Over the weekend we were treated to three major left wing pieces discussing Romney’s religion and calling on him to discuss it “openly.”  There was Randall Balmer in The New Republic:

The essential question, from the perspective of many voters, concerns the very nature of Mormonism, an upstart religion born in western New York in 1830 and persecuted for much of the nineteenth century.

And Then Frank Bruni in the NYTimes:

Four years later, he still avoids the word, trumpeting his faithfulness without specifying the faith. What’s surprising is that no one around him — not reporters, not rivals — talks about it all that much, either.

And most notably, Frank Rich in The New Yorker:

That faith is key to the Romney mystery. Had the 2002 Winter Olympics not been held in Salt Lake City, and not been a major civic project of Mormon leaders there, it’s unlikely Romney would have gotten involved. (Whether his involvement actually prompted a turnaround of that initially troubled enterprise, as he claims, is a subject of debate.) But Romney is even less forthcoming about his religion than he is about his tax returns. When the Evangelical view of Mormonism as a non-Christian cult threatened his 2008 run, Romney delivered what his campaign hyped as a JFK-inspired speech on “Faith in America.” This otherwise forgotten oration was memorable only for the number of times it named Romney’s own faith: once.

Michael Walsh, standing on NRO’s Corner said of the Rich piece:

It’s a cold day in hell when I recommend anything my old chum Frank Rich writes, but this long piece in New York magazine entitled “Who in God’s Name Is Mitt Romney?” is most definitely worth a read — especially for the Republican leadership — if only as a preview of a coming leftist line of attack against the presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney: his Mormon heritage and faith.

There is clearly a storm brewing.  One is tempted to look at this and think that the general election is shaping up to be one of the ugliest in history.  I think that is true, but I also think there is more at stake.  In Florida we saw a willingness by Democrats to mess with the Republican primary process, blatantly.  Two more piece appeared over the weekend that are very worthy of note.  Jennifer Rubin:

Politico’s John Harris has a must-read column on the manufacture of outrage, a staple of modern campaigns, over Mitt Romney’s comments on the “very poor.”

[...]

And yet on this one, the right was arguably more guilty than the left in stoking hysteria. The arguments offered to justify the overreaction were decidedly unconvincing.

One must ask, “Why?”  And so we turn to Sean Trende doing the numbers at Real Clear Politics:

Regardless, we see that a large portion of the GOP fight can be explained very well using only demographic variables. This is what I believe Cost picked up on when he found that northern conservatives voted for Romney, while southern conservatives voted against him. In the north, the conservatives tend to be non-evangelical. In the south, they tend to be evangelical (in Florida, they’re split).

Why this is the case is open to interpretation. The simplest answer is anti-Mormon bias, but that seems a bit too easy. After all, the alternatives are a pair of Catholics. The other possibility — and this is a problem with regression — is that religion could be a stand-in for ideology, and that, regardless of self-identification, a self-described conservative evangelical Republican is significantly to the right of a self-described conservative who is non-evangelical.

There is a clear picture emerging – the tensions inside the Republican party are real and the borders are defined, at least in some large measure, by religion.  Now, of course, all primaries develop tensions inside a party, but religion adds a dimension to those tensions not normally seen.  I don’t want to go all left-wing, “religion is evil” here, but a religious component to a conflict more often than not serves to intensify the conflict.

What we are seeing in the Ballmer, Bruni, and Rich pieces, not to mention related pieces centering around the recently released book “The Real Romney” questioning Romney’s “authenticity,” is an effort on the part of Obama’s media allies to cleave the Republican party in two.  They don’t just want to win the presidency, I think they want to do away with us for good.  It appears to this observer that they believe the largely unspoken religious element of this primary cycle gives the typical primary tensions more force – force that with a small nudge could cleave the party permanently.  At the very least, they think they can force a large portion of the Republican base to sit this one out – and make it very hard for the Republicans to pull them back in.

Yes, there is still a primary battle to fight, but it is not too early to think about the general.  At this point, the best way to think about the general is to deal with the tensions in the primary.  In the lead up to Florida we wrote about the problems in lying to oneself.  Just because we are not talking about Romney’s faith, does not mean it is not at play.  To simply not talk about it is a form of self-deception.  We can ill afford such deception with a general election looming ahead that is likely to be as ugly as this one.

Mitt Romney is now very likely going to be the nominee.  It is time for those opposed to him for less than legitimate reasons to get over it.  We need to get the primary battle back on a footing that does not supply the REAL opposition so much ammunition.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Simply put, some choices are a matter of simple preference, or taste, and some choices need more careful consideration.  My issue with weight control means that I cannot make my dining selection based on what I prefer, but rather I must make them based on what can allow me to sustain my weight both physically and psychologically.  Thus while I would greatly prefer an almost immeasurable array of things to one of those boxes for my evening meal, its ease of preparation (keeping me out of the kitchen which always leads to snacking) and controlled portions (meaning I can eat everything I see and not have overeaten in the process) makes it the meal of choice for me.

