrounding the article. It has drawn a lot of comments as internet posted articles do. Have you paid any attention to those comments and do you have any reaction to them?
MD: I read through them for the first time last night actually.
JS: Any reaction to them? I haven’t had a chance to get through them in detail.
MD: Not really, and I don’t know that I read through all of them. I read through probably eight or ten of them and people go off on different tangents and ironically, or maybe it’s not ironic, maybe that’s how it works, but after the first of second posting, most of the commentary is on the postings rather than the article that I wrote. So the people posting and commenting actually begin debating each other rather than me. But that is fine too. I don’t know if I have read them all.
JS: Well, that tends to be how it works. In my experience in these circumstances that is where we end up – it’s actually kind of amazing. I think it is something to which my LDS friend Lowell here has become rather bemused, but this is hardly the first time we have seen a bunch of creedal Christian people break down into an argument over what Mormons believed.
MD: Right.
JS: Instead of just asking the Mormons what they believe. The other curious circumstance surrounding your article, Mark, the same day, Politico published, a rather odious piece by Gary South. Did you see it?
MD: I saw the title there, I have not opened it and read it to be honest with you.
JS: Was there any discussion with you and Politico that they felt like they had to publish some sort of piece to balance yourself, or anything like that?
MD: No. We never had that discussion. And I don’t object to them doing that. I think they have the prerogative to do that. But no, its not that I don’t want to read it. Of course I want to read it. But the last couple of days have been busy enough that I haven’t read it. But I want to read everything I can on the subject.
JS: I’m asking because your piece is rather exceptionally well done. South’s piece is not. It is just a cheep shot is all it is. Which is something, by the way, that Mr. South is known for. At least in California politics. So, one of the questions Lowell and I have asked ourselves is why would Politico publish something like that?
MD: I think this has really become a passion of mine of late, and that is, what got me interested in this particular man to begin with was this conventional wisdom that actually a national religion reporter posed to me, a hear and a half ago and that was in the form of a question: Did I think evangelicals could ever support a Mormon? Or did I think a candidate’s being Mormon would automatically disqualify him from considerations by evangelicals?
And that really bothered me. That whole mindset troubled me. So I began to look into Mitt Romney and his life and his record and everything I could find out about him. And I finally reached this conclusion, and that was, to ask whether I could support a Mormon is the wrong question. I think the question should be: Could I support this Mormon, this particular Mormon.
I happen to be a Southern Baptist. If you ask me if I could support a Southern Baptist for President, I would say it depends on who the Southern Baptist is. There are a lot of Southern Baptists I couldn’t, and have not, supported. In fact, probably the three most prominent political figures who have been Southern Baptists in my life time have been Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. I wouldn’t have supported any of those candidates for president.
And I think we should apply this question to a Mormon or a Catholic or a Methodist or an atheist or anybody and that is, — to say, to make an evaluation based solely on a person’s faith, I believe, does a terrible disservice both to the person and to the faith. It is an insufficient evaluation and I wouldn’t want, for example, anyone in this country to say, well, I could never support an evangelical, those people are crazy. And there are a lot of evangelicals that might earn us that reputation. But I don’t want to be judged by that standard. I want to be judged on my life and my record and my career and my family and my values. So that is how I sort of came to this table.
JS: Now, you talk about, you open the article by talking about a meeting that you set up between Governor Romney and thirteen evangelical leaders. Is the — or a dozen evangelical leaders I should say — is that list of leaders something that is public? Or do you wish to keep that quiet?
MD: No, I can tell you most of the people that were in that meeting, and can I give you the background to that meeting, though?
JS: Please, by all means.
LB: Yes, please. We were going to ask about that.
MD: OK, because it sets it in context I think. I was talking with a friend who is more politically involved than I am, last summer. We were talking about everything you and I have just been talking about and I said, “You know, if everything I see and read about Mitt Romney is accurate, I’d like to meet this guy.” And my friend said, “Well, I’ll set it up.” I didn’t know if he could set it up. I didn’t know if he had the ability to set it up but I said ok.
And a month or two later, I got a call from the Governor’s office saying they would like to schedule a meeting. So, I went to Boston on September 11 last year, 2006, and had a meeting with Gov. Romney — my first introduction to him. And my friend and I and one staff member, Peter Flaherty, and the Governor sat in the Governor’s office for about an hour and a quarter and I told him what I have told you guys, which is I didn’t think this conventional wisdom was right, nor did I think it should be, that he would be dismissed from consideration because he is a Mormon.
And then I told him two things. I said, “I’d like to help you. I’m not a political consultant but I do know this evangelical world pretty well. So, I would like to help you. And secondly, I am not for hire. You can’t pay me. Now or ever.” And that was a beginning of a friendship and a respect that we have for each other now. And out of that meeting, in response to my offer to help, he asked, “Well, what kinds of things can you do to help?”
I said, “Well, I would like to first bring a group of evangelical leaders to meet with you for a couple of hours like we have today. Let them ask you questions.” He offered to let us do that in his home. And that then set up this meeting in October, about a month later, that I begin [my Politico] column talking about.
So, I invited — I sent letters to about 45 evangelical leaders. [The Romneys] told me that in their home — we could have done it in a hotel and had a larger group, but they said, I thought it would be nice to do it in their home and have a little more intimate conversation. So, they could only comfortably accommodate 15 or so people. Interestingly, Massachusetts is one of our few states with no Governor’s Mansion. So this was their personal home. I sent out about 45 letters trying to get 15 people to fly to Boston and meet the Romneys. And that is about exactly the response that we got.
At that meeting was Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, a former presidential candidate himself, Jay Sekulow from the American Center for Law and Justice, Franklin Graham was there, and Paula White, who is a Pentecostal pastor and author from Florida, was there. A couple of Southern Baptist pastors were there, one was Richard Lee from Atlanta, another was Jerry Prevo from Anchorage, Alaska, and I think Lou Shelton was there. The President of Concerned Women for America was there. Those kinds of people. I don’t know how many that is.
But what we did in the Governor’s home was really amazing. We got a plate of food in the kitchen, went and sat in his den in a big circle, and for three hours we talked, asked him questions. He invited people to ask him any question they wanted. Nothing was off limits.
And I thought that the most interesting thing was, I had anticipated that there would be a real concentrated discussion about his faith and about what he believed theologically. Instead, only two people, there were only two questions in the three hours, about what he believed theologically, about God and Jesus, or how you go to heaven. Only two questions. The other questions covered everything you would ask anybody else who was running for President.
In fact, several people in the room began like this, they said, “Governor, I don’t have a problem with the Mormon issue, but I want to ask you about immigration or about dealing with Radical Islam, or about abortion or tell us how you arrived at your views on stem cell research, and marriage, and they were the issues of the day.” That’s what we talked about.
JS: As someone who has their finger pretty well on the pulse of the evangelical world, would you say that was, that would be reflective of evangelicalism generally? Or do you think that was because you had some exceptional people in the meeting?
MD: I want to be careful not to, and I have not done this, to extrapolate from that meeting and translate it to the evangelical population as a whole. I do think there is some difference in approach to this, between an evangelical leader or a pastor, and the average evangelical lay person; and just because some leaders have analyzed this and are personally comfortable, let’s say, with Mitt Romney as a candidate, doesn’t necessarily mean, or doesn’t automatically mean that their constituents will have arrived at that point. I think it will take a lot of time.
And I hear this from pastors. I was with a very prominent Southern Baptist pastor a few weeks ago in the southwest and he said, “You know, I’m comfortable with this” — he’s met the Governor, he’s been in a small meeting with him — he said, “I’m comfortable with this, but I don’t know about my mother and the people that sit in my pews on Sundays. It is going to take some time.”
