John is on a cruise, and I am headed out on vacation myself within the next hour.  So for today’s post I’ve chosen one of John’s finest and most important past efforts.  As I read this this morning, I ask myself:  Has John’s message been accepted yet?

_________________________________________

A Letter To Some of My Fellow Evangelicals

Posted by John Schroeder on April 17th, 2007      

In talking to my evangelical friends, both personally and in some emails I receive about this blog, there are some themes or statements that come up again and again. I thought I would address a few of them.

How can I, in good conscience, vote for someone whose beliefs are very different than mine?

Why would your conscience be troubled? You are voting for someone to do the job of president, not pastor. You are voting for the individual, not his beliefs. Can he do the job? Will he do the job in a way that aligns with my principles and values? Those are the questions that matter. When hiring someone for my business, those are the question I ask. Of course, I would prefer someone that believes as I do, but often I find candidates much better qualified for the job with other, or more frequently simply without, beliefs. I frankly would be foolish to hire a lesser qualified candidate to operate a soil sampling drill rig simply because the best candidate was a Jehovah’s Witness instead of a Presbyterian.

People’s beliefs really matter in their lives, and Mormons believe so differently.

Indeed Mormon belief is quite different, but how precisely does that matter? It is my opinion that Mormon belief is grossly misunderstood. It is not orthodox by any stretch of the imagination, but it is not so far off as the common perception might suggest. Consider the Godhead, to use the LDS term. Mormons are decidedly non-Trinitarian, fair enough. But does that make a difference in how a Mormon would govern? I don’t think so. Are our values based on our Trinitarian views? - No. Our values are largely based on the Judaic law, which is in turn based on monotheism, but not Trinitarianism. Some try to paint Mormons as polytheists, and the strictest possible interpretation of their theology of the godhead would indicate they are, but I have read enough Mormon theologians to know they do not carry their views of the godhead that far. Ask any Mormon if they are polytheistic and they will deny it vociferously. At best we can accuse them of having lousy logic in their theological formulations, but in practice and life they are little different than us. Please remember they hold the same scripture we do, plus “The Lord your God is ONE God” is scripture for Mormons just as much as it is for us. The additional scripture of Mormonism does not to the best of my knowledge contradict a word of the Bible - they interpret it very differently, but that is not a critical matter in this instance.

So, my question to you - specifically what is it that Mormons believe, as cited by Mormons, not anti-Mormon activists, that will affect how they govern? My researches of the last year and 100 years of Utah history says that they govern just like we do.

If you are still concerned, consider:

How do you feel when atheists say you should not vote for X because he is a Christian? This is America; our freedom to practice our faith is highly dependent on the freedom to have religious diversity in all areas of society, including government. If we, even in the privacy of the voting booth, exclude someone of another faith, then we are giving permission to allow others to exclude us. And we are increasingly in the minority in this nation . . . .

Technorati Tags: Mormons, belief, difference, Evangelicals, Mitt Romney

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

It was Iowa — better said, a lot of Iowa Republican primary voters — who propelled Mike Huckabee into prominence and punctured the tire on Mitt Romney’s campaign bus.  The latest news about the Iowa GOP is that they’ve denied their senior senator, Charles Grassley, a voting seat among its delegation the to the Republican National Convention.

Is there any earthly reason to allow such a demographic to have such tremendous influence over who the Republican presidential nominee is?

In the encouraging news department, a Google News search for “Mitt Romney” with the words “vice president” and “Mormon” produced nothing notable. That’s good, even if it leaves us with little to write about. Believe me, John and I would be happy if this blog became unnecessary.

Meanwhile, veep speculation runs rampant. We’re biased, of course, but it sure does seem to be trending Romney’s way. That’s what the L.A. Times Opinion LA blog thinks, as well as NPR’s Ron Elving:

[R]ight now pressure is building again for McCain to set aside his personal distaste for Romney and put him on the ticket. The campaign has put out the story that the obvious animosity between the two men in the primaries has been set aside. No one will ever sense true chemistry in this relationship, but it’s possible McCain could make the same judgement call that Sen. Bob Dole made in 1996.

Dole had endured considerable abuse from former Rep. Jack Kemp of New York when they both served in Congress, and it was clear that the Kansan had little use for the former pro quarterback. But if Kemp could help win the White House, Dole was willing to make the personal sacrifice and put him on the ticket.