The Wall Street Journal recently wrote on the impending IPO of Facebook and carried on at great length about the marketing value of the “Like” button.  “Like” at Facebook is a simple thing – it is a statement of preference.  Increasingly the force of marketing tempts us to invest in our preferences rather than in what reason and circumstances say we should.  How many people are overextended on credit cards, not because they are out of work and used them to get by, but because they simply overbought?

Don’t get me wrong, following your taste or preference is harmless within certain constraints.  It’s a great way to decide what to watch on TV tonight, provided your tastes do not run to the obscene – in which case you have with television the same kind of issues I have with food.   But there are some decisions that simply demand we set our preferences aside, or at least deeply subordinate them, in favor of our reason and a sober assessment of circumstances.

Buying a house would be one example.  Before I can even begin to concern myself with things like style and floor plan, I must seriously look at costs and financing.  Once I have determined the price I can afford then I can use matters of taste to differentiate amongst the available houses in that range.  If my “dream house” costs more than I can afford it must stay a dream.

This same principle holds when it comes to our political decisions.  I was deeply struck a few days ago by a NRO piece by Wesley J. Smith:

When Pliny the Younger was a provincial governor in the Roman Empire, he wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan asking whether he should execute Christians who refused to burn incense in worship of the emperor. Pliny, in keeping with the customs of the empire, did not care about forcing Christians to believe that the emperor was a god. But in public they had to behave as if they did. Thus, the Christians were in the dock not so much because of their faith in a risen Christ as over their willful refusal to declare themselves part of the reigning social order.

I thought of Pliny when I read that the Obama administration, in creating specific rules to implement Obamacare, will require all employers (with a very narrow exemption discussed below) to offer their employees health insurance that provides FDA-approved contraception, female sterilization, and other “reproductive” services free of charge — even if the employer is a religious organization and doing so violates its doctrine. I also recalled the times that President Obama and other members of his administration have supported “freedom of worship.” However, as in Pliny’s time, “freedom of worship” is not the same thing as “freedom of religion.” The former means that one may believe whatever one wants and worship privately without interference, whereas the latter allows one freedom to live in the world at large consistent with one’s faith tenets, even if they are not endorsed by the state.

That distinction between religion and worship is an extraordinary observation.  Smith goes on about its political consequences and Roman Catholic concerns, but it is deeper than that still.  It is particularly pertinent to Evangelicals, and even Protestant Christianity generally.  Within these circles there is something called the “Worship Wars.”  Google the term and you will be amazed how much discussion there is about it.  Essentially the battle is between organ music dominant liturgical forms of worship and “modern” guitar music dominated “freer” forms of worship.  Much of the fight centers on matters of taste in music and other forms of religious expression.  But in the fight people often neglect that there are consequences that go far beyond simple matters of taste.

One of the outfalls of this “inside baseball” battle has been that many, many people have come to confuse “worship” with Church.  This is something I could go on about until well past the time your interest waned completely, but let’s focus on the fact that this confusion has deep political consequences.  Smith’s piece looks at some of the consequences on a policy level, but I want to examine it on a retail politics level.  Obama is flat out betting on the fact that most people are stuck in this confusion and cannot tell the difference between worship and religion – or more directly they simply think worship IS religion.

How else could Obama allow the abysmal ruling vis-a-vie forcing Catholic institutions to provide insurance that provides for medical services antithetical to church teaching and come out just a few days later and at the National Prayer Breakfast sound just like a preacher?  There are many, many theological, policy and hermeneutical nits to pick with the president’s prayer breakfast speech, but I just want to focus on the incredible chutzpah  (to borrow a term from yet another religious group) of such seemingly diametrically opposed actions.

But for those actions to be diametrically opposed, religion has to be a matter of more than taste.  Yet as the “worship wars” indicate, for thousands and thousands of Americans religion is little more than a matter of taste.

When I started thinking about this whole “taste and thought” thing I was going to write about it in response to all the people I have heard on talk radio and elsewhere in the last several weeks talking about how Gingrich resonated with them and expressed their feelings (a matter more or less of taste) and they simply did not care about the reality of the politics on the ground (a matter of thought.)  That still applies, but this has turned into something much more important.

I am deeply concerned that if people continue to view religion primarily as a matter of taste we are lost.  There are undoubtedly some that will tell me I am part of the problem having insisted these many years that Mormons deserve a place at the table.  Read Smith -  once we understand the difference between religion and worship then we can begin to truly understand what freedom of religion really is  and come to understand its necessity for the operation of our nation.

It is time for those of us of faith to engage our brains and subordinate our taste to our reason.  There is simply too much at stake.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Essentially, the Mormon issue has shown local appeal, but is not playing generally – and might even be backfiring with moderates and independents.  Gingrich misplayed it in Florida and got trounced.  Santorum’s surrogates played it and he had no traction at all.  (Note to Santorum – lose this guy and lose him publicly.  The plausible deniability is spent.)  Iowa was a virtual tie and the Evangelical vote split in Florida.  You can bet your bottom dollar the “not Romney” votes from there will either go Romney or stay home in the general – they will not go Obama.

People may indeed think Mormonism “weird,” but in a world where we are all a little weird, we don’t like being attacked for it.  Tone matters too.  Romney payed hardball in Florida but Gingrich was just flat out nasty.  A “vitriolic” and “spiteful” Obama might not be a good idea.

Which brings me to the Obama administration’s latest swipe at folks of faith:

The Obama Administration is standing by a decision to require all insurance plans to cover the use of contraceptives, but said Friday it would give some employers an additional year to comply.

The rule, which goes into effect August 1, 2012, requires all insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control. Many non-profits with religious affiliations, such as Catholic universities and hospitals, say that will force them to violate their basic tenets.

The Department of Health and Services announced Friday those employers would have until August 1, 2013, to meet the new requirement.

The push back from the Catholic church has been enormous – you can read about here, here and here.  Politically, this is a very shrewd move on Obama’s part, even if it is onerous.  The policy is based on his conviction that “most Americans” think the religious prohibitions against contraception and abortion are “weird.”  But as things are shaping up, that conclusion has to be called into question.  By making an announcement, any announcement, he has pushed the issue to the fore so he can test the waters before the general.  By making THIS announcement he has 1) appealed to his base by keeping the policy in place, 2) appealed to moderates with the “reasonable” delay, and 3) really punted the issue into the next administration – hoping inertia, or his victory in November, will prevent it from being changed.

Unfortunately, this is policy, not simply an effort to shape public perception of someone in an election cycle.  This matters.

And It Provides Mitt Romney With An Opportunity

Tuesday our friend Timothy Dalrymple suggested some “course corrections” to Governor Romney.  Given what an effective spokesperson against a religion test Dalrymple has been this cycle, Team Romney would do well to listen.

Point #1: It’s never, never “all about the economy.”

[...]

Point #2: Don’t give up on evangelicals. Some very public evangelicals have very publicly denounced you and your faith.  Your cherished religious community, the community in which you were raised by loving parents, in which you’ve raised your own children, the same community that you have served so tirelessly over decades, was slandered as a “cult” by an influential pastor.  You, ergo, were portrayed as a cult member.  Many evangelical leaders defended this choice of wording, and few have spoken out even against the more obvious efflorescences of anti-Mormon bigotry.  To make matters worse, an entire generation of conservative evangelical activists/leaders gathered in Texas to rally around some candidate other than you.  So it would be perfectly understandable if you felt that you had little incentive — or no stomach — for further engagement with evangelicals.

[...]

Of those evangelicals who oppose you, few do so passionately, and most are compelled not by prejudice but by misinformation about your record and your positions.  In other words, many evangelicals support you now, and many more are willing to support you if they can be convinced that your stances on abortion, the family and religious liberties are sincere and impassioned, and not simply assumed for political convenience.

[...]

Point #3: Own your faith.

This may be the most important point of all.  Your discipline is the stuff of legend.  And after your father’s campaign for the presidency ran off the rails when he referred to a “brainwashing” on the Vietnam issue, the exercise of an extraordinarily meticulous self-control has become a pervasive theme in your family.  But these things are largely responsible for the “Romneybot” moniker.  Your behavior seems a little too programmed, too scripted, and therefore artificial.  It makes it hard for many people to connect with you.  And although Richard Land meant it in a different (and incorrect) sense, I believe he was inadvertently onto something when he said you’re “not Mormon enough” for many evangelicals.

You love God.  You strive to follow God’s leading in your life.  Although we would differ on the metaphysics of Christ’s nature, in practice your personal relationship with Jesus Christ looks an awful lot like the one that evangelicals enjoy.  These are not things that northeasterners typically wear on their sleeves, and your campaign is understandably reluctant to shine a spotlight on your Mormonism.  Evangelicals would grow more uncomfortable with you if they thought you were going to be making an argument on behalf of Mormonism throughout your presidency.  So you should not engage in apologetics.  But they will grow more comfortable with you if they see the depth, the vitality, and the heartfelt authenticity of your relationship with God.  They will grow more comfortable if they better understand your pastoral experience (let’s call it what it is) as ward bishop and stake president.  You have rich experiences in missions and preaching and pastoral counseling, and in all these ways you connected with ordinary people, ordinary workers, in the struggles of everyday life.

This ruling by the Obama administration gives Romney the perfect opportunity to follow this advise – simply by getting in front of the issue.  This ruling by the Obama administration could be the force that heals the rift inside the Republican coalition.  Mitt Romney in front of this issue accomplishes two very important things – it pulls social conservatives into camp Romney and in so doing it neutralizes “weird.”  If that happens, Obama will have no choice but to get shrill and Gingrich just showed us how that will go.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Christian conservatives are gradually coming to terms with the idea that Mitt Romney might be the GOP nominee. And they’ve got some advice if he wants evangelicals to turn out and vote for him in November. Leading social conservatives want Romney to be very public about opposing abortion and gay marriage. The fact that he’s been all over the board on these issues is a problem, along with his Mormonism, but leaders say if Romney has any hopes of rallying the Christian faithful in the fall, he’ll have to be demonstrative in support of the social issues they care about. That, of course, is exactly what the opposite of what his political advisers are likely to recommend for a general election – where Romney will be trolling for votes among independents and moderates

Who knows if this is the true source of the objections or it is cover for simple theological bigotry, but there is one important fact that Evangelicals that are in the camp described have to bear in the mind.  We live in a highly divided nation on the matter of abortion and on the matter of same-sex marriage we are losing ground.  From that essential fact flows one important related fact – it’s not about the presidency.  Abortion is legal due to the courts and same-sex marriage is at the moment a states issue, which is where it should remain.