Well, the good news as far as I‘m concerned is, time is one thing we have. We’ve got a lot of time. And I think if there is anything good, and there is probably not much good, but if there is anything good about this elongated presidential election cycle now, that started so early, I think it is that people will increasingly grow comfortable with Mitt Romney.
JS: Is there a sort of bullet point set of messages that you think evangelical leaders should be giving to those people in the pews and others who might be having this trouble?
MD: I think there are a number of them. One would be, and this may be at the top of the list: That it is more important, in my view, that a candidate shares my values than it is that they share my faith or my theology. Number one.
Secondly, I would say that in terms of values and, you know evangelicals like to talk about values, you hear the term now “values voters.” If we’re going to talk about values I would say, emphatically, in terms of values an evangelical has more in common with most Mormons than they do with a liberal Southern Baptist or Methodist or Catholic or Episcopalian or Lutheran or– fill in the blank. I think that is a really important point.
And then, thirdly, I would say this: Too often I think evangelicals have approached a national election in this way. We have said, let’s go find the person who is the most clearly Christian, or most clearly evangelical candidate, the most like us in every way, and try to get them elected. The problem I have with that mindset is that it gives almost a disregard for competence and other qualifications. And so, I’ve got lots of — a lady called me last night from California and said, she had read my book and tracked me down, and said, how are we going to get a Christian elected in ’08? We have to do this. You have to help us.
I think that is the wrong approach, because I don’t just want a Christian in this office, in the Oval Office. I want somebody who has run and managed big things, with big budgets, with lots of people, with complex problems, and who has shown leadership ability and on and on. And even the Washington Post, in an editorial, not an Op-Ed, the Post editorial, the week that Romney announced officially, they suggested in their editorial that while they didn’t agree with all of his positions, that his experience, his management experience and skills, set him apart from the rest of the field.
I think that is a huge point. This man, arguably, is the best rounded, most qualified person to ever run in President in my lifetime. And I say that for this reason, you could suggest that people like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes certainly had the business experience that Romney has, but neither of them had governing experience.
So, if you combine Romney’s business experience at Bain Capital, his leadership and management experience with the Salt Lake Olympics, and his governing experience as a Governor of a state with an opposition majority party, I don’t think anybody can even mention a candidate that has ever run that has those three components like Mitt Romney does. So, I think that’s an important point.
We are — if I had a religious litmus test for candidates, Governor Mike Huckabee would be my candidate. I wouldn’t look anywhere else. I think he’s the guy. But I don’t have that litmus test. I think that is an absurd test to put forward for who we want to lead us.
JS: A couple of notable evangelical leaders, well, one has disagreed with you would be Al Mohler, who is quoted in Hugh Hewitt’s book. Have you had an opportunity to read that yet?
MD: I’ve read the whole book. I think it is a fabulous book.
JS: So do we, but then I think all three of us are in it. Mohler’s contention is essentially that the election of an LDS President would aid LDS evangelical efforts in, and Mohler makes the point, not so much in the United States, but elsewhere in the world. And he feels therefore that souls would be lost. And I am wondering if you have a response to that argument?
LB: But before you answer, Mark, I really have to jump in because that is an interesting issue to me. I have thought about what Al Mohler said, quite a bit. He has made the argument, as John just said, that there is a legitimate theological basis for evangelicals to be concerned about voting for a Mormon presidential candidate. He said that he would “agonize” over voting for a Mormon as a matter of what he called “Christian discipleship” because, as John said, electing a Mormon President would tend to “mainstream” Mormonism, and so some people might accept that faith and essentially be deceived, at least in theological terms. So, we’d like to hear you respond to that.
MD: First of all, I think that very question and concern is probably — if it’s not the biggest and most wide spread concern among evangelicals it is in the top 2 or 3. And I will say for me personally, it was really the only hurdle I had to jump personally in deciding to support Mitt Romney.
Here’s how I jumped it, and I have got enormous respect for Dr. Mohler. He is a brilliant, brilliant man and thinker and theologian. And I would not want to debate him anywhere. But here is how I would handle this particular question. I approached it this way. If being elected President would further the cause of Mormonism as a religion, then, at least in a scalable context, there should be evidence that it happened in the State of Massachusetts, when a Mormon governor was elected. Now, you say that is not the same as being the leader of the free world. And it is not. But I would say that in four years in Massachusetts, if we are concerned that electing a Mormon President would advance Mormonism and advance their evangelization efforts, then there should be some evidence, some uptick, some evidence of something in Massachusetts. And I explored that a little bit.
The other concern I have heard a lot is that he would load his administrative team with LDS folks. And so I explored these two questions with the Governor and interestingly, on the second point, about appointing Mormons to key positions, he could not name a single Mormon that he had appointed to any position in the state of Massachusetts in four years. Now, he was quick to say “There probably are some, but I can’t tell you who they are.” So, I thought, that’s a good sign. He didn’t have a cabinet full of Mormons.
Then, secondly, I think this: What is true of the White House should be true of other areas of life to some degree. So, this man was a prominent business man, business leader. Did that advance, is there any evidence that his rise to prominence in the business world advanced Mormonism in that sector? I don’t think there is. Is there any evidence that his running the Olympics gave him a platform which advanced Mormonism in civic life or in athletics? I don’t think there is. Is there any evidence that his being Governor advanced Mormonism in the State of Massachusetts? Clearly, there is not. So, I think, I am entirely comfortable with this whole question and I think you have to analyze it like that.
People have said to me occasionally, Mark, you don’t understand what these people believe. And my answer to that is, on a personal level, I care what Mitt Romney believes about Jesus and about heaven and about hell and so on. On a political level, I don’t care. And I am not trying to be smart-alecky about it, I just don’t care because I don’t think it is relevant.
I do think it is important that he has a moral basis, which nobody would say he does not have. I do think it is important that he has a personal faith, which nobody would say he does not have. I don’t think it is important that he has a faith that mirrors mine.
JS: Mark, one other question now. I have heard that there have been other meetings with evangelical leaders. Specifically I heard about one in South Carolina and I also believe there was one associated with the Religious Broadcasters Convention in Florida a few months ago. Were you associated with either of those?
MD: I was with the one in Orlando during the Religious Broadcasters Convention. Jay Sekulow and I set that, it was actually a series of meetings in an afternoon, and in the span of a couple of hours, the Governor and his wife met with a very small group of five or six leaders and then a group of about 25 and then about a group of 140, and then another group of about 25. And all of those meetings, I would say, went very much like the meeting in October in the Governor’s home went, in terms of what people were asking and the reaction to him. I think, to a person, people come away from a meeting with the Romneys very favorably impressed with a belief and a conviction that he is a genuine person and a leader and he has convictions They may still have some nagging questions about this whole faith question, but I think he makes ground every time he meets with anybody.
LB: Let me ask you to just put on your public relations advisor hat for a moment and give us your thoughts on what you think is the next step after these meetings? Is it to hope that these folks will spread the word to other evangelicals?
JS: Let me insert a little bit because Lowell and I think too much alike; that was my next question. Mark, I don’t know if you caught it on our blog, it may have been two weeks ago now, one of our readers suggested a little bit of research work that we did produced an absolutely startling set of statistics: 87% of all stories written about Governor Romney, using Google News as the search engine, mention his faith. Mention the word Mormon, let’s be precise. And that compares to 2% of stories written about Rudy Giuliani which mention his Catholicism and 0.02% of stories written about John McCain which mention his Episcopalianism. That’s a pretty formidable public relations hill to climb.