It was a sign of some desperation on Dole’s part, and in the end it did not get him elected. But Romney is a more mature and serious politician than Kemp ever was, and he may be a better antidote to McCain’s specific problems than Kemp was for Dole’s.

With his most recent moves, Romney has shown he is willing to forget past wounds and make sacrifices of a material kind that few can dream of making. He has done what he can do.

Will McCain feel the need to do as much?

We’ll see. And the gang at MSNBC says McCain might announce his VP pick while Obama’s overseas. That would be interesting.

And on that note, we wish you a fine day!
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Now, about that Evangelical defection to Obama . . .

Mollie at GetReligion details and dissects “a new Pew study that indicates that Obama is getting slightly fewer — that’s right — fewer white evangelical supporters than John Kerry was at the same time four years ago.”

Wait a minute. I thought the whole center-right coalition was falling apart, led by the defection of Evangelicial Christians? I thought efforts like Obama’s faith-based initiative outreach to Evangelicals were changing the dynamic of the race?

Then again, maybe not. Mark Hemingway at NRO thinks the story line “is a classic example of the media trying to force a campaign narrative, regardless of whether it is true.” Golly, where have we seen that before?

More on this here and here. And Blake Dvorak’s analysis is more compelling than anything you’ll probably see in the Washington Post or New York Times.

The Climb-Down Begins

Looks like James Dobson is having second thoughts:

“I never thought I would hear myself saying this,” Dobson said in a radio broadcast to air Monday. “… While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.”

Dobson should think about avoiding sweeping predictions about the future, as in his statement that he’d never vote for McCain, or “I don’t believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon, but that remains to be seen, I guess.”

VeepWatch note

David Broder says what many (including me) are wondering:

McCain relies on his instincts for the big decisions, and I can’t tell whether he has really abandoned his initial thumbs-down judgment about Romney. He clearly needs help from someone to compete with Obama on the economy. Greenspan and Buffett aren’t going to do it for him.

Yup.
Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

First, watch this JibJab cartoon, if you haven’t already. If you’re like me, you’ll laugh out loud and find your mood unexpectedly improved.

Now: Pickings are a little slim these days, it being the dog days of summer and all. (I’m in Washington today, and “dog days” certainly describes the weather.) But there is still a little going on:

Jonathan Martin reports, in one of those anecdotal pieces we dislike so much, that “the reason McCain is garnering less enthusiasm than President Bush [is that] talking about his personal faith is not something he’s comfortable with.”

(Emphasis added.) A plague on all their houses. First, on Martin’s house: His story is based on another story, which is in turn based on yet another set of “person in the street” interviews. Note to journalists: Those anecdotal interviews tell us nothing. Nada. Zilch. They reflect your laziness. They do make good reads, however.

Second, consider this “person in the street” view, as reported by Martin:

SIOUX CENTER, Iowa (AP) — Stirring her morning coffee, lifelong Republican Grace Droog voiced her doubts — and those of many evangelical voters — about what she isn’t hearing from John McCain in this year’s presidential election.

“I look for something about his faith,” she said. “It’s very important, it’s what our nation was founded on.”

Her pal Joan Rens nodded; she, too, wants McCain to talk about his religious beliefs. “I wish he would so we would know how he stands on his religious views and where his faith lies,” she said.

This makes me want to scream. Are you as tired of this approach to voting as I am? Is that all it takes — a candidate must talk about his religious beliefs a lot, even if it’s the social justice religio-babble of an Obama? Please.

(I was just kidding about the plague, by the way.)

And . . . why, pray tell, is Iowa supposed to be such a bellweather for voter sentiment?

For a more forward-looking approach, here’s an interesting e-mailer to K-Lo at NRO:

Evangelicals are going through a massive political identity crisis right now and should not, absolutely should not, be courted according to some outdated pre-2004 model. We are too disjointed right now for our collective views to be a determining factor, especially as doing so would alienate other voting groups.

Read the whole thing, and enjoy your weekend!
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

To say that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s National Press Club speech dominates Monday’s political news would be more than a gross understatement. It is hard to know what to add to roundups like this one. I’ll just offer a few observations:

1. The Wright controversy is not about religion and politics. It’s mostly about a pastor who rants the extreme, borderline crackpot views of MoveOn.org over his pulpit.

