| 
Vic Lundquist
|
November 20th, 2007 | | Posted in Analysis, Commentary, and Editorials, Article VI Blog, Bigotry, Charles Mitchell, Evangelicals, Evangelicals for Mitt, Faith, Family Values, Mitt Romney, Nancy French, National Review Online, Op/Ed, Pro-life, Religion, The Mormon Issue, Values
|
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (nick-name: Mormon), I often hear fellow members of the church tell me they don’t think Governor Romney can be nominated, let alone win a general election, because evangelicals are so strident in their opposition to Mormons. This one line of thinking alone keeps some members of the church on the sidelines and out of the game. It’s a great thing so many other Americans think that is nonsense and ardently support and promote Governor Romney for President!
Since last Friday, I have been wanting to hi-light an exchange between Nancy French and Charles Mitchell at Evangelicals for Mitt that explains well that many evangelicals use their minds, hearts, and prayer to arrive at the decision to support Governor Romney when others may not, simply due to theological differences. Nancy quotes from an NRO article here and disagrees with one of its assertions as follows (emphasis is mine):
I would disagree with one aspect of the NRO article:
“Few people who oppose Romney because he is a Mormon are going to come around.”
In reality, we at EFM see this happen all the time! In fact, do Mormons believe confession is good for the soul? Because when David first told me about Gov. Romney’s religion, I was incredulous. We had long, impassioned discussions about his religion — over the course of weeks and months — that led me to change my mind. But now? Well, I’d have to become a stalker to be a more enthusiastic supporter of the Governor.
And I’m not alone. Steve, I believe, used to argue with Charles. Plus, we’ve gotten mea culpa e-mails from people who used to send us long Scriptural e-mail explanations about why we are wrong in supporting a Mormon, which now basically say, “You were right — after evaluating the candidates, he’s the guy. What can I do to help?”
So, I think there’s much hope in the process, even amongst the unenlightened. But, please, reason with us. Instead of trying to demystify or explain the faith, demonstrate our shared values, explain how Mormons and evangelicals are natural political allies, and tell us how your faith will positively affect your policies. We’ll come around.
And Nancy, “yes” to your question about Mormons and confession.
Growing up in California and living here my whole life, I have come to know and respect many evangelicals. I have met many recently who are going to enthusiastically support Romney in the primaries and general election because they know he is the candidate that will best represent them, their families, and their values. The paragraph that jumped out at me is Nancy’s second above. There are devout and serious evangelicals who have studied Governor Romney’s positions and life who have changed their minds. Not every evangelical will look beyond theological distinction, but many can and many will. We all need to be a little more optimistic, a little more patient with one another, and a little more open-minded.
Then in response to Nancy’s post, Charles Mitchell left this:
Nancy, I don’t want to speak for Steve — but I’ll speak for Steve. He was deeply skeptical of the idea of supporting Governor Romney, and it was on religious grounds. One of the things I threw at him was this post, and it worked.
Charles refers to his OUTSTANDING post of Sept 2006 as affecting the change in Steve; click here —-> “AN EXCRUCIATING DECISION”
Charles discusses the possibility of Gov. Romney giving “the speech” and concludes with this:
But I do think there is a values-based message that wavering evangelicals need to receive, that they haven’t received it in massive numbers, and that Governor Romney should send it by seizing the megaphone that only he — as opposed to EFM or any of his other backers — has.
And in conclusion, John and Lowell over at Article VI Blog provide excellent perspective on recent interviews of Gov. Romney. Excerpts here from Lowell (the Mormon) — read Gov. Romney’s response carefully — it is classic!
Byron York, who now seems to be realizing that Romney could well be the GOP nominee, writes at some length about The Speech. There’s much to say about York’s column, but one comment by Romney is probably the most important. York focuses (wrongly, I believe) on the now-tired question of whether Mormons are Christians, and apparently goaded Romney into an answer:
[Romney] “You know, the term ‘Christian’ means different things to different people,” Romney told me. “Jews aren’t Christian. That doesn’t preclude a Jew from being able to run for office and become president. I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world and is the son of God. Now, some people say, well, that doesn’t necessarily make you a Christian because Christian refers to a certain group of evangelical Christian faiths. That’s fine. That’s their view. Others say, no, anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the savior should be called Christian. That’s fine, too. I’ll just describe what I believe and not try to distinguish my faith from others. That’s really something for my faith to do and for the churches amongst themselves to consider.” (Emphasis added.)
How much more does the man need to say? The italicized [bold] portion accurately describes the essence of the debate: Theo-nerds (”Christian” means orthodox Christian, or “my faith, not yours”) versus the expansive, heterodox dictionary definition of “Christian” accepted by nearly everyone else.
My personal view is that the theo-nerd view is terribly destructive in this context. To insist that in order to call oneself “Christian,” one must believe in certain creeds and specific doctrines, beyond the divine sonship of Jesus and his status as Savior and the only name by which anyone can achieve salvation, is to walk down the path of a very semantic and potentially misleading discussion. It really borders on being a smear, intentional or not.
John (the Evangelical) carries the logic further:
Romney’s answer is a great answer, and really the only possible answer to the question itself. The problem is that it is becoming increasingly obvious that people do not really care about the question, “are Mormons Christians?” per se. What they are really asking is “Is he one of us?”
Any number of sources, including this blog, have addressed very specifically the term “Christian” - but no one seems to care. People who keep pushing this clearly want to hear something else. The only thing I can figure that will satisfy is for Mormons to deny what they believe. Mormons believe they are Christians, and it is in the great American tradition for them to be entitled to that belief, as much as I am entitled to my beliefs.
I think the people that keep asking this question fall into two camps. The first is the “blackmail” camp. These are people that seem to be withholding a vote for Romney until he somehow makes it clear that his claim to being a Christian is illegitimate. To these of my brethren , I say, what if you were required to repudiate some tenant of your faith to qualify for office?
The other camp are people that simply want Romney to emphasize Mormon distinctives in order to alienate some segment of those that might otherwise vote for him.
Either way you cut it, what we have here is an attempt to legitimize the politics of identity. America was founded in a fashion specifically designed to eliminate politics of this type. This is just despicable. The question “Are Mormons Christian?” is a great question for the seminaries of the world, but in this context it is simply despicable.
Incredible answer by Gov. Romney’s above! How could he have given a better reply? Amazing.
Evangelicals who live and die on theological principle, to the exclusion of all else, run the risk of further eroding our nation’s established values by either:
- Not voting at all;
- Promoting a pro-abortion candidate for the Republican nomination;
- Supporting a moderate conservative candidate who shares their faith, but who has no chance to be elected, or
- Backing a candidate who does not really want the job of President.
It is a good thing thinking evangelicals rejected a Baptist by not voting for Jimmy Carter for a second term. Of course it was not wrong for evangelicals to reject the more devout Christian between Carter and Reagan, but they chose Reagan instead.
Gov. Romney is not only the most qualified and superior leader of all candidates, he is the one among all electable candidates whose values more closely align with evangelicals.
And this from a Democrat on topic —–> TIME TO SET ASIDE ONE MORE PREJUDICE
~ Vic
I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I’m in a cabinet meeting.
– Ronald Reagan
Share on Facebook
Share This
Side Note: Vic, Kevin, Rebecca and I met up with Nancy French and Charles Mitchell from Evangelicals for Mitt, it was a very nice visit. 