So, two conclusions flow from these facts.  One, if you want to affect these issues, focusing on the presidential election is pouring your resources down the wrong hole.  Yes the president appoints court members, but even then – a “litmus test” qualification for the court is in violation of the spirit of the constitution.  Which leads me to the second conclusion.

Long before we lost the political and legal battles, we lost in the court of public opinion on abortion.  (If you are among those that believe the court “rammed Roe v Wade down our throat,” check the records – states were legalizing abortion at a rapid pace legislatively.)  We have not yet lost the political battle on same sex marriage, but we re losing the battle in the court of public opinion.  Why?  Somewhere, we have lost our ability to change people’s minds and characters.  That is what the church is supposed to do.  The salvation narrative common to all Christian faiths is about changing people from “sinners” to “saints.”  Among the changes that such a conversion would seemingly create in an individual is an understanding of the social ills of things like abortion and same sex marriage.

The POTUS has to, I repeat HAS TO, be the president for all of the American people – even those that support abortion and same sex marriage.  If my evangelical brethren want a POTUS that is more forceful on these important issues, then maybe they should be spending more time on the the character changing aspects of the church’s mission and less on politics.  I think if they did, the politics might take care of itself.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Amongst Evangelicals the line between a worship service and a good show can be a pretty thin one – I am sure such is the case in at least some corners of other faith expressions as well.  The difference between worship service and good show goes much deeper than simply style and ritual of the event.  I think the difference is more along the lines of who the event is about.  A worship service is about God.  A good show is about the audience.

If we truly worship God, then we acknowledge that He is our ruler and that therefore, he can “go to work on us,” if you will.  Now bear in mind, I am not talking about God ruling the nation – just the life and character of the individual.  If we are attending a good show then we are entertained, but changed? – Certainly not in any meaningful sense of the word.  When attending a good show, God serves us, we do not serve God.

As a person of faith, if you are looking for who to vote for, one of the things you should consider is whether the candidate in question views God as a ruler or a servant.

I will not attempt to make on judgement on this issue about anyone in the running, but I do think it is an important distinction and I think it helps describe some of the divides that we are seeing in the party.

Worship well this day.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

This is religious language, in different cloth.  Think about it.  As people of faith we start first with what is good – and then use politics as one of the tools to accomplish what is good.  In other words, faith first – political affiliation second.  Thus no self-respecting candidate that wants religious folks votes will take money from abortion providers – it’s legal, but not good.  Like wise, taking money from gambling interests is probably not a very smart idea for someone that wants the religious vote.

But that also means we are conservative because of faith, but conservatism is not our defining label or litmus test.  Some might say I have just fueled the fire of anti-Mormon sentiment, but nothing is further from the truth.   When two faith expressions lead to the same political positions, joint action is called for because once faith has determined the position, such unity is the most effective tool of politics.  But we can never confuse the political position with the faith that brought us to it – they are different things.

The candidate that understands this is the candidate that best represents faith in America.  Some candidates want to enhance the confusion between the political position and the faith because such creates a constructive interference pattern that can “push them over the top,” if you will.  But when you blur the line between faith and the resultant political position, faith becomes less important than it should be, and the political position more.  Faith and its religious expressions run the risk of becoming mere political tools instead of politics being their tool.

Newt Gingrich has clearly being conflating faith and politics.  This is evidenced in statements like this by Rush Limbaugh:

Why did those questions tee Newt up, and why did Newt know what to do with them?  Very simple. I’ve been doing this show for 23 years, and one of my themes from the beginning, from 1988, has been that the American conservative middle class are the ones playing by the rules.  They are the ones that obey the law to the best of their ability.  They raise their kids.  They try to shield their kids from cultural rot and depravity. They try to keep them off drugs. They try to get them into college. They follow as best they can all the rules and they’re laughed at and made fun of and they are impugned everywhere they look.  They go to the movies, they’re mocked and made fun of.  They turn on the radio, listen to music, they’re laughed at, mocked, and made fun of.  They turn on television, watch an average television show, they are laughed at, mocked and made fun of.  They open the newspaper, same thing.  They’ve had it. They’ve been dealing with this for over 20 years, and nobody’s fought back for ‘em. Not one person ever has fought back for ‘em.

All that he says is quite true, but much of what he notes are religious issues, not governmental ones.  How do we shield “kids from cultural rot and depravity?”  We give them faith to withstand it.  And what about being mocked?  Well, consider the words of Christ:

Matt 5:10 -  “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (NAS)

Our faith give us the tools to handle those things which our government cannot or is not.  When we look to government to solves things that religion should solve then we are building a government much bigger than it should be, and in the process weakening our faith.

Then there is the question of HOW we do fight back when we should.  Consider this bit of wisdom:

Prov 27:22 – Though you pound a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain, yet his folly will not depart from him. (NAS)

Newt Gingrich’s protestations about how despicable the media is may have felt good, but did it change the minds of those that agree with the media?  Or this other bit of wisdom:

Prov 18:2 – A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind. (NAS)

By playing with the forces Limbaugh identifies, Gingrich calls us to wallow in our own foolishness, rather than to wisely and smartly deal with the situation at hand.

Part of what I look for in a political leader is one that will call me to my higher nature, not my baser one.  One that expects me to behave wisely, not encourages me to behave foolishly.  I look for a political leader that will not seek to conflate my religious life with my political one for the sake of his political position, but will allow my religious life to flourish, informing and shaping me into a better person.

Between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – Mitt Romney is clearly that kind of political leader.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

In a one-on-one interview with The Brody File, Newt Gingrich says that he has “not hidden from the facts of my life, that I have confessed my weaknesses” and he believes that, in part, is a reason why evangelicals are able to get behind his candidacy.

He goes on to say that, “it may make me more normal than somebody who wanders around seeming perfect and maybe not understanding the human condition, and the challenges of life for normal people.”

That one elicits a “WOW” from this Evangelical.  See the lost but found narrative is but the beginning of what we like to call “the gospel,” the good news of what Jesus did.  It is a notable weakness of Evangelicalism that they often forget to push on farther into the depths of all that Jesus offers us – that is something that I write about with great regularity on my “Godblog.”

As is becoming common when I read something about Gingrich, scripture comes to mind.  In this case it is the benediction that the Apostles Paul wrote in his letter to the church at Phillipi:

Phil 4:8-9 – Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.  The things you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, practice these things; and the God of peace shall be with you. (NAS)

Now when I read something like that and I think about who I would like standing in front of the nation on a routine basis, I would much rather have someone that has truly focused on the good stuff as opposed to someone that has had to pull themselves out of the bad and might just fall back in at a moments notice.

It is true that Gingrich looks more “average” than Romney, but consider about the bell curve when you think about that.  That simply means Gingrich has made a lot more mistakes than Romney has.  Are we really a nation that wants to be merely average.  As Christians, we see the Apostle Paul calling us to the far right side of the bell curve – we are not called to be average, we are called to excellence.  Remember being graded “on a curve?”  Was a C, even a C+ really the grade you wanted?

But there is another aspect to Gingrich’s comments that needs to be addressed, and that is his crack, “maybe not understanding the human condition.” One has to remember that the “human condition” is not the failing, corrupt condition we find ourselves in – the situation that we find ourselves in results from what theologians call “the fall.”  We were not made for this imperfection – we were made for the perfection of first creation.

And finally, how dare Gingrich imply that Romney is somehow less than human?  Again, the Apostle Paul:

Rom 14:4 – Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (NAS)

Romney’s “master” holds him to a high standard, but how does that make him unfamiliar with the human condition?

All that does is make him some one that perhaps overcame his baser nature earlier in his life than someone like Gingrich – which also means he may be a bit farther down the road than those of us that got a later start.  That is pretty much the definition of a leader, and I think that is what this nation needs most.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Wall Street Journal summarizes the Romney tax returns.

John Kerry, by the way, paid his federal income taxes at a lower rate than Romney – 13.1%, as opposed to Romney’s 13.9%.  This was disclosed in the 2004 election cycle.  No one made an issue of  that.  Why not?

Tithing – what’s that all about, anyway?

A pretty good explanation of tithing by Buzzfeed’s McKay Coppins.

Romney addressed the matter himself on Fox News Sunday:

“If people want to discriminate against someone based upon their commitment to tithe, I’d be very surprised. This is a country that believes in the Bible. The Bible speaks about providing tithes and offerings. I made a commitment to my church a long, long time ago that I would give 10 percent of my income to the church. And I followed through on that commitment,” he said.

“Hopefully, as people look at various individuals running for president, they’d be pleased with someone who made a promise to God and kept that promise. So, if I had given less than 10 percent, then I think people would have had to look at me and say, hey, what’s wrong with you, fella, don’t you follow through on the promises?”

Brief explanatory note:  Faithful Mormons pay tithing at 10% of their annual increase.  Exactly how one pays, and how one computes that 10%, is seen in our faith as a matter between the tithepayer and God.

Hugh Hewitt’s take on Romney’s taxes and charitable giving is a must-read.  Excerpts:

Ann and Mitt Romney are wealthy, and Ann and Mitt Romney are generous.  Very generous.  And this is to be admired.

Much of their giving goes to their church, and Mormon culture is very generous not just to those struggling in the congregation, but to the community, the nation and the world.  A minute or so of googling finds this story from the days after Katrina, representative of how the Mormons respond to disasters, which noted that “[a]s of Sept. 13, 140 truckloads of commodities and supplies, about 5.6 million pounds or 2,800 tons had been shipped into affected areas; with thousands of LDS volunteers giving 9,204 manpower days helping 1,606 Church members and 3,226 people not of the LDS faith, according to Garry Flake, director of Church Emergency Response. In addition, some 3,500 volunteers served Sept. 10-11.”

All denominations of any size have their charitable arms, like Catholic Relief Services and Presbyterian Relief and Development Agency, but the culture of giving is deeply embedded in the LDS community and reflected in the Romney tax returns.  In addition to direct giving to their church, the Romneys have supported cystic fibrosis research and the United Way, but the bulk of their giving is to their church….

