Article VI Blog

"Religion, Politics, the Presidency: Commentary by a Mormon, an Evangelical, and an Orthodox Christian"

United States Constitution — Article VI:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

  • Why Do People Want To Change Religion Rather Than Change Religions?

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 08:51 am, December 13th 2014     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    Last Wednesday I ranted about Ben Carson’s pet newspaper, the Washington Times, carrying a disingenuous Mormon cheap shot that had to be motivated by fear of substance to the Romney 3rd run rumors.  (Note the sourcing on the latest round of rumors – Romney backers.  The vast majority of these stories are placed by people trying to put pressure on Romney to run again; they are not based on anything Romney is saying.  So how informative are they really?)

    Another story line has appeared, this one emerging on the left, that has the same feel to it.  A left wing Mormon blogger noted from Dianne Feinstein’s attempt to total disrupt national security that some of the key people that engaged in the enhanced interrogation program were Mormon.  It has echoed elsewhere in the Mormon blogosphere.  It even made the big time press a bit.  But really I think this story is not about ginning up “Mormon” to dissuade Romney at all – this is about the rather large battle of left v right inside the CJCLDS.

    The Latter Day Saints are hardly the first church to see this battle.  It is over in the Episcopal Church and the liberals have won.  The Presbyterian Church in The United States of America, PC(USA), is in the mop up phase as the right wing congregations are fleeing the denomination as fast that the convoluted bureaucratic process will allow them.  The Methodists seem next up to bat for the final showdown.  Pope Francis seems to have opened the door for the beginning salvos inside Roman Catholicism.  It is interesting to see it in the CJCLDS; however, because the process is seriously compressed.  The protestant churches previously mentioned have been through a liberalization lasting many decades.  If it proceeds in the Roman Catholic church, it’ll last centuries.  This liberalizing process typically begins with a growing acceptance of divorce, moves through the ordination of women to ruling office in the church then to various expressions of “peacemaking” agendas, and advances to the LGBT agenda (with many small steps in between)  which seems to be the final battleground.  The liberal Latter Day Saints seem to want to address all these issues in a very short period of time.

    But unlike in, say, the 1950′s, when moving from Baptist to Methodist to Presbyterian was more like changing decor than moving to a new city, nowadays there is a huge diversity of stands on all these issues spread throughout churches across the land.  Are you gay and feel unwelcome in Church X?  Well, Church Y down the street would certainly welcome you with open arms.  So why do people seem so he%$bent on changing  Church X instead of just going to Church Y?

    There are probably as many motivations as there are people involved in the process, but there is one thing about which you can be certain.  It is testament to the power the church has in forming culture.  If the church were as irrelevant as the atheistic left would have us think this would all be silly little tiffs that we would never read about in the papers.  But this is big news with ramifications for presidential elections.  People are interested in changing Church X becasue they want to change the nation as a whole and as long as Church X is holding out they have failed in their mission.

    It is irritating that so many churches seem to cower under the assault.  The assault is testament to the power the church has to shape things and yet rather than try to shape things, the church usually tries “not to offend.”  (Can anyone say “peacemaking agenda?”)  The church is a potent force in society, which ripples out into everything from music videos to presidential elections.  It is time we acted like it.

    Share

    Posted in Culture Wars, Religious Freedom, Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Uncategorized, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    When Rumors Create Stupidity

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:38 am, December 10th 2014     &mdash      1 Comment »

    So, rumor has it that a lot of Republican money is holding back hoping that a single center-right (think Romney or Jeb Bush) candidate will appear.  Goodness knows they should have been writing checks the day after the mid-terms.

    That’s the stuff of politics.  Every serious source this blog has still says the chances of Romney running are practically non-existent, but that there is a great deal of pressure being applied in an effort to get him to change his mind, so most if this is speculative reporting at best.  But apparently the speculation is really scaring the people that worked so hard to help Romney lose last time – you know, the hardcore “Christian” types that would rather have the nation-rending, America weakening, violence tolerant administration we currently enjoy over having a *shudder* Mormon in the White House.

    I can tell because of this piece in the conservative Washington Times featuring at top a picture of the Salt Lake City LDS temple at sunset:

    A Utah high-schooler who wanted to volunteer at a local Salt Lake City charity was told to go home — that she wasn’t allowed to wear pants

    Oh wait, not really, they clarify a couple of paragraphs later:

    She said officials asked her to change into a skirt — but instead, she left.