MD: It is. There is no question about it. That is why I am actually glad about this long campaign season, because I think it favors Romney above anybody else. Because he is arguably the least known of the top tier candidates. So, it is reasonable to suggest that we are not going to, the general public is not going to learn anything particularly new or enlightening about McCain or Giuliani in the next 12 months. We can only add to our knowledge base about Romney in the next 12 months because most people know so little about him.
I’m not overly — I’ll tell you what — and this is a very radical statement to make as an evangelical on this question, and I don’t know that I’ve said it anywhere else, but I’ll say it. I have, personally, actually gone from being okay with the fact that he is Mormon to now, I actually LIKE the fact that he is a Mormon because relative to my other options right now, or the viable options, I take great comfort in the fact that his faith is so important to him and it is important enough that he has stayed with Ann, his wife, for 37 or 38 years. It is important enough to him that his family is more important than anything else. It is important enough to him that he lives by a certain code of behavior.
And I am now actually glad that he is a Mormon because it says to me he’s not suddenly going to go out next month and embarrass us by some terrible behavior. I have no concern about waking up one day and reading that he’s left his wife for another woman. And that is because I know how important and grounded he is in Mormonism.
Now, do I wish he was a born again evangelical Christian just like I was? Sure I do. Personally I do. But politically, I don’t think so.
And I will tell you another book that I think is, in an indirect way at least, a terrific book, and you guys may want to talk about it some time, and that is a book written by Jeff Benedict called The Mormon Way of Doing Business. Have you seen that book?
JS: I have it on my shelf. I have not gotten to it yet.
MD: I picked it up and read it in one weekend. And I tell you what it does. It doesn’t mention Mitt Romney, I don’t think. His name might be in it. But this author, who is an investigative journalist, basically profiled nine Mormon business leaders in America, none of whom I knew were Mormons. So this was not more obvious Mormon business people like Bill Marriott, this was the Chairman of Dell Computers, the CEO of JetBlue, the former CEO of Madison Square Garden, the CFO of American Express, the Dean of the Harvard Business School, and it was nine very prominent business leaders, all of whom are Mormon.
It sort of chronicled how their faith impacts their business life and their family life. And I read that book and again, while I wish these men all had my theology, I have to tell you I greatly admired their business ethics, their family standards and commitments to their family, and the honoring of the Sabbath. I mean, most evangelicals don’t uphold the Sabbath.
So, I just think there is something a little hypocritical to say as an evangelical, I can’t support this guy because he is Mormon, so I’ll go support somebody else who may not even share my values, but at least, they’re not Mormon. I think that is a really strange conclusion to reach, to put it nicely.
JS: I think, to quit being an interviewer for a minute, I think it is something that comes from personal experience or from ancient wisdom, if you will. I had the unfortunate, at least with retrospect unfortunate, happenstance that my first election was the one that elected Jimmy Carter and I was a young ministry professional at the time working for Young Life, or getting ready to work for Young Life, I should say. I was rather enamored with Carter’s willingness to speak about his faith and therefore, cast the worst vote of my life.
LB: True confessions now.
JS: Well, I think I have confessed it on the blog before, Lowell, but I’m still embarrassed by it. So, you know, I think that is something which is — one of the things that is exciting is, here’s a guy, Romney, who I can say, value-wise, is going to line up with me, on the things that meet up politically he is going to line up fairly close with me. So I think that is very smart, Mark. So, back to Lowell’s question on where does this go from here in terms of specific outreach to evangelicals, at least as far as Mark DeMoss is concerned?
MD: Sorry, I forgot to actually answer that.
JS: That’s okay. You said great things.
MD: First of all, there is no magic wand for this equation. The good news is, neither is there a magic wand for any of the other candidates. So, we need time, which we have. What I have tried to do is just challenge the thinking, challenge the conventional wisdom of evangelicals. And I think we’ve begun to do that, just trip the general mind set a little bit and stir it up and get people to think about the things we have been talking about. That’s a start.
Secondly, I want people to become better read and informed in looking at this man. I think if you wrote up a resume of Mitt Romney that did not mention Mormonism and talked about what he did as Governor and the stance he took on gay marriage and stem cell research and everything else that is a part of his life and paraded that resume around to evangelicals, they would all be saying, Wow! This is our guy! This is amazing!
Well, then why is it that when you say, and by the way, he is a Mormon, suddenly some people would say, “Oh, I can’t go there. It doesn’t make sense.” Because the reality is we have had, I don’t know that we’ve had a President that precisely mirrors my theology and my values. I don’t know that I could say that is true of anyone.
So, I want people to read up on this. I am beginning to circulate the — High Hewitt’s book is terrific, but for anybody who won’t read the whole book, they ought to read the Appendix which is the transcript of an interview Hugh did with two Biola University professors dealing with all of these theological questions and the acceptability of a Mormon candidate and what that means for our country. It’s a terrific interview that is thoughtful and intelligent and I think draws very solid conclusions. So, I want to get that circulated.
We are beginning to do some meetings with evangelicals in key states. The campaign asked me to go, in the next few weeks, to eight cities in South Carolina and Alabama and have these kinds of discussions that I am having with you guys, with groups of pastors and evangelical leaders. So, I’ll do that. And others are doing the same kind of thing. I think we just keep doing it. I’ve seen people turn the corner and I think — I understand that it is not a simple place to arrive for a lot of evangelicals. It wasn’t simple for me. I took time thinking it over carefully. And not everybody close to me would be comfortable with what I’m doing. I’ve got one or more members of my staff that I think have real reservations on my engagement on this.
JS: I’ve talked to some of them.
MD: You have?
JS: Yeah.
MD: And that’s okay. We can do it civilly and I will tell you this, almost to a person, in the last six months, that I have talked to, people with real serious either reservations or just adamantly opposed to this idea of a Mormon — if I ask them about two questions, “What if the race came down to Mitt Romney and Candidate X or Candidate Y?” every person, I think without exception, who had debated me and had big, terrible reservations, ultimately would say, well, if it came down to that I guess I‘d go with the Mormon.
And so, then it becomes something of a question of timing. Because here’s the thing, if I had a personal conviction that it was wrong to help put a Mormon in the White House, then I couldn’t answer that question by saying, “Well, yeah, if it came down to this, I guess I would.” If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.
And yet, to a person that’s held these objections, they wind up saying, “Well, if it comes down to that, yeah, I guess I’d go with the Mormon.” So, I would like more of those people to not wait until the 11th hour and see if it does come down to that choice, and then get involved. I think if he is the best candidate at the end of the day, I think he is the best candidate today.
And I want to say this too, because you don’t hear much of this. I am not out speaking negatively about other candidates. I think that is the dumbest kind of politics imaginable and I have really been bothered by candidates who say, “Vote for me because these other people are bad people.” That is a pretty weak rationale to vote for me, because the other people are lousy. I want to support Mitt Romney, not because I think the other choices are terrible options, I want to support Mitt Romney because I think he is a great candidate, is a great option, a great person with the qualifications to manage and oversee and lead this government and so I am not circulating stuff about other candidates and what they did and what they said about various issues, because that is sort of saying, vote for us as the lesser of a bunch of evils. I don’t think Mitt Romney is the lesser of several evils. I think he is the best person right now.
LB: Mark, something you said a moment ago leads into a question that I need to give a little bit of background on, if we have time.
MD: Okay.
LB: And I’ll also ask you if you are willing to look into your crystal ball a little bit. We have noticed, John and I, as we have followed this issue for the last year– and we have looked at everything that has appeared in any news media at all about Romney and Mormonism—that every one of the truly nasty, vicious attacks on him, based on religion, have come from the liberal side of the political spectrum– from people on the left, which is interesting. The most recent attack, which was the one that John mentioned, was an op-ed by Garry South, who is a Democratic strategist, and I find that fact interesting. He said this, and I am quoting him:
The far more critical and basic question is, does Romney’s brand of faith and membership in a church of Latter Day Saints require that he question or dismiss the validity of the Christian tradition, and the efficacy of baptism into that faith of every non-Mormon adherent of Christianity who has ever lived since the end of the Apostolic era, and does he?
Again, an interesting question for a Democratic strategist to ask.
Now, in your OpEd piece the same day, you said “there is a third option” for evangelicals, and I’m quoting again:
That’s the one Karl Rove believes was exercised by 4 million evangelicals in 2000, I could stay home. The problem with that option is that it violates another evangelical tenet, a Christian citizen’s duty to vote.
I am wondering: If we get to a general election and those kind of attacks keep coming from people on the left, is there a danger that evangelical voters will in fact stay home, because they are being confused?
I also have to say, I am a lawyer by profession. When I read something like what Garry South said, my antennae go up and I ask myself, “What is he really up to, and what are his biases?”
And of course, Garry South, as John said, is a long time political strategist famous for “dynamiting” the campaigns of the other parties, even during primary season. So, that is a long background to the question. Do you think there is a danger evangelicals will stay home because of attacks like that?
MD: I personally don’t think so. They may in some small numbers. I don’t think they will in large numbers because this candidate, this person, I think is so attractive and intelligent and believable, and we many not understand Mormonism, but this guy has led a pretty public life. It’s not like he just appeared out of nowhere and there is no record of this life. He has been a pretty public figure for a long time. And I think it would be, I would be surprised if in large numbers evangelicals stayed home if Romney were the nominee of his party. Would some people do it? Sure.
I’ve talked to somebody, this kind of person might stay home: I talked to somebody who just could not fathom this, could not get over this Mormon issue, and I said, “Let me ask you this, you’re on a ski trip in Utah, ski vacation, you crash into a tree, they rush you to the hospital, you need emergency brain surgery, the only surgeon on duty, the only neurosurgeon on duty is a Mormon, what do you do then?” This person actually said to me, “I would not let a Mormon operate on me.”
Well, that’s kind of the end of the debate with that person. I can’t have a rational conversation after that. So that kind of person might stay home. But I don’t think that’s a majority evangelical approach either.
JS: Mark, one of the things I contend and have contended over and over and over again on the blog is that I think that if we as evangelicals are to eliminate Romney on the basis of his faith, we are inviting the same for ourselves. I’m wondering if you agree and have any further reaction to that?
MD: I totally agree with that and I think that was THE premise, or certainly one of the premises of Hugh Hewitt’s book and it is a real warning. And I think that is something we’d better pay attention to and we should appreciate. Evangelicals are always bemoaning the fact that we don’t have a seat at the table, we don’t get appointments to key positions, and we certainly complain about mainstream media treatment of evangelicals, so we of all people should understand just what you said, if we lock out Mitt Romney because he is Mormon, I don’t know how we can complain about being locked out ourselves more than a lot of us already think we are. So, I think that is a very critical point.
JS: Mark, it has been a great interview. Lowell, do you have anything else?
LB: I want to ask Mark why he decided to be a volunteer for Romney and made a point of saying he refused to work for him professionally?
MD: Yeah, that’s a good question. I did it for probably two reasons. One, I’m really not a political consultant. I have a public relations firm and so we, our public relations firm, serves Christian organizations and causes, exclusively. So, we don’t do, we don’t work on political campaigns, we don’t do all the things that political consultants do. We don’t even do them.
But I think the more important reason why I said that up front was I really wanted to earn his truest and shown him I did not have an ulterior motive. I know these candidates get flooded with people with their hands out looking for a contract. And I didn’t want them to think I was one of those people. Nor do I want to — I didn’t want money for it. It’s that simple. And I am helping him and I think it gives me — the fact that I’m not on his payroll, I hope, gives my voice more credibility when I write and talk about him. You know, you expect all the paid consultants to write op-ed pieces like I wrote and saying the things I’m saying to you, but I wanted more credibility. I never wanted my message to be suspect because I was being paid and so I just told him right up front, I’m not here looking for a client.
JS: Great. Lowell, anything else?
LB: Do you think Romney should give a Kennedy-type speech? He’s getting lots of advice, mainly from people in the media and people on the left, that he needs to do just that.
MD: That’s a big question and I don’t know if I am smart enough or old enough to know the answer to it. But I think whether he gives a Kennedy-type speech, you know, THE speech, about his religion, or just continues to talk about it and answer it, I don’t know. I don’t know. I think he is making some speeches in the coming days at some important places. He is doing a commencement address at Regent University in Virginia Beach in a couple of weeks. I guess next week. He is doing a commencement at Hillsdale College any day now and, but I don’t know if he has to give the big speech or just keep saying what he is saying, living his life the way he lives it, demonstrating that he believes what he says he believes, and let time take care of it. I don’t know. Honestly.
LB: Fair enough.
JS: Ok, very good. Mark DeMoss, we thank you for taking the time for this interview.
MD: Thanks. I have enjoyed it and I will keep watching what you write.
JS: Great.
Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, Mark DeMoss, elections, president, interview
May 1st 2007
Last week we spent a fascinating hour interviewing Mark DeMoss, founder of The DeMoss Group and author of The Little Red Book of Wisdom. According to the Group's website:
Since founding The DeMoss Group in 1991, Mark DeMoss has served some of the world’s most prominent and effective Christian ministries and enterprises. Mark has been involved in shaping some of the largest Christian events and campaigns over the past decade while simultaneously overseeing the growth of his now twenty-person firm. He has extensive media relations experience with both religious and mainstream media and provides particular expertise to clients in crisis/issues management and communications.
What does Mr. DeMoss, who was Jerry Falwell's Chief of Staff for 8 years, have to do with Article VI Blog? Well, he's an unpaid volunteer with the Romney for President campaign, and has had the lead role in the campaign's outreach efforts to Evangelical Christians. Among other things, the interview details:
We'll have the interview up this Thursday, May 3. Watch for it!
Technorati Tags: Mark DeMoss, evangelicals, interview, forthcoming, Mormons
April 23rd 2007
The following interview took place on April 19, 2007, between John Schroeder ("JS") and Lowell Brown ("LB") of Article VI Blog, and Stan Guthrie ("SG"), Senior Associate Editor of Christianity Today Magazine.
______________________________________
JS: Here we are today with Stan Guthrie. Stan is the Senior Associate Editor of Christianity Today Magazine. Christianity Today is the premiere magazine covering evangelical Christianity, and Stan also blogs at http://www.stanguthrie.com. Thanks for joining us today, Stan.
SG: Glad to be here. Thanks for having me.
JS: Stan, you and the staff of Christianity Today probably have your finger on the pulse of what’s going on in evangelicalism more than any other single source. I guess the first question I would ask you is, politics aside, simply, on the question of religion, how big a problem do you think Mitt Romney has because he is LDS?
SG: Well, I am probably looking at the same polls you are, and what I understand is that he has a problem in that he is a Mormon and there is a good bit of distrust of Mormons among evangelicals. I mean, for years, Mormonism, or the Latter Days Saints Church, sorry, has been labeled a cult. So it is kind of hard to overcome that four letter “c” word, and I would say there is a fair bit of distrust, but also some interest, because he is obviously an accomplished person, accomplished governor, and he holds a lot of positions that evangelicals would find interesting — particularly those with a conservative slant to their politics.
JS: Have you had much opportunity to discuss this issue — I mean, your interview subjects over the years have covered the breadth of both conservatism to liberalism, both theologically and politically.
SG: I’m in an interesting position. It’s fun.