They are very generous people, which in turn suggests they are good people, and while good people don’t necessarily make good leaders, it is far less likely they will be indifferent to suffering or intentionally malicious in their politics.

This is quaint stuff, certain to fall on deaf ears among the bare knuckled blogging community and the self-righteous among the media elite.  But it ought to matter to some voters, especially values voters, even those of different denominations.

(Emphasis added.) We couldn’t have said that better.

I’ll add this:  Romney’s tax payments and his level of charitable giving should never be mentioned by any member of the news media, in any publication or forum (yes, even those ridiculous MSM-run debates) without equal attention being paid to the other candidates’ tax payments and level of charitable giving.  Fair is fair.

So who is the best candidate for an American of faith? I’d say Romney or Santorum, depending on which one’s politics best aligns with the religious voter’s views. What say our readers?

Some Additional  Notes On Taxes

John Hood at NRO notes that the 14% number is entirely misleading.

Romney’s real federal tax rate on his investment income was more than 40 percent (being conservative, after deductions and such), since the revenue stream was subject to both a personal tax rate and the corporate tax rate….state taxes would bring the effective income tax rate on Romney’s investment income to 50 percent or higher. Every time a reporter or opposing candidate tried to say Romney’s tax rate was 15 percent, a competent campaign would call them out for misleading the American people.

And, by the way, one might reasonably wonder why the pro-Obama forces are attacking Romney, not Gingrich, in Florida. Big Labor (SEIU-COPE. SEIU.org) has invested $$800,000 in Florida anti-Romney ads.  One of the ads is directed at Hispanics, in Spanish, claiming “Mitt Romney Has No Shame.”

Why, oh why, would Big Labor be attacking Romney, and not Gingrich? Is there some reason they want Romney knocked out of the race?

Then there’s that notion of simply being a good man

Rich Lowry at National Review has some hard things to say about Newt Gingrich, whom he calls “the Republican Clinton, except less lovable and more roguish.” Ouch.  Referring to the now-famous John King incident in the final South Carolina debate:

Only one other politician in America could have played the victim card so expertly when confronted by the story of a wronged woman. Only one other politician would have thrown out so many obfuscating “facts,” or turned his lavish anger on and off so quickly. Only one other politician would have dared hope to turn such an embarrassing imbroglio to his advantage. If he was watching the debate somewhere, Bill Clinton must have chuckled in admiration and thought, “Well played, my friend. Well played.”

Newt is the Republican Clinton — shameless, needy, hopelessly egotistical. The two former adversaries and tentative partners have largely the same set of faults and talents. They are self-indulgent, prone to disregard rules inconvenient to them, and consumed by ambition. They are glib, knowledgeable, and imaginative. They are baby boomers who hadn’t fully grown up even when they occupied two of the most powerful offices in the land.

My friends, this matters.  What kind of a man we elect matters.  Bill Clinton did incalculable damage to our culture.  I recall, for example, having to explain to my then 8 year-old son what oral sex is — because of the President of the United States’ actions.  Do we want another man with a history of flexible morality serving in that office?  Yes, Gingrich says he has changed — has repented, in effect.  Well, I love redemption and forgiveness as much as the next believer in Christ, but I don’t necessarily believe that the redeemed person should be placed in a position of trust – and no office on earth involves greater trust than the American presidency.

And finally….

Jennifer Rubin asks. “Why Gingrich?” Read the whole thing.

And Dennis Prager, in Evangelicals and Romney , argues that “America’s survival is more important than one’s views of Mormonism.”  His best line:

In other words, fight the Left now. You can fight theology later.

Amen to that, Brother Prager.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

I’m willing to take Gingrich at his word. I think he honestly believes his work had nothing to do with lobbying. I think he could take a lie detector test and declare that he was hired for his wisdom, public policy, and historical knowledge, and the needle wouldn’t budge. The biggest problem here isn’t the lie he’s telling to us; it’s the lie he’s telling to himself.

What did Freddie Mac really want from Gingrich? Cynics (waving my hand) will suspect that the organization, full of lifelong professional Democrats such as Franklin Raines and with close ties to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Christopher Dodd, wanted a prominent Republican name around to stick up for them. He was the fig-leaf/token Republican who enabled them to argue that they had bipartisan support.But even aside from that angle, Gingrich isn’t being honest with himself about what he was doing. The Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney notes that legally, Gingrich was lobbying.

[...]

The Romney campaign will argue that Gingrich’s defenses on Freddie Mac are cynical lies, while ignoring the much, much more disturbing and damaging interpretation: Gingrich actually believes them.

That brought to mind another point that needs to be made as we try to Rephrase The Question.  Consider the words of Jeremiah the Old Testament prophet:

Jer 14:1 -  That which came as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah in regard to the drought:

Jer 14:13-16 – But, “Ah, Lord GOD!” I said, “Look, the prophets are telling them, ‘You will not see the sword nor will you have famine, but I will give you lasting peace in this place.’”   Then the LORD said to me, “The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them; they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds.  “Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who are prophesying in My name, although it was not I who sent them– yet they keep saying, ‘There shall be no sword or famine in this land’– by sword and famine those prophets shall meet their end!  “The people also to whom they are prophesying will be thrown out into the streets of Jerusalem because of the famine and the sword; and there will be no one to bury them– {neither} them, {nor} their wives, nor their sons, nor their daughters– for I shall pour out their {own} wickedness on them.  (NAS) [EMPHASIS ADDED]

I don’t want to get all balled up in the details here – that scripture has one important message – if we follow people that are fooling themselves, we ourselves are being fooled, and will have earned the consequences of such foolishness.

Now compare Gingrich’s self-deception regarding his service at Freddie Mac with Mitt Romney’s absolute refusal to “deny” Massachusetts healthcare.  As I later read through last night’s debate tweets I saw numerous calls, once again, for Romney to repudiate what happened while he was Governor.  But to do so, Romney would have to fool himself about what he did and why he did it.

Unpopular as Massachusetts healthcare may be, Romney is clearly the sober-minded realist here.  And so, when it comes to this particular measure of faith, once again Romney seems to be the choice over Gingrich.

<

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

These words also find traction in the fact that the polls indicate Newt Gingrich is the likely winner today.  Look, polls are wrong all the time, but polling momentum generally is not and the momentum is all Gingrich’s way going into today.  Consider the words of our own JMR yesterday:

…South Carolina evangelicals prepare to nominate a man cast out by the Party for his failure of leadership. We have a man who has been accused of no financial impropriety hounded for his taxes while a man known to have kited checks on the House bank floats along.

Were the momentum in Santorum’s direction, this really could be about “genuine conservatism” and “beating Obama.”  But when that momentum is headed at Gingrich there is something else at play, and I think it is those three words.  Let’s look at each of them.

Bigotry

We took a good look at this yesterday noting that most people won’t take a good look at it.  That’s the nature of things.  I did find this liittle anecdote from noted Catholic scholar Francis Beckwith fascinating:

During the drive from Salt Lake to Provo after I had conducted my workshop on Catholic Social Thought, my friend and host, Robert Millet (an LDS Professor at BYU), shared with me a story that I will not easily forget. He told me of a Mormon friend who in conversation with an Evangelical Protestant had asked him whether a Christian who committed adultery would lose his salvation.  The Evangelical answered, “No.” The Mormon followed up with this query, “What if the Christian had murdered someone? Would he then lose his salvation?” The answer, again, was “no.” Then the Mormon asked, “Well, what if he had become a Mormon?” The Evangelical answered, “That’s a good question. I don’t know.” I joked with Bob, “Perhaps your friend should have asked what would be the state of the person’s salvation if he had murdered, or committed adultery with, a Mormon?”

I’m with Beckwith – that one is not easy to forget.  I truly fail to understand how a person could perceive such heinous crimes as forgivable but not theological wrongness.  That reduces God somehow from reality to idea.

But more is the fact that so many of us refuse to examine this bias within us.   As Christian we believe that our journey begins with an act of self-examination and an expression of the ugliness we find.  We call that confession.  Catholics think it a sacrament.  Protestants think it a necessity, generally expressed liturgically.  Evangelicals, in some cases, have lost sight of this part of the Christian journey – but that is a discussion for another time.  Bigotry against Mormonism is NOT a sin that requires confession – it’s wrong, but sinful is another category altogether.  However, lying to yourself and others about it is.

The Biblical prophet Jeremiah talks quite a bit about those who teach falsehood to the point that they deceive even themselves. (Consider Jeremiah 14 and Jeremiah 23)   He does not have kind words for such people.  I have long said I did not begin with this blog to help Mitt Romney get elected (although that is something I deeply hope for) – I began it to try and help a portion of the church with a pretty severe problem.  Here is part of that problem in spades.

I would note that we are being mocked for our choices in this matter.  So, I would ask my brethren in South Carolina as they go to the polls to examine themselves closely.  Vote as you will, but do not lie to yourselves or others.

Bigotry can explain the move away from Romney, but it cannot explain the move towards Gingrich – for that we need to run to the other two emotions.

Fear

Much has been written and said of late that voters generally vote for the candidate they fear less – that a candidate’s job is generally to get the message across that, “I’m not going to be anywhere near as bad as that guy.”  Come to think of it, this could explain the Beckwith anecdote from above.  After all, we all know sinners that have been forgiven, ourselves included, but those Mormons!

Every Republican and most independents fear another Obama term pretty seriously, and with good reason.  Given what we have been subjected to for the last few years, a guy that spouts ideas and catchphrases as rapidly as Gingrich is going to be pretty comforting.  That is particularly true when compared to a guy that is as deliberate as Mitt Romney.

But one has to consider the testimony of those that have worked with Gingrich.  Ideas and catchphrases are the stuff of writers and professors, but presidents have to make things happen.  In his interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday, Congressman John Campbell (subscription required) made it as plain as the nose on your face that if you talk to anyone in Congress that worked with the former speaker – he cannot get anything done.   That is why he was chased from the speakership in disgrace.  His ideas engineered one of the greatest electoral turnarounds in history – but the reality of his service as Speaker was, shall we say, “reminiscent” of the current occupant off the White House.  Now that sounds scary to me.