    Ah – so she was not told to go home, she elected to go home.  Fascinating, particularly when the headline, featuring the word “booted,” and the lede tell a very different story.  Then they carry on about sexism and close the piece with this little snippet:

    The Salt Lake City Tribune reported that Ms. Partridge’s group was formerly called the Women’s Endowment Committee, an affiliation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    God save us from ourselves.  We’re going to, at a minimum, pick on an important and loyal party demographic over requiring ladies to wear skirts at a charity function!?  I wish I had the time to do an inventory of all the messes Obama has and will make before he is out of office and all the messes that Hillary Clinton will make messier, not to mention the new ones she will create.  This nation faces major issues and we’re worried about ladies skirts at a charity event?!

    One can only assume this cheap shot, coming from the right, is coming because someone fears the Romney rumors.

    Look, oppose Romney.  His performance record in presidential runs is all the argument you need.  Really, honestly, we need to get past this religion based stuff.  It’s playing Obama’s game and it is unbecoming of decent Republicans and conservatives.

    Share

    Posted in News Media Bias, Religious Bigotry, The Way Forward | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Root Questions

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:39 am, November 21st 2014     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    Perusing the headlines this morning, the presidents unprecedented power grab last night was a yawner.   There is the appropriate outrage from the usual conservative sources, but even that is well-tempered in order not to give Obama the political advantage he seeks with this stunt.  Very, very few dare laud this terrible misbalancing of the constitution; therefore, it is treated as a matter or course and little consequence.  As far as the general public goes, this is almost a non-event.  That would be stunning were it not for two very important facts; a) the MSM remains deeply devoted to this president, facts not withstanding and b) the general public is not well enough read, sufficiently educated, nor deeply thoughtful enough to understand the subtle yet massive shift of power the president is trying to pull off here.

    There is a temptation to cast this as a matter purely of political optics.  The president is messaging to the feelings of the American populace to overcome an intellectual and legal hurdle to achieve his goals.  In doing so he casts his opposition as mere political opportunists, hungry for power, while he simply wants to solve the problem.  This appeals to the pragmatic nature of most Americans, even if this messaging attempts to mask a power grab on a level far beyond the imagination of his opponents and destroys the opportunities to exercise the pragmatism that makes the nation work.

    This is terrible and destructive legally and its is, at best, propagandist politically – though I am far more inclined to declare it a lie.  It is tempting to want to analyze the president and try to understand what drives a man to do things like this.  And yet, history is replete with individuals that have sought, and in many cases gained, absolute or near absolute power.  It is a story as old as time itself and the motivations of each are highly varied and yet fundamentally consistent – an undying belief in their own rightness.  In the end it is not worth trying to analyze beyond trying to figure out how to defeat it.

    The pragmatic nature of the American public has seen that what this president attempts does not work.  Hence the results of the last election.  That is a good reason not to get too exercised about this – this will fail like everything else he has tried.  But as Obamacare before it, this will create a trail of destruction on its path to failure that will leave the nation irrevocably altered, and quite possibly worsened.  It will require remarkable will, energy, thought and morality on the part of the American populace to recover from this impending failure and be as before.

    What we have on our hands is, quite simply, a crisis of leadership.  Instead of a leader that leads us to be better people, we have a leader that cows us by offering “bread and circuses” in the form of apparently compassionate policies and promises of grossly expensive free healthcare.  (Yes, I wrote that totally oxymoronic phrase on purpose.)  The troubling question in all this is how the populace has come to the point where they lack the innate desire for self-improvement that would normally see through this blatant pandering.  The troubling thing about the last election is that while it did seek to “throw the bums out,” one does sense that it was looking for different bums, not for the bums to get out of the way.

    Before politics will produce a leader that calls us to be a better people we have to want to be a better people.  That is not something politics can produce.

    So, the root question in all of this is:  How can an American church, which in its most numerous and populated expressions seeks not to call the congregant to improvement, but to reassure them of their salvation, move us to the point where we desire a leader of the type that the nation now so desperately needs?  Maybe churches ought be asking themselves that question.

    Share

    Posted in character, Culture Wars, Evangelical Shortcomings, The Way Forward | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    Frenemies?

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:22 am, January 9th 2014     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    When last we visited the writings of Albert Mohler, he was speaking at BYU.  He went out of his way there to make sure that while we were making common political cause with Mormons, they were theologically quite distinct – like everyone in the room and the world did not already know that.

    Well, Albert is at it again, and this time his target is the Roman Catholics.  In a post on his blog he goes to great length to describe the cultural and political stakes, but then asks:

    So, are the other enemies of our enemies our friends? Mormons, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Jews, and a host of others share many of our enemies in this respect. But, to what extent is there a unity among us?

    He mentions that of course we ‘ll work with anyone to save a life from a “burning house,” and that many of the social/cultural crisis facing the country are indeed on such a life saving level, but concludes these few paragraphs by saying, “And yet, our worldviews are really quite different.”  And then he turns ugly:

    With the Roman Catholic Church, our common convictions are many, including moral convictions about marriage, human life, and the family. Beyond that, we together affirm the truths of the divine Trinity, orthodox Christology, and other doctrines as well. But we disagree over what is supremely important, the gospel of Jesus Christ. And that supreme difference leads to other vital disagreements as well: over the nature and authority of the Bible, the nature of the ministry, the meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and an entire range of issues central to the Christian faith.

    Christians defined by the faith of the Reformers must never forget that nothing less than faithfulness to the gospel of Christ forced the Reformers to break from the Roman Catholic Church. Equal clarity and courage are required of us now.

    In a time of cultural conflict, the enemy of our enemy may well be our friend. But, with eternity in view and the gospel at stake, the enemy of our enemy must not be confused to be a friend to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    You know, the first thing that strikes me is how utterly self-contradictory the post really is.  He starts with the common illustration of our and England’s alliance with the Soviet Union in WWII.  But the rest of his post reveals his apparent lack of deep understanding of the history of that “alliance.”  It was not until after the Battle of the Bulge that there was any sort of communication on a military level between the western allies and the Sovs.  Political communication was quite scant.  There is massive historical documentation on our side about how carefully to deal with and handle the Soviet Union and how best to position the end of the war for the inevitable conflict we would have with them.

    But, and this is a huge “but,” it was all classified material until well after the war.  As far as the public knew we were bosom buddies with the Stalin gang.  That first military mission to Moscow during/after the Bulge by western military leadership was kept secret for fear that the public learn there had been no prior military communication!  In order to win the war, it was necessary to maintain an appearance of unity.  Anything less would undermine the needed resolve on the part of the public.

    Mohler, by declaring a partnership of sorts and then making sure everybody understands its a business only deal undermines the success of the enterprise.

    In so doing he practically guarantees its failure.  The last election was really a matter not of turnout, but enthusiasm.  We have examined at length on this blog the fact that religiously motivated voters participated in the election but went through many contortions to avoid voting for Romney.  The significant portion of the Republican base that is known as “Evangelical” seemed to accept Romney as the nominees, but they did not wholly embrace him, and that spelled the difference.

    And now, Mohler wants to turn back the clock significantly and make sure that Evangelicals have the same sort of “Air Kiss” relationship with Roman Catholics?!  That is even more troubling than the failure to elect Romney.  Virtually all of the significant intellectual work being done on the religious/political front is being done by the Catholics.  There are any number of religious drum beaters out there in the Evangelical political world (think FRC, et. al.) but can anyone doubt that the serious intellectual enterprises are centered on National Review?  National Review has its share of non-Catholic contributors, but its heart belongs most definitely to Rome.

    When the Republican party is working hard to pull itself together Mohler seems to want to make sure it is poorly stitched.

    Finally, there is this to note.  To have the sort of theological certainty about who is and who is not going to be with God in eternity that Mohler expresses is to my ears pharisetical and graceless.  I have deep theological differences with my Mormon friends. I find myself increasingly compatible with my Roman Catholic friends, but cannot overcome some of the theological barriers that would permit me to affiliate with that church.  But to declare that those theological differences hold those friends eternal fates somehow at stake is to make judgements that are reserved only for the Almighty.

    Do I wish to convince my friends of differing theological views of the correctness of my own?  Of course I do, but that does not prevent me from calling them good friend and deep ally.  No “frenemies” here, only friends.

    Share

    Posted in Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    “…Sometimes gives the impression of being a charter member of the cast-the-first-stone coalition…”

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 07:20 am, November 6th 2013     &mdash      1 Comment »

    That’s how the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page described Ken Cuccinelli this morning in the wake of his very near miss.

    I think it clarifies a message problem that confronts the politically active of faith.  Mark Levin did not help matters when he said, “…GOP ESTABLISHMENT AND DONORS LEFT THE FIELD.”  But he does illustrate a point.