JS: I’m sure it is. Have you had much opportunity to discuss this issue with those people? I mean, ranging from James Dobson to Newt Gingrich to Jim Wallace to Marvin Olasky, just all across the board there.
SG: You mean whether a Mormon can be elected?
JS: Elected President, yes.
SG: That’s starting to happen more and more, but honestly, until really the last year or so, maybe a little less than that, it really hasn’t been an issue. It just hasn’t been on our radar screens because there has been no credible Mormon candidate. I mean, you get people like Orrin Hatch, in the Senate and you think, well, he’s a good ally on a lot of issues and I think he has built up some respect, but honestly, I think most of us haven’t thought that much about it and I think it is still pretty new to a lot of people.
I think probably there is a good chunk of evangelicals who just haven’t thought about it and are willing to be persuaded. There have been a lot of developments over the last several years of contacts between Christians of all kinds and people from Latter Day Saints. I think some eyes are being opened and I think some stereotypes are being dispelled, or at least, addressed in a realistic way, where there is someone sitting across the table from you and it’s not just a reference in a book about cults. It’s a real person and you get to hear them discuss what they really believe, you find that they are maybe not quite as scary as they were made out to be.
JS: Sure. Well, obviously I think that, given that I blog with Lowell. I communicate with him probably almost as much as my wife, it seems like sometimes.
LB: I’m an interviewer, and I’m sorry, because I’m supposed to be asking the questions, but I will say, blogging with John I also have learned an awful lot about evangelicalism. I think there is a lesson in that for everyone.
SG: One of the things I have really appreciated since coming to Christianity Today is learning the notion that you need to see how the life is lived. How its followers live the thing — Whether it is Latter Day Saints, whether it is Islam, or Episcopalians, or whatever. You can’t just get it from press clippings and references in books. You have to see how it is actually lived out in the real world and what the nuances are and what is stressed and what is not stressed. I think as that goes on with followers of Mormonism, that some of those stereotypes and concerns will be addressed. I’m not saying all will be, but certainly when you establish a relationship with someone, you have a much better chance of building a friendship and seeing things more sympathetically.
JS: Do you think that in order for Mitt Romney to be elected that a lot of the — I’m trying to figure out the right way to say this — I want to say myths about Mormonism, but some are myths and some are facts just twisted wrong — are going to have to be overcome? Or do you think Mitt Romney, or any other candidate, can do that simply on the basis of being a good individual?
SG: Well, this was a little bit before my time, but as you know John F. Kennedy had to address that issue head on and reassure people that the stereotypes of Catholics that were common at the time were not going to apply to him. And I would guess that Mitt Romney will probably have to do something similar to reassure people that Mormons don’t have horns and hooves and that kind of thing, because a lot of people are suspicious. I don’t know how he would do that, particularly, but certainly, just speaking forthrightly as an American citizen, as a leader, as an accomplished person is going to help. But probably, for some people, he is going to have to go a bit farther and, you know, explain how his faith is going to inform his politics.
LB: I have a follow up here. When Kennedy gave his speech, the only real issue was whether or not he would be independent of the Vatican. And it seems to me that is one question people have about Romney: Will he be independent of Salt Lake City? I think that’s an easy question for him to address, but as you have mentioned, in Romney’s case there seem to be a number of other questions he would need to address. Do you have any ideas, from what you have gathered from speaking to evangelicals and other Christians, as to the necessary scope of his outreach, his speech or other gesture in that direction?
SG: Well, I wouldn’t say I have a definitive answer, but I think back to the time, I think it was 1984, when Reagan came to the National Association of Evangelicals and he said, “I know you can’t endorse me, but I endorse you.” He lowered any kind of barriers and he let the people know that he was really supportive of them. I would be very surprised if Romney didn’t make some similar kind of a gesture where he talks with evangelicals and probably tries to allay some of their fears. I don’t know if you do that on a large scale or a small scale.
JS: Well, he has had some meetings with a broad swath of evangelical leaders on a couple of occasions. And –
SG: So far, I don’t believe that whatever he said to some of these leaders has really filtered down to the masses. So, somehow it is going to have to be conveyed that Romney is OK. You know what I mean?
JS: Sure. — Are there any specific corners, labels of evangelicalism where you think the problem is larger than others?
SG: Could you be a little more specific?
JS: For example, my sense is that there haven’t been any evangelicals that have come out and said, Richard Land’s term was a “deal breaker,” that have come out and said that Romney’s faith is just going to prevent them from voting for him, but there are some who have concerns. Al Mohler has expressed concerns. James Dobson hasn’t expressed concern so much as he said that he doesn’t think some people will vote for Romney because of that. Those are both people who are towards the very conservative end of the scope of evangelicalism. And I am wondering if you think, therefore my perception is that that’s where the problems lie, on the most conservative end.
SG: And they’re also the ones who are the most likely to support him.
JS: That’s what I understand. And so I’m trying to get a feel for — for example, I’m a Presbyterian. We come from a relatively liberal background, both theologically and politically. As a matter of fact, there’s just not a lot of buzz in Presbyterian circles about it being a problem. So, that’s kind of what I’m looking for, is it a Baptist issue, a Presbyterian issue? It is an Evangelical Independent Church issue, or what do you think?
SG: I think it is in the broad evangelical movement. I would say the more fundamentalist the persuasion of the group, the harder it will be because I think some of those stereotypes will be a little harder to remove and to address.
JS: Lowell, you had some questions from the interview Stan did with Hugh, didn’t you?
LB: Yes. Stan, you did an interview with High Hewitt about his book, A Mormon in the White House? It was posted on February 27th. I was interested in his answer to one of your questions. You asked him: “Would any theological believe be disqualifying for a Presidential candidate?” And his answer was this:
Not a theological belief, but if the theological believe resulted in a political position, it could. For example, if a Raelian believed that we needed to embrace cloning, I would say, I can’t vote for you because you are in favor of cloning.
That’s a sensible and principled position, but I have two questions for you about it. Do you think, as an observer of Christianity, that it is realistic to expect a lot of people to adopt that position?
SG: I think it is a principled position. It is one that I think that if you stretch it, it doesn’t work. I think it works in the broad scheme of things, but when you get to the extremes it won’t work. Just to use the Raelians as an example, no matter what their positions were on the issues, if they lined up with my personal positions 100%, I would not vote for them because I think Raelianism by definition is crazy and so anyone who would believe in that system would not be Presidential timber in my estimation. So, I think the real question is, is not would any theological belief be disqualifying, but would Mormon theological beliefs be disqualifying, in the case of Mr. Romney.
LB: It’s clear that the question is quite academic because a Raelian would never get to the point of being a credible candidate for President.
SG: Well, let’s hope not.
JS: Aren’t they all dead now?
LB: So there is a line and I guess it is one of those “We’ll know it when we see it” lines.
SG: And I think the encouraging thing for Mr. Romney is that the line has been moving. As we have mentioned, a lot of people would draw the line at a Catholic in years past. And we have pretty much given up that line and now we are tying to see where the line really is. I think it would be much more difficult for a Muslim to be President than it would for a Mormon to be President.
LB: I agree.
SG So, it depends on the sensibilities of the American people. So I think Mr. Romney has a job ahead of him to say the line doesn’t stop at me, it stops at somebody else.
LB: Some follow up questions. I noticed in the online version of the article, there were 95 comments.
SG: Oh, really?
LB: Yes, and to call that set of comments a spirited discussion would be an understatement. But that is what we have come to expect, John and I, when we explore this issue. One commenter raised a question which has also been raised by the Rev. Al Mohler, which is, and I’ll quote, “If Romney comes near to gaining the White House, he will add huge legitimacy to Mormonism, a religion that is contrary to historic Christianity and a threat to the Gospel.” And others have expressed that. Frankly, as a Mormon I find that to be a logical position to take.
