Mitt Romney for President: Round Two

      Have you ever had a spur of the moment idea that you figured was no big deal but when you sorta let it slip out, it turned out to be a barnburner?  Well, that's precisely what happened to me yesterday morning when I posted Mitt Romney for President:  And the Problem is?  Being rushed to get to the office, I had only a few minutes to throw the thing together   >>>

I did a bit of look-see on Romney and wrote the piece quickly. To my amazement, a twister soon touched down and lightning struck my barn.  I was seen on the one hand as being both pro-Romney and pro-Mormon and on the other as being reasonable and level-headed. With such a wide response to the post I perceived as 'no big deal', it must surely have touched a nerve somewhere. 

I think it did.  It touched a political nerve.  Indeed intrinsic to politics--whether denominational or societal--is emotional provocation.  I knew first hand about the emotive and provocative nature of denominational politics from some of my previous posts on SBCTomorrow.  Now I know first hand the identical provocation from mentioning anything about societal politics.

The one aspect of my last post that disturbs me most stems from the fact that some who commented not only failed to deal with the post per se, they appeared to intentionally misstate what the post actually said.  I expressed as clearly I knew how, I had not made up my mind on a candidate for President.  Read the following carefully that is in the body of the short post I wrote:  "Back to Mitt Romney.  Is he my candidate?  He is not."  I went on to speak of some of his positions with which I adhered--positions to which most all political conservatives adhere. 

I even cited the candidate's voting record as key to supporting him/her, that it could not be overlooked and that I had not examined Romney's.  For my part, it is difficult to understand how anyone could, with a clear, moral conscience, suggest that I was offering my support for Mitt Romney as President and that my site was a pro-Romney site in light of the explicit denial above. 

Of course, I could have been inconsistent by denying he was my candidate in one place and then affirming he was my candidate in another.  Granted.  But neither on the post nor in the thread exists a scintilla remark that I supported Mitt Romney as President.  The contradiction does not exist.  Unfortunately, I am finding more and more the Internet is spiced with Christians without scruples.

For the record, here is the bottom line of yesterday's post:  What is not, for me, a factor in my decision to push the button for Mitt Romney is his Mormonism.  My simple, straight-forward idea which ended burning the barn down was that I do not think it a sober approach to a priori rule out a person for public office--in this case, the President of the United States--based on the sole fact that, in Romney's case, he happened to be a Mormon. 

The United States Constitution says "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."  Nor do we possess instructions from Scripture on either voting procedures within our society or specifically what qualifications public officials must possess. 

Thus, since our Lord evidently gave us a large measure of freedom here, how it is that Christians can create moral absolutes where no absolutes exist becomes exceedingly frustrating. 

Interestingly, some of the most vocal dissenters against 'moral legalism' I've encountered are the very ones who insist that Mitt Romney, because of his Mormonism, stands barred from public office because he's a Mormon.  Or if he is in office, Christians by no stretch should be responsible for his being there. 

Debbie Kaufman, who frequents SBC Tomorrow as a commenter, posted here and here evidently in response to my post.  In addition, Les Puryear, who already posted on Mitt and Mormonism sometime back, put up a post yesterday--whether a response to SBC Tomorrow, I know not--which actually suggested that Christians who end up supporting Mitt Romney are supporting Anti-Christ.  Talk about moral legalism on steroids! 

If I or any other Christian happen to support a candidate for President who is not a Christian, that is assisting Anti-Christ?  Does it not occur to our Brother and Sister that making such a stringent moral absolute pertaining to that about which Scripture does not so much as even mention or imply--that is, democratic voting or candidate qualifications--stands as the hallmark of moral legalism?  Old Fundamentalism would be proud of her step-children. 

For a more reflective view on Romney, though I am unconvinced he should have officially endorsed any candidate, read Dr. Wayne Grudem's public support for Mitt Romney.

One has to ask, why stop with Mormonism?  Surely these evangelicals could not allow Rome to have a say so in our public affairs.  Catholics out, Protestants in. 

Consequently, we must start slicing and dicing until we're down to our own little world of people who may be a candidate, even if our candidate happens to be fringe.  Aaron Weaver cornered Puryear on his post inquiring "Would any of you have voted for Jefferson, Washington, Adams, John Quincy Adams, Fillmore, Taft, Madison, Monroe?"  While this group could surely be considered believers, they do not at all fit the evangelical test.  Weaver received no answer. 