2. Adding to no. 1, the controversy over Wright is not about his theology, it’s about his political statements. The former is almost immune from political attack; the latter are 100% fair game.

3. Wright has established himself as a kook. I almost wonder if he has done so in order to allow Barack Obama to distance himself from Wright once and for all. Obama can now say, “Look, the guy was my pastor and I looked to him for spiritual leadership, but this stuff is beyond the pale and I reject it completely.” I wonder if he will, however.

4. Wright himself seems to be able to articulate the difference between being someone’s pastor and being a political adviser, as Power Line notes. And yet the Rev. Wright seems to have a hard time seeing the difference between preaching the Gospel and simply ranting about the same things one might expect to read on the Daily Kos, or hear on Keith Olbermann’s show (although Wright makes the moronic Olbermann seem almost thoughtful by comparison).

5. Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from Wright’s pratfalls is that he represents everything wrong about mixing politics and religion - and then some. As a conservative Republican, I’m just relieved that this episode was inflicted on a Democrat, and not on a GOP politician who got too cozy with a religious whacko who happens to be on our side of the aisle.

I just think Wright cannot be taken seriously and does not deserve all the attention he is getting.

John’s comments: I have to disagree with my friend Lowell. Jeremiah Wright certainly wants this to be about politics and religion. Says Eugene Robinson:

But his basic point — that any attack on him is an attack on the African-American church and its traditions…

Indeed, Wright seeks religious cover for political speech. Consider this from the transcript of the speech itself:

To say, I am a Christian, is not enough. Why? Because the Christianity of the slaveholder is not the Christianity of the slave. The God to whom the slaveholders pray, as they ride on the decks of the slave ship, is not the God to whom the enslaved are praying, as they ride beneath the decks on that same slave ship.

How we are seeing God, our theology, is not the same. And what we both mean when we say, I am a Christian, is not the same thing. The prophetic theology of the black church has always seen and still sees all of God ’s children as sisters and brothers, equals who need reconciliation, who need to be reconciled as equals, in order for us to walk together into the future whichGod has prepared for us.

First, it is amazing to note that here Wright is making exactly the same argument, the “different god” argument, that was made to EXCLUDE Mitt Romney from consideration, for the INCLUSION of his views, which he does in the name of diversity. Now that is an argument we have advanced on this blog time and time again. The problem is, he is using it to place his essentially political statements above the fray and outside the realm of political criticism.

Yet, during the Q&A Wright seeks to draw a definitive line between religion and politics:

So I started it off in prayer. When he went out into the public, that wasn’t about prayer; that wasn’t about pastor-member. Pastor- member took place downstairs. What took place upstairs was political.

But it seems a mighty convenient division., a division based only in action, but not in thought speech, or idea.

This, frankly, is a nightmare for our nation. By seeking religious cover, Wright has essentially invited in depth scrutiny by press and our government into what goes on in our churches. Wright’s formulation would here, for example, prevent government observation of what goes on in any mosque in this country, up until the point that someone is actually hurt. Terrorists could feel free to use mosques for planning and logistics because it is not political until it is action.

But worse, imagine court cases where churches are invaded and efforts are made to sort religious and political speech. Where churches are invaded by press and pundit seeking political ammunition when they should be worshiping. Yes, I know it happens now, but imagine it cut loose in the fashion that Wright here proscribes. Consider our interview with Hugh Hewitt when his book, “A Mormon in the White House?” came out:

JS: The next place I think we’ll go — you mention this in the book, Hugh, and it was something Lowell and I found out very, very early on when we started the blog, somewhat disappointingly. There appears to be a great dearth of case law related to Article 6, and I’m just wondering why, and what does that mean?

HH: It’s self-executing . That’s why. For the longest time everyone understood what it meant, that one did not ever suffer penalty for their religious faith in the public life of the United States. Much like the 14th Amendment removed disabilities to African Americans serving in the public life of the United States. However, the internalization of that ethic seems to have frayed, even after the 1960 campaign. And I was talking with Bill Bennett about this this morning. The bar is so low when it comes to attacks on Mormons vis a vis any other minority, that it is shocking. And I think that is because simply opinion leaders have not educated those who take their cues from them about what is and what is not acceptable concerning Mormon bashing. And unless and until they do, it is going to continue, until it becomes unacceptable, or — we internalize from public figures, how to act. And thus, many of us have watched the decline of Catholic bigotry. We have watched the decline of attacks on gays and lesbians. We have watched the decline of attacks on African Americans, on Muslims because of the public debate about those. That has not yet happened about Mormons. It has got to.