Basketball legend Bob Knight used to say that he wanted his teams more afraid of him than the opponent.  That way if they got through practice he could have confidence in their game time performance.  Coach Knight came to mind when I was thinking about fear because of the many Biblical admonishments  that are along these lines:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;

As Christians we do fear God, and when we fear God, we have nothing else to fear, because God will handle all that.  As Christians we need to set aside our fear of things like this and look at them reasonably.  We need to absorb the truth.

Anger

Gingrich’s slam down of CNN Thursday night perfectly captured the anger that the electorate feels right now, both at this administration, and at the media for handing this guy to us on a silver platter.  We have good reason to be angry.  But anger also often leads to bad decisions – I know I have made more than my share of bad decisions when I was angry.

Anger is unbecoming the Christian.  Says the apostle Paul:

Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

What’s more, to act in anger is unwise:

Prov 16:32 – He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit, than he who captures a city.

Anger, though justified, will not get us to where we need to be right now – it will in fact impede our judgement and could lead to disaster.   We need our best judgement – our reason – right now and to get that we need to hold our righteous anger in check.

Yes, that anger needs expression.  We have talk radio and the internet for that.  Gingrich would be a welcome addition to the ranks of pundits.  I would enjoy listening to him slam the media and the left on a daily basis – he does it quite well.

But that is not executive leadership – and we are picking a chief executive, not a chief cheerleader.

So, dear South Carolinian friends – As you head to the polls I ask you to examine yourselves carefully, fear the Lord greatly (and in light of that nothing else) and hold your anger in check.  If you do those three things I think you will heed the words of my friends Timothy Dalrymple and Mark DeMoss and certainly not vote for Newt Gingrich and probably vote for Mitt Romney.  I also pray that through that experience you will grow just a bit more in your understanding of, and relationship with, the Lord.

John Mark here:

I am a son of Appalachia. I was baptized in a river in West Virginia. I am a pastor’s son and the great-grandson of a preacher. Our roots in Virginia go back four hundred years.

I have been educated and helped in many ways by the evangelical community and Southern culture. I defend both.

I beg our readers in South Carolina today to do two things:

First, vote for any candidate but Newt Gingrich. I am a Romney man through and through, but that is not why I make this appeal. I believe Newt Gingrich unfit for office. So do you. Remember Bill Clinton? Remember the things you said? The liberal media is not attacking Newt. The facts of the case (except the phrase “open marriage”) are not in dispute.

Newt is playing with words in his denial to avoid the facts. He is no gentleman. I know that we have had bad men as president before. Some, Harding, were bad presidents and some, Franklin Roosevelt, were successful, but voters then were responsible for what they knew.

It is not true that “everyone” does it. On the Republican stage, there were three men who don’t: Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney. You don’t have to knowingly communicate that Newt’s behavior was o.k.

Vote for anybody but Newt. If you don’t trust Romney for political reasons, give Santorum or Paul, both honorable men, a vote. You have choices that do not involve a man so corrupt and inept conservatives in Congress forced him from power.

What evidence he is delusional? He says he will “Lincoln-Douglass” debate Obama. Trust me, as a person who debates, he is overrating his power. Assume, however, he is not. Do you really think an incumbent leading Mr. Gingrich in the polls will agree to these debates? No. President Obama will spend one billion dollars making the race about Newt.

Forgive Newt as you hope to be forgiven. God knows I need forgiveness. I will never run for President! But that is the point: the prodigal came home and did not demand to run the ranch in order to prove Father had forgiven him. In fact, Father left “all he had” to the elder brother . . . with all his problems!

Vote for an elder brother, forgive the prodigal. Keep the prodigal away from the snares of money and power that destroyed him last time. Newt and power are a drunk and a bottle.

Love Newt enough as a man and brother to know this makes Newt unfit for the honor of the nomination, high office, and your vote.

Second, examine your motives in avoiding Governor Romney. Surely it cannot be that it is merely that he is a Mormon? Taft was a Unitarian: he denied the Trinity. George Washington was a Free Mason: think about that one. Yet evangelicals voted for both Taft and Washington.

I live in California. We would have ruined marriage and my university would face troubles if it were not for the Mormon community. They worked hard, gave money, and supported our common cause. They bore the brunt of persecution. The nobility I saw, personally saw, was staggering. I have seen poor people fed, sick people helped, and had evangelical students at my evangelical school given charity by Mormon leaders when they were in trouble.

What about this civic record makes a Mormon unworthy of your vote?

The Lord Jesus called us to love even our enemies, but at the very least the Mormon is our ally and friend. Our Savior rebuked his disciples when they wanted to reject those doing good works in His Name that were not associated with their group. The Master said to leave them alone and that those men were “for Him.”

For what charitable work will you reject a Mormon as civic leader?

We must treat our Mormon friend and neighbor as we wish to be treated. Do you think a Mormon voter should reject you simply because you are not a Mormon? What of your atheist neighbor?

Vote your best self. Vote for an honorable man, (Paul, Romney, Santorum), and leave the repenting sinner to work out his salvation with fear and trembling. Love Newt enough to keep him from the dangers of power.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.