My question is, given this hard-core, non-negotiable 'believe-like-me" approach to voting for public office, how can a Southern Baptist vote for anyone else for public office than a Southern Baptist, if he/she takes the principle seriously?

In addition, if one's religious affiliation is absolutely detrimental, I would like to know how evangelicals address, with a straight face, the overwhelming bulk of voters who are non-evangelical.  If non-evangelicals were encouraged to follow this presupposed method of voting for their own kind, that would guarantee no evangelical would ever win office. 

This 'my-kind-only' sort of voting approach of which Puryear and Kaufman insist, encourages, in the end, votes not for evangelicals but against them.  Evey sub-group should vote only for candidates from their exclusive sub-group.  My head cannot take much more of these dizzy ethics.

One final note:  I could have written the same post I did yesterday with virtually the same message if I had substituted Mike Huckabee's name in it instead.  The post wasn't about a personality, but about a principle...not a particular candidate, but a guiding thought by which to choose or not to choose any candidate. 

On the comment thread, I penned a fitting ending to this post:

"I will not a priori commit myself personally to Huckabee because of his evangelicalism anymore than I will a priori commit myself to be against Romney because he's a Mormon."

 

Comments

[Grosey (an AUSSIE!!!!)]

G'day Peter,
Just thought I'd get a comment in before your fireworks start... Just so that every time debbie goes to comment she can see my name up first, and that will stir up her ire!!!!
May I say, "GOOD POST!"

"Peter proposed a perfect principle in the previous post, not proposing a perfect president,Peter"

Folks say this real fast with a smile on your face!

Steve

[peter lumpkins]

Grosey,

A marvelous mouthful, at least for me, my man. Much mud messed with my mind in the last message about Mitt.

Maybe this more modern Mitt memo won't make many mad, so molehills won't mature into mountains.

Well, my man, I must move on before misery manages to mold me without mending my misfortune.

Mercy. With that, I am...

Peter

[grosey]

Well Done!!!!! (oops too many !!.. don't want to anger anyone though I wonder how they get along with the little bird that does !!!!! all over the Charlie Brown comics)..
Well done!
Steve

[Byroniac]

Peter:

I have to admit that the thought of voting for a non-Christian, especially from a false religion like Mormonism, bothers me. Perhaps it is more cynicism than wisdom which teaches me to be skeptical about the genuineness of any professional politician these days. I have begun to believe there are far fewer true believers than what appears to our eyes. I believe in voting according to your conscience certainly, but sometimes voting for the "lesser of two evils" just may not satisfy me morally. I wonder if sometimes I shouldn't just put down "Christ is Lord!" for the write-in candidate. He certainly is, even now. And one day the whole world will bow in submission to that truth. Thankfully, we who have the Holy Spirit already have.

I cannot fully agree with what a friend of mine said, but I certainly appreciated his cynicism: "If voting could change things, they'd make it illegal." And, "we have the finest politicians money can buy." :)

[selahV]

Peter, as always you give us much to chew on. I have wallowed this pig around in my brain for over 30 years now on how to vote, for whom, on which principles. Inevitably some rule above others--none regarding economics ever enter into my thinking and I suppose that I should think more about that one because of all the waste we have in government. That's kinda why I switched parties. Thanks for getting the ball rolling with another post that I hope proves informative. selahV

[Les Puryear]

Peter,

My post on my personal blog was a follow-up to my post on sbcImpact on 10/28/07. If I choose to post in response to something you write, I will let you know.

Les

[Colin]

Peter,

I am out for a bit, and thought I would offer my one and one-half cents worth.

I initially deplored the idea of Romney in the White House. Why? Solely because I believed it would give Mormonism the national nod to go mainstream. But as I have thought about it, I have decided it just might have the opposite effect. It will give every church in America the opportunity to address why the gospel and Christ of the Bible is different than that of Joseph Smith.