    The word that keeps running through my mind is “winsome.”

    generally pleasing and engaging often because of a childlike charm and innocence

    Somewhere, somehow, those of us on the conservative side of the social issues have lost that.  This is a communications concern, not a policy/position concern.  Yes, our opposition wants to act like anyone that holds a position contrary to theirs is definitionally not winsome, but they can only get away with that if our approach and personality permits them to.

    I need to slip into preacher mode for one paragraph – it is also a spiritual issue.  If we are not winsome, then somehow we are not reflecting the God we worship because He is – by definition – winsome beyond description.  Think about the story to which the WSJ’s description alludes, there is no condemnation from Christ; He in fact saves the accused from condemnation.  There is only an urge to “go and sin no more.”  A lesson in winsome that.  Now back to the politics.

    The “GOP Establishment and donors,” if dollars are the best measure, did not support Cuccinelli nearly as much as his Republican predecessor – but that does not necessarily mean they are “RINOS” or that they have abandoned socially conservative issues.  It means they are searching for the right way to approach those issues and they knew that Cuccinelli was not the right way.

    History never repeats itself in as much detail as we like to think it does, so Reagan nostalgia sometimes troubles me.  Reagan would have likely found the current environment far more frustrating than the one he operated in.  But he did have the particular thing we are talking about here absolutely right on.  He made friends of his opponents and managed to stay friends with them, even when they disagreed.  They liked him, even when he disagreed with them.

    If there is a lesson to be learned from yesterday’s results that’s it.  Chris Christie has a number of vulnerabilities as a candidate, but he is likable.  He manages to be quite charming in the middle of his combative bombast.

    Much has been made of the fact that Mitt Romney is also a very charming guy.  I certainly experienced that in my meetings with him.  But the public never got that image.  We are quick to blame the MSM, but there are certain preconditions that make it so the MSM can get away with that.  Primary among those preconditions is that Romney’s supporters were often precisely as dour and condemning as the media painted Romney.  Not everybody gets to meet a presidential candidate, but everybody does get to meet a supporter of a presidential candidate.  People will inform their impression of the candidate on their impression of his/her supporters.

    We need, desperately, to find our “happy place” again.  We cannot wait for things to get better.  If they are going to get better it is because we have found our way back to winsome.  Not our candidate – us.

    Share

    Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Culture Wars, Evangelical Shortcomings, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Social/Religious Trends, The Way Forward, Understanding Religion | 1 Comment » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    The Horse Is Dead, Keep Beating The Horse

    Posted by: John Schroeder at 08:20 am, November 3rd 2013     &mdash      Comment on this post »

    The latest Halperin/Heilemann inside the campaign gossip book comes out Tuesday and The NYTimes coverage of the salacious highlights has created some fascinating commentary.

    From the standpoint of this blog, the most interesting tidbit revealed is that Harry Reid’s source on the “Romney paid no taxes” claim is Jon Huntsman Sr.   Not terribly surprising really, the Huntsman Jr. campaign seemed from the beginning an effort to derail Romney and the existence of a Huntsman/Romney feud is old news.

    What is fascinating is the way it is being spun in left wing circles.  So far all the commentary I have seen to date, which is not much, has felt compelled to mention that all the players in that little melodrama are Mormons.  One piece mentioned it but did not make a thing out of it, while the other acted as if it was some sort of CJCLDS inter-gang rivalry:

    Mormon Shivs Mormon with Mormon…

    …read the headline to the piece.  What’s the game here?  It’s simple, the more than can keep us fighting with each other, the less we will fight them.  They constantly portray the Tea Party at odds with the party mainstream – the Evangelicals at odds with the Mormons, the Evangelicals at odds with the Mainline Protestants, Evangelicals at odds with other Evangelicals and now they are going to have the Mormons fighting other Mormons.

    Not all of it is that politically astute, some of it is merely a fascination amongst the irreligious classes as to how religion really works.  They think all of us of faith, and especially Mormons, are culticly enslaved and incapable of independent thought.

    Both of these are questions that we have to answer as we move forward.  Religion is slowly coming to be viewed as “extremest.”  And while we are not actually at each others throats, we are not exactly one big happy family either.

    Oh BTW, there is some good news.

    Share

    Posted in The Way Forward | Comment on this post » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

    « Previous« Honestly…  |  Next Page »An Interesting Reflection – Defining A Fundamental Problem »