SG: Illogical?
LB: Pardon me?
SG: Illogical?
LB: No, it is a logical position to take. I also think it is mistaken. Even so, I can’t get my hands around who widely shared Mohler's view is. Do you have a sense of that?
SG: I would think that it wouldn’t be a cause, but it would be an effect. If he does get to that point, I think that means that Mormonism is viewed as a legitimate American religion and expression of faith and it is not a big deal. I don’t think Romney in himself has the power or the position to be able to force, I’m just using a term, “force Mormonism down people’s throats” if they are not ready to swallow it anyway.
LB: In Hugh’s book, Romney did point out – apparently with tongue in cheek– that Mormon baptisms have not increased appreciably in Massachusetts since his election to Governor.
SG: That’s an interesting little detail. Yeah, I think probably just — how do I say this — just the increased press and increased media visibility can’t but help Mormonism unless he makes some terrible mistakes, or people around him, who are Mormon, make terrible mistakes.
I mean, I’m not comparing Mormonism to Islam, but even after 9/11 there was a surge in interest in Islam, simply because people were talking about it and saying, well, what is this? Certain people had not heard of it before we were attacked. So, in that sense, there will be some people who are interested in Mormonism, who otherwise wouldn’t have been, as they face the issue and as the doctrines or the practices of the latter Day Saints church, become known to them.
JS: Again, as an interviewer, I’m not supposed to make a comment, but I have to. The other thing that strikes me is that granting Mormonism legitimacy as an American expression of faith, does not establish the truth or falsity of that belief, which is what’s at root when it comes to adopting it as a religious faith. So, those are kind of –
SG: Well, I don’t know. People adopt religions for all different kinds of reasons. Some might be because they think it is true, others because it might make them feel good, or, you know, meet some kind of need in their life.
LB: How widely shared do you think that view is? The Al Mohler view that I just described?
SG: Gosh, Al Mohler speaks for a lot of people, but he doesn’t speak for everyone. I would guess it would be a fair, a very sizable minority.
LB: And to be fair to Al Mohler, I think he has said that he would agonize over the decision. I’m not sure he has said yet that he would simply not vote for Romney for that reason.
SG: I think we are all sort of in a waiting mode. Let’s see where he goes with this and what his policies are, and also who the man is. I think you can overcome a lot of things and get someone’s vote. I mean, Ronald Reagan was divorced and he didn’t go to church much when he was in the office of the Presidency, and by and large, evangelicals loved him and he overcame those negative factors. So, it could happen again.
LB: I want to read to you, and this is my last question. I’m crossing my fingers when I say that of course.
SG: So am I.
LB: I noticed something that Harold Bloom said in his book The American Religion, and I’ll quote it:
The Southern Baptists and the Mormons betray remarkably parallel configurations and spiritual temperament and in what might be called the sensibility of belief. In my analysis they are different varieties of the American Religion and they actually share far more than they dispute.
Question: How do you respond to that thought?
SG: I think he is probably thinking more from a sociological level. Certainly there are a lot of similarities — The energy, the evangelistic imperative, the social cohesion, that king of thing. But I think there are some great fundamental differences between the Latter Day Saints’ beliefs and what I would say standard evangelical beliefs, and the Southern Baptists would be one variety of that. And certainly, I think, probably at root the differences are pretty deep but they do seem to have a lot of things in common and we come together for a lot of good and necessary reasons. And I think if we decide to focus on the things that bring us together, there is certainly a lot we can work on and I wouldn’t necessarily think that the theological differences are going to be deal breakers for a lot of people. Really, it remains to be seen. And I think as the campaigns move forward, some of those potential problems are going to surface. We are going to see: Are they serious or not? And I don’t think anyone knows right now.
LB: I’m going to confirm my status as a liar right now and ask one more question. One of the commenters to your interview said this:
I think it will be interesting to see if some Christians can look beyond their attitudes toward Mormonism to the bigger picture. Will they instead go for an adulterer, Giuliani, or a man who has previously sneered at evangelical beliefs, McCain?
I am wondering whether we are going to get into those kinds of issues among evangelicals and other creedal Christians. Are they going to look at the candidates, look at Romney, married 38 years, 5 sons, a perfectly clean, and no-skeletons-in-the-closet record. Is that going to matter to them more than his religion, based on your perception, Mr. Guthrie?
SG: Well, my goodness, John Edwards is by all accounts, happily married for 30 years and I know a lot of politically conservative Christians who would never vote for him. So, it is more than just the personal narrative that a person has. I think it all kind of works together. I know plenty of evangelical Christians who are thinking of voting for Giuliani, not because they agree with him on abortion or on his personal morality, which we would find reprehensible on both counts, but the fact that he is a strong figure who might be needed in a time of terrorism and war. So, that said, I think Mr. Romney has a pretty good chance of winning us over even though we might have fundamental differences with him on theology. As Hugh said, he is not looking for a pastor; he’s looking for a President. While most evangelicals are not as pragmatically focused as Hugh is, I think there is a large number who are looking to make the best decision they can for the country and they are not trying to have a theological convention.
LB: Well, with that I need to drop off the call. Please continue without me, John.
JS: Ok, thanks, Lowell.
SG: Thanks Lowell.
LB: Thank you very much. It has been a pleasure speaking with you and making your acquaintance. Your comments are terribly interesting.
SG: Well, thank you very much. Look forward to talking with you again.
LB: Goodbye.
JS: Stan, I really have just one more question for you.
SG: Sure, sure.
JS: That is, how closely does Christianity Today follow politics?
SG: We try not to be in the day to day slugfest. And we don’t handicap the races and we don’t see that as our primary calling as a magazine. I mean, people can get political analyses all over the charts, but what we try to do is find the spiritual implications and applications of what is going on. We try to help our readers get to know the candidates, what they believe, how they live out their faith if they have one, how their decisions and prejudices would affect not only evangelical Christians, but just the great moral issues of our time.
END OF INTERVIEW
April 10th 2007
Well, maybe that should be the clueless and arrogant elitism of Kenneth Woodward, Newsweek's retired religion editor. All three defects appeared in Woodward's New York Times op-ed yesterday.
Most people who follow the issue of Mitt Romney's religion and its impact on his candidacy have already read Kenneth Woodward's Times piece, The Presidency's Mormon Moment. As a Mormon, or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church"), I had become accustomed to Woodward's writing about my faith. His work seemed to me consistently negative, often simply mistaken or at best distorted in important respects, and frequently unfair.
Apparently I wasn't the only Mormon who thought so. As I wrote yesterday, Jan Shipps is the foremost non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism. In 2002 Shipps wrote about press coverage of the Church during the during the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics. In a revealing aside, she reports that Woodward, while writing a Newsweek cover story on the Church's impact on the Games, couldn't get even one member of the LDS First Presidency or Quorum of Twelve Apostles to sit for an interview. Presumably the LDS leaders were gun-shy because of Woodward's poor history of writing about Mormons.
That's kind of like a reporter on the Congressional beat who has burned so many members of Congress so many times, no congressman or congresswoman will talk to him.
So I came to Woodward's op-ed with low expectations. When I first blogged about it yesterday, I didn't even bother to question the biggest howlers in his piece. Ironically, only after I saw the outraged reactions of my Evangelical co-blogger John and Hugh Hewitt (also a non-Mormon) did I realize how poor a job Woodward had done.
When I briefly called in to Hugh's show toward the end of the day, he urged us to "do an annotated edition of the Woodward interview." Well, we'll improve a little on Hugh's idea and annotate portions of both the New York Times op-ed itself and Hugh's interview. Remember those three themes: (1) clueless, (2) arrogant, (3) elitist.