Wright here, by seeking to blur the line between religious speech and political speech, challenges the “self-executing” nature of Article VI. Were he successful, our nation would be a much worse place.

Now, having said all that, I do not, thankfully, think the good Reverend was successful in his arguments. But they are dangerous arguments nonetheless. as I pointed out, they are arguments that were used to exclude in the Republican primary, and frankly that is the effect I think they will have on the Democrat side as well, despite Wright’s intentions.

OH and by the way, having been to a few black churches in my life - I am pretty sure it is the same God.
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

This story out of Washington, via the Salt Lake Tribune, will cause some buzz. It will especially excite those who, like Al Mohler, seemed very afraid that Mitt Romney’s success would put the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a positive light. In a public address, Elder Russell M. Ballard, of the Church’s Council of Twelve Apostles, commented on that subject:

“I’d much rather have people talking about us than ignoring us.” . . . The biggest problem we face is apathy. Still, we have learned a lot. One thing we have concluded is that even after 178 years, there is more misinformation out there than we had imagined.”

. . .

Ballard, one of the first LDS leaders to speak out about the race’s impact, says anxiety about Mormons primarily came from conservative Christians who are against the LDS Church’s doctrine and, from the other end of the spectrum, those who oppose the church’s position on moral issues such as abortion or same-sex marriage. . . .

“While we do speak authoritatively for the church,” Ballard said, according to prepared remarks, “we look to our responsible and faithful members to engage personally with blogs, to write thoughtful, online letters to news organizations, and to act in other ways to correct the record with their own opinions.”

Well, we’ve certainly seen plenty of that.

John adds some thoughts: While I cannot disagree with the basic analysis Ballard here presents, I would caution our LDS readers to not commit the same “sin” my evangelical brethren have. It is easy to paint with a broad brush. For some Evangelicals “flip-flop” meant flip-flop - they may not have done their homework on Romney’s record, but they did not commit religious bigotry.

So what to do? - and here I do disagree with Ballard. writing letters to the editor saying “Mormons are not like that,” even if they really are not, will tend to perpetuate the battle. I have simply had too many conversations with Evangelicals where they were arguing with the literary constructs of the LDS rather than with LDS people.

The only Mormon most Evangelicals know they have ever met is the missionary that has annoyingly knocked on their door - “annoyingly” because they feel guilty about their own lack of evangelical zeal when it happens.

My suggestion to my LDS friends can be wrapped up in one word - “Engage.” Find an Evangelical neighbor and invite them to dinner, let them know you are LDS (the Evangelicals will be frightened you are going to try to convert them, so once you identify, be quiet about it.) Try to start joint humanitarian projects with more mainline Christian organizations.  Yes, such will strip such activities of any “religious content,” but might it not be worth it for the relationship bridge that is built?

My point is simple, the best way to remove the Mormon “stigma” is to be a Mormon that “is not like that.” Most of you that I know are not, but then I KNOW YOU. See my point?

Lowell jumps back in:  John’s comments are excellent, and for Mormons who have been paying attention, they mirror what Elder Ballard himself has encouraged members to do.  Here’s Elder Ballard’s classic 2003 address about that very subject.

As for engaging, we are now faced with the challenge of engaging in the Internet.  I am sure that Elder Ballard’s recent exhortations have been in large part inspired by the way the LDS faith is protrayed in cyberspace.  If you Google “Mormon,” 90% of what you find will be anti-Mormon, some of it viciously and virulently so.  Engaging with neighbors, whom you can see and with whom you can converse, is hard enough; engaging with nameless folks in the Internet is even more difficult. 

But John’s right - both Mormons and Evangelicals need to do a better job of engaging in a constructive and Christ-emulating manner.  I see it as an opportunity for everyone.  With rare exceptions, neither side is going to convert the people with whom they engage on-line, but we all need more friendships with people of good will and similar values.
Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »