A Mormon in the Whitehouse? Or a Moronic Media Spectacle?
March 28th, 2007
Hugh Hewitt’s new book, which I have only begun to read, is titled “A Mormon in the Whitehouse?“ It sparks a conversation we need to have among all of us believing, evangelicals, many of whom are holding back on supporting Mit Romney, who is in all ways an excellent candidate for the presidency, due to his devout Mormon status. Admittedly I am only beginning to think through this issue. As one who has and does engage Mormons as often as I possibly can in theological and doctrinal debate, I’m wondering what the outcome of such a presidency might be. If we are holding back merely because “we don’t like Mormons,” we should suck it up and get over our bigotry. That amounts to a “my team against your team” perspective, and it doesn’t merit the time or energy it takes to end it. If we are holding back because we are afraid Romney might use the Whitehouse as a bully pulpit for Mormon doctrine, we should look at how he has used the Governor’s office in Massachussetts. If we have other real political or logistical concerns, we should address those concerns to the extent that we can lay them aside and vote for a candidate who is excellent in all “other” ways.
This is not to say that doctrinal or theological, or even practical concerns over Mormonism are in some way illegitimate. For instance, many Evangelicals would like to engage Mormons on the issue of women’s roles. This is a legitimate concern, but its legitimacy exists within the confines of religious and practical discussion. If our concerns are purely doctrinal or theological, then we should open a new discussion among ourselves and with the Mormons with whom we can speak candidly. But this should never be done in an open forum for the press and media to interpret and use as they wish. Churches have, for centuries, held debates and discussions over doctrinal issues in which matters were settled by simply agreeing to disagree. I’m not necessarily advocating that solution here, but the process is historically in place. What I’m saying is that engagement is good, but open debate of religious issues in the political forum is not necessarily the best form of engagement. As Christians we are called to engage each other on issues of importance, but we are adjured against doing so in public. This, as much as anything else, is the core of Paul’s admonishment to the Corinthian church not to bring their disputes to the civil courts. It shames the cause of Christ. (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)
I have two very good friends who are former Mormons, and who address the issue of Mormonism in a loving and rational manner. Their argument is strong against the doctrines and historical foundations of Mormonism, but it is also strongly in favor of treating people with dignity and love as Christ would have us do. Nobody ever castigates them as “Mormon haters,” a term I have heard applied to many other Christian apologists who only see errant doctrine and not the people involved. In a book, recently published, my friend Carma details her journey from deep roots in historic Mormonism to a deep faith in historical Biblical Christianity. [1] Never once does she engage in the type of irascible rhetoric which is so common in “Answer Man” type apologetics. In her own effortless way Carma demonstrates for us that the truth will win over all oppressors if it is only given a chance. No political discussion is necessary.
Certainly a Romney presidency would bring growth and a furtherance of legitimacy to Mormonism, a fact which ires many Evangelicals and especially fundamentalists. However, while many might find such a situation irritating to their sensibilities, here is a man who holds virtually ALL of the political virtues we do. The fact that we disagree with his religious doctrines (and I am one who engages Mormons in debate often) could also be seen as an opportunity to finally engage the Mormon church in a legitimate national conversational debate regarding their foundations and beliefs. We could end up a Romney presidency with a slightly larger Mormon church that no longer is able to present itself as “just another of the many alternatives within Christianity.” Or better yet, perhaps a recant on the errant doctrines and a move toward orthodoxy, as we have seen with the Worldwide Church of God: As I have said before, “better to personally and privately engage those with whom we disagree than let the world participate in our disagreement.”
In view of the other candidates I can see who could truly win this presidential race in 2008, Mr. Romney, if he can win, would represent more of the agenda we all personally espouse than anyone else. Imagine, if you will, Hillary Clinton in the People’s House!
Here’s the question I’m asking people. Suppose you have a business, say , a gas station or a grocery store, or even a construction firm. And suppose you have dug a financial hole for yourself, and are facing some really terrible times ahead. But suppose you have a Mormon friend who has demonstrated that he is an absolute genius at retrieving beleaguered business from the brink of despair, and that friend offers to help you out of your mess. Would you say “no thanks?” Even if you knew that your Mormon friend might likely “call in his marker” at some future time, asking you to do something or say something nice about his religious perspective, you’d still be more likely to say “yes, thank you.”
I think we’d be MORONS not to at least consider Mit Romney!
Here’s what the News Max Magazine special edition has to say about Romney:
…(this) candidate is Reaganesque: a man with a sunny disposition. On his desk he has a plate that states ‘America is Never Stuck.’”
Romney emphasizes four priorities if elected president:
- Defeating the Jihadists,
- Competing with Asia,
- Stopping run-away spending, and
- Affirming America’s culture and values
Surely we can get past the issue of the doctrinal and theological confusion of Mormonism to elect a candidate who has the will and the knowhow to accomplish what we want to see done! If not, then where are we to look for those who will lead our nation?
[1] Naylor, Carma: A Mormon’s Unexpected Journey 2006 Enumclaw WA Winepress Publishers
I would vote for Mr. Romney. The fact that he is LDS, Conservative Republican Govoner in a Democratic liberal state says enough for me.
Thanks for the comment, Jeff.
I really appreciate your open minded view point, and your willingness to set aside personal opinions for a greater good. I am a Mormon and people frequently make their differences with Mormons the focus of attention instead of seeing how much good we have in common with mainstream Christianity.
Thanks for your comment, Velyn. I just think that political things should be decided, where appropriate, on the basis of political information and not other stuff. Sometimes religious considerations enter in. Sen. Barak Obama’s dodging of the issue of his Muslim upbringing, for instance, is an issue that probably should have more exposure. But I honestly think that Gov. Romney’s LDS persuasion could be a good thing - could inspire and give place to a more factually correct and open conversation on the differences between Mormonism and orthodoxy. I want to engage Mormons on the issues of their faith, but I don’t want to do it in the political arena.
Good article Bill. The only downside I can see at a casual glance is the potential perspective of the culture at large who tend to throw semi like-minded people into the same pot of soup, suggesting that if we campaign for a Mormon candidate then we must support everything about them, even their theology. To draw distinctions we are then forced to introduce theology into the political debate with an, “it’s not that simple,” kind of approach, which is what we’re trying not to do… Catch 22?
I ran into this in a Board of Directors that I was involved with where there was a Mormon director who saw himself as just another Christian, just like me. While it inspired debate, his underlying assumption that we were all basically the same unnerved me a bit. I wonder if the culture would do the same thing with evangelical support of Mr. Romney. “Hey, they used to view this as a cult, now they are campaigning for his election” - bottom line, they must have settled any differences and now be pretty much the same. What a beautiful world.
I’m not disagreeing with your premise, I think it’s exactly right and precisely how I personally view the issue, I’m just wondering how it might take shape out in Spin-land.