Quoted below are some of the more galling paragraphs from Mr. Woodward's piece:
"Among the reasons Americans distrust the Mormon church is Mormon clannishness. Because every worthy Mormon male is expected to be a lay priest in voluntary service to the church, the demands on his time often leave little opportunity to cultivate close friendships with non-Mormon neighbors. A good Mormon is a busy Mormon. Those — like Mr. Romney — who serve as bishops (pastors of congregations) often find it difficult to schedule evenings at home with their own families."
It's hard to know where to begin with this one. As a Mormon, I always smile when people like Mr. Woodward tell me what my life is like. My non-Mormon friends and neighbors will probably find it surprising that I don't have time for them. Jesting aside, it is true that we Mormons develop fast friendships within our faith community. Beyond that, a gross generalization like Woodward's is simply impossible to respond to.
"To many Americans, Mormonism is a church with the soul of a corporation. Successful Mormon males can expect to be called, at some time in their lives, to assume full-time duties in the church’s missions, in its vast administrative offices in Salt Lake City or in one of many church-owned businesses. Mormons like to hire other Mormons, and those who lose their jobs can count on the church networks to find them openings elsewhere. Mr. Romney put those same networks to effective use in raising part of his $23 million in campaign contributions."
"To many Americans." Which ones would those be? I suspect that means, "To Ken Woodward." It's a little hard to imagine someone remarking, during a lunchtime conversation, "You know, that Mormon Church really does seem to have the soul of a corporation, doesn't it?"
Now, I'm not a journalist, I'm a mere attorney, and maybe I have too much respect for the idea that assertions need some factual support, and simply citing "many Americans" as support doesn't suffice. Don't journalists– even those writing op-ed pieces– think so too?
As for the basic assertion here, the Church has a lay ministry, so we all have to serve in order for the organization to survive. Some teach little children in Sunday School, some serve as Scoutmaster. A very few serve in the top-level positions to which Woodward refers. The business about the "church networks" finding us jobs– well, we wish that were true. We do have an employment service that charges no commission to prospective employers, but that service is open to all comers, Mormon and non-Mormon, and the applicants eventually have to get past the interviews and actually convince the employer they're qualified.
In Woodward's April 9 interview with Hugh Hewitt, Hugh raised Woodward's "to many Americans" language. This exchange (in blue type below) ensued:
HH: . . . What do you base that on?
KW: Oh, come on. What do you want me to say? 562,000 Americans, as opposed to 57, 14…you know…
HH: Just a level, just a level, just sort of a rough number.
KW: Yeah, yeah, I think that’s the image of it, and that’s the way I put it. I think you know that.
HH: No, but I mean, how many is many? I’m sure that some people believe that. But at what point…what do you think? How many, what percentage of Americans do you believe believe that?
KW: I don’t know. Am I supposed to know?
HH: Yeah, I think you write something in the New York Times, you ought to have something to back it up.
KW: Hey, look, you know, you’re kind of unbelievable. Look, what did you want me to do? Run a survey before I did it? Of course I used many. I could have used some. I think that’s true.
HH: Could have used a few.
KW: And you’re really picking at something. I mean, you know, you’ve got a bug up your butt about something, I don’t know."
Does anyone else detect some real annoyance on Woodward's part at being held to account this way? I wonder if he was ever subjected to such scrutiny during his 38 years as Newsweek's religion editor?
Back to Woodward's op-ed:
"Moreover, Mormons are perceived to be unusually secretive. Temple ceremonies — even weddings — are closed to non-Mormons, and church members are told not to disclose what goes on inside them. This attitude has fed anti-Mormon charges of secret and unholy rites."
[This is a very old anti-Mormon argument; we commented on it in detail here.]
"[T]he candidate should take the time to set the record straight. . . . But Mr. Romney must be sure to express himself in a way that will be properly understood. Any journalist who has covered the church knows that Mormons speak one way among themselves, another among outsiders. [What?] This is not duplicity but a consequence of the very different meanings Mormon doctrine attaches to words it shares with historic Christianity.
"For example, Mormons speak of God, but they refer to a being who was once a man of 'flesh and bone,' like us."
[Well, no. We believe God, the Father of us all, now has a body of flesh and bone. We do believe God is an exalted man, and that's a complex doctrine I can't do justice to here. But I won't quibble about small stuff like that. When Catholics talk about the Stations of the Cross, I must admit I am not sure what they're talking about either. Even so, I know it's important to my Catholic friends, so I leave it alone.]
John inserts himself briefly: I have read several books on Mormon theology and the best of them, one by Robert Millet out of BYU and the other co-authored by Stephen Robinson (Mormon) and Craig Bloomberg (creedal), admit that creedals and Mormons often use the same words in different ways. However, in my experience is this does not lead to "talking differently" inside and outside, but rather a whole lot of ground-laying when talking at all.
Besides, this is really a thinly-veiled accusation of lying. It is a particularly egregious accusation because its real purpose is to lend credence to attacks on other fronts that might otherwise be considered trivial, like the whole hunting thing. This is a truly ugly form of bias and bigotry. we really should be better than this as a nation.
And now - back to quoting Woodward and Lowell:
"[Mormons] speak of salvation, but to them that means admittance to a “celestial kingdom” where a worthy couple can eventually become “gods” themselves. The Heavenly Father of whom they speak is married to a Heavenly Mother. And when they emphasize the importance of the family, they may be referring to their belief that marriage in a Mormon temple binds families together for all eternity."
[Yes, that's part of it, because we believe the family unit can be eternal. Most people find that to be a very appealing idea. It is not some kind of code; it's simply what we believe.]
"Thus, when Mr. Romney told South Carolina Republicans a few months ago that Jesus was his 'personal savior,' he used Southern Baptist language to affirm a relationship to Christ that is quite different in Mormon belief. (For Southern Baptists, 'personal savior' implies a specific born-again experience that is not required or expected of Mormons.)"
[That's news to me. See if you can read this chapter from the Book of Mormon– well-known to committed Church members– and come to the same conclusion. Hint: It discusses how "to gain salvation, men must repent and keep the commandments, be born again, cleanse their garments through the blood of Christ, be humble and strip themselves from pride and envy, and do the works of righteousness."]
'Especially at Regent University, Mr. Romney should avoid using language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions. Rather, he should acknowledge those differences and insist that no candidate for public office should have to apologize for his or her religious faith."
[But isn't Woodward asking that Romney do just that? Does Woodward really believe that once Romney makes an "explanation" of Mormon doctrines, that will be the end of the matter, the way Kennedy's speech ended discussion of his Catholicism? Call me cynical, but I can imagine a story about Romney's "explanation," complete with quotes from leaders of other faiths, disagreeing with him or accusing him of revising "real" Mormon doctrine to make it more palatable. Of course there would be quotes from other Mormons claiming he got the doctrine wrong, and the obligatory quote from something Brigham Young or Joseph Smith is claimed to have said on the same subject 150 years ago. The discussion would be a confusing mess, and voters would be no better prepared to vote for or against Romney than they were before the explanation.]
"Finally, there is the question of authority in the Church of Latter-day Saints, and of what obligations an office holder like Mr. Romney must discharge. Like the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church has a hierarchical structure in which ultimate authority is vested in one man. But unlike the pope, the church’s president is also regarded as God’s own “prophet” and “revelator.” Every sitting prophet is free to proclaim new revelations as God sees fit to send them — a form of divine direction that Mormon missionaries play as a trump card against competing faiths."
If Woodward had read Hugh Hewitt's book, or this very blog, he would know that Romney has specifically addressed that very subject:
"Would you ever expect a call from [LDS Church] President Hinckley or his successor?" I asked.
"No," he emphatically replied. "Absolutely not. And I'd also note that when you take the oath of office, that is your highest oath and first responsibility. That's true when you become governor, it's certainly true for anyone who becomes president. When I placed my hand on . . . the Bible . . . when I was sworn in as governor . . . my highest and first responsibility was to honor my oath of office and follow the Constitution and protect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For those sworn into national office, their highest obligation is to the nation. It would be inappropriate for Church officials to contact me and it would be less than appropriate for me to take guidance from any institution other than caring first for the oath of office."
How many times does Romney have to say that? Hugh's book, by the way, is a quick but informative read. Woodward ought to get himself a copy. Back to Woodward's op-ed:
The issues above are real to many people . . .
There he goes again with that anonymous source!
Hugh had Woodward on his show for the better part of an hour yesterday. The entire interview is here, and I recommend it to you. Mostly it consists of Hugh trying to get a straight answer out of Woodward, and we can't really blog about it very effectively.
As I listened to a podcast of the interview this morning, I noticed this exchange for the first time:
HH: Do you have any Mormons who are friends of yours?
KW: Yeah.
HH: Close friends?
KW: Yeah. . . . The Mormons I would tend to meet with would tend to be journalists and academics. I mean, I used to go…are you familiar with the Sunstone, the Mormon magazine?
HH: Yes. . . .
KW: All right. I’ve addressed their conference a couple of times, so you can get a different kind of Mormon at those places.
So the Mormons Woodward knows well are journalists, academics, and those who attend Sunstone conferences. There isn't space here to describe everything I think that means, but I suspect that even members of those three groups would readily tell you that they are far from representative of most Mormons. For example, the majority of them would, I'll wager, be much bigger fans of Harry Reid than Mitt Romney. Also, on the pages of Sunstone you will very often find criticism of the Church from what might best be described as a "liberal," or left-leaning, point of view. In fact, the journal's then-editor once described Sunstone to me as the voice of the "loyal opposition" within Mormonism.
That's Woodward's "focus group" for understanding what Mormons are like and what we really think, and it shows: Woodward said he read his comment about the Church having "the soul of a corporation" to some of his Mormon friends, and they "laughed." Well, it's no surprise that Mormons in that demographic group would laugh at such a comment. Some of them whom I know personally have been expressing that very sentiment for years.
(Full disclosure: I was a Sunstone staffer 30 years ago during my student days. I'm afraid I was a real slacker, and did little for the cause; I quit after a year or so because of my personal discomfort with the journal's tone, content, and direction.)
Beyond that, this excerpt may be the most telling of the entire interview:
HH: No, but I think it’s a fairly bigoted piece that does great injury to…
KW: Well, you obviously have made that point. And I think you know, I think you’re wrong, that’s all.
HH: And so if a bunch of Mormons wrote you that they were offended by it, would you take into account…
KW: I expect someone to, yeah. I expect them to do that. I expect somebody will.
HH: And that won’t bother you?
KW: Not particularly, no. Not unless they’ve got a good argument to make, better than yours.
HH: At what point do stereotypes begin to drive religious bigotry in ways that hurt the society at large?
KW: I don’t know, because I don’t indulge in those kind of stereotypes?
HH: So what’s the difference between Mormons hiring other Mormons and Jews hoarding money? Both stereotypes. What’s the difference?
KW: Well, I don’t think Jews hoard money.
HH: So it’s just…
KW: But I do think…I know Mormons hire other Mormons.
HH: So it’s the Gospel according to Woodward?
KW: And it’s not a negative…hey, you know what? It’s not negative. It’s not negative. It’s perfectly understandable, okay?
HH: And if Mormons told you it was negative, would that matter to you?
KW: Nope.
HH: So it is the Gospel according to Woodward. . . . Are you open to the argument that maybe this was tremendously offensive to Mormons?
KW: I’m open to the argument, yeah. So what?
HH: All right. So what? I guess not. . . .
KW: I know what you think.
HH: If you went through and substituted Jew for Mormon, it would be one of the most…
KW: Oh, that’s too simple-minded. It really is too simple-minded.
HH: Why, because…
KW: There are groups…have you ever been around the Greek Orthodox?
HH: Why, are they secretive, too?
KW: They are an ethnically based Church. And it’s to be expected. Not secretive…
HH: Well, what do they do that’s…
KW: Not secretive.
HH: Are they secretive?
KW: Not secretive, no. You supplied the word, I didn’t.
HH: So what’s…
KW: Greeks, Greeks feel more comfortable with other Greeks. Greeks often, unfortunately, I’ve seen this in the orthodox world, are…they’ve had a considerable rubbing against, say, the Russian Orthodox, all right? It’s part of the history.
HH: Can you give me any…
KW: Just there. It’s there in society.
HH: Can you give me any…
KW: You seem to find this extraordinary news. I don’t.
HH: How about Irish Catholics? Give me a couple of things to go by on those?
KW: Well, they used to be, but not much anymore, because…
HH: They were drinkers, right?
KW: They’ve lost a lot of…
HH: We drank a lot.
KW: The lot of…their clannishness. Well, we did at Ignatius. [That's Woodward's Catholic high school in Cleveland. –Ed.] I don’t know about other places.
Well, you get the picture. Again, I have a hunch that Ken Woodward is not accustomed to close, probing, real-time analysis of his work, or challenges to his conclusions. Maybe he retired from the MSM just in time.
John adds: Ok, my first comment is frustration - I am on vacation for crying out loud! This blog has a very narrow portfolio, why does stuff have to break while I am on vacation!?!?! I guess that is why God invented laptops and hotels with high speed connections. Now to get serious.
First of all, I think Woodward was born in the stone age and has stayed there. Consider this from the April 9 interview with Hewitt:
HH: What I want to talk to you about are some of the statements made in your New York Times piece today, as whether or not you personally subscribe to them. For example, Kenneth Woodward, do you personally believe that the Mormon Church is clannish?
KW: I think as a generalization, that’s true. And I don’t mean is so much negatively. If you can remember when Italians couldn’t get into an Irish union, never mind blacks getting into a white union, preserving jobs for their friends and so on, that’s a kind of thing that I’m talking about. I’m thinking about…but more importantly, look at their history. You know, they were people forged on an exodus, with a huge amount of intermarriage, a strong sense that the world was against them, and also, a Church as welfare state, the food in the basement, that kind of stuff. Now they do look after each other. I was talking to a friend of mind, a classmate, who was a National Security Advisor in Nixon’s administration. And we were talking about just that thing. They’ve got people in at a certain point, and certainly after a while, more Mormons were coming in and so on.
Our nation has spent the better part of the last century trying to overcome precisely the prejudices that Woodward seems to intimate were somehow benign and non-problematic. I find his appeal to history, even Mormon history, fascinating. It is after all very old history and yet he makes the appeal several times in the interview with Hewitt. Here is just one other example:
HH: All right, how about this line. To many Americans, Mormonism is a Church with the soul of a corporation. Do you believe that, Kenneth Woodward?
KW: Do I believe that?
HH: Yeah.
KW: I think that’s a pretty good description. I bounced it off a few Mormons, and they laughed and said yeah.
HH: Well, what do you mean by it?
KW: Oh, there is a corporate side to it. I think the communal and communitarian side that was pretty, how would you want to say, pretty radical in the 19th Century. The old Mormonism, if you will, had issued in a very strong corporate style.
Mormons do have a unique and interesting history, but this is now not then. First of all, we addressed much of this history and how the CJCLDS has changed in the five-part series we did on Kathleen Flake's book on the seating of Reed Smoot to the US Senate 100 years ago. If you are interested, here it is: I — II — III — IV —