[Robin Foster]

Peter

I made a decision and posted on my old site some time ago that I would stay out of the political fray for the most part in the upcoming election. If someone would ask me one on one in private, I would tell them what I thought, but I decided to keep my blogging activities focused on the SBC. I may have commented once or twice on other blogs, but I tried to keep it only as questions and short snippets of who I was supporting, not serious debate. Right or wrong according to others, I felt the Lord leading me to not get too involved with the US political scene.

I saw your post and I automatically knew you would get responses and who would respond. I apologize for not going back and checking it out, but other things took priority and I forgot you had put it up. I have seen some of the responses and I am truly amazed at the comments and the illogical manner they were put forward. This comment is not to point fingers at anyone particular, but to encourage you for exploring this issue. We should talk these things out, but keep it respectable, not in a mean spirited way towards you or anyone else.

Those of us who know and appreciate you understand what you were trying to convey. Thanks for opening the door.

[Big Daddy Weave]

I agree with Colin. With Mormonism under the microscope, more Americans will have the chance to see the clear distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity.

But, Mormonism has already gone mainstream. We have Mormons serving in the United States Senate. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader - Harry Reid - is a Mormon. We have Mormons serving at every level of government. No stats here but I've always learned that Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I've had Mormon neighbors and Mormon friends.

Mormons are as American as any Southern Baptist.

That's mainstream folks.

I doubt Romney will win anymore converts to Mormonism than George W Bush has won to Methodism.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Byron,

Thanks, my brother. For me, I think your insight about the 'lessor of two evils' is about the best approach one can have when faced with candidates who are undesirable. The least attractive option seems to be to not vote because 'my' candidate is not running.

Forfeiting democracy because my person didn't win nails the coffin shut, in my view, for any better democracy tomorrrow.

Grace, Byron.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

SelahV,

Thanks. I know you think deeply about the political scene given your history in journalism as editor of a regional paper which indeed possessed a political slant.

I am also sure that we could learn much from you about both the dirtiness of politics as well as the ingeniousness of politicians who purposefully milk the 'church crowd' with their 'churchy rhetoric'.

To the selfish CEO, $ for me; to the selfish politician, Votes for me, which gets $ for me.

Robin,

I hear your heart, my brother, and I thank you for it. Know the last thing I'd want to do is spend a lot of time on this particular issue.

Nor do I think I'll ever speak openly about who I happen to vote for--I may, but I have no plans to.

Incidentally, while I think Dr. Grudem had a persuasive word about why Romney's Mormonism should not be held against him, I personally am confused why he felt it necessary to put it in the form of a 'campaigning for Mitt' speech. Professor Grudem slings a big blade in the conservative community--especially the theo-community.

Thanks again, Robin, for your thoughtfulness and support.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Les,

Welcome. I think I said, of your latest post, Les, I did not know whether you posted responding to mine or not. Thanks for the heads-up anyway.

As for leaving comments on SBCTomorrow, my brother Les, I'd be particularly careful. That's a footprint for others to see. And, surely, you do not want others knowing you affiliate with assistants to Antichrist, do you?

I've been thinking of changing the name of my blog:

SBC666

666Tomorrow

SBCAntichrist

Or I could leave the name alone and change the subtitle:

SBCTomorrow: personal reflections of an antichrist admirer

Does anything strike you as the way I should proceed?

Maybe I'll just ask noted historian, Mark Noll or cultural critic Chuck Colson, both of whom are 666ers as well.

Thanks anyway, Les. I trust your weekend a great one.

With that, I am...

Peter

p.s. Just a little fun, Les. You are welcome at SBCTomorrow anytime for conversation. Peace, Brother.

[selahV]

Peter: As an editor/publisher of the newspaper of which you refer, I got such a sick insider view to all of it, that it calls into question every news report I now see on television, or in the paper--and especially on the internet.

Truth be told, the editor is the writer of all news stories as they are ABLE to change the slant of a reporter's story and even eliminate words that tell the real story and replace their words with whole sentences that take the story in an entirely different direction. Not all stories are altered, but be sure some are.

I had a congressman contact me to add his newsletter to constituents to my pro-Christian, pro-right, pro-family newspaper one time just a couple of months before an election. He asked if I might add it to my paper. It was so sugary sweet with his faith-based beliefs that were a total contradiction to his voting record and political position that I was tempted to print it along with his voting record and publicly recorded agenda. But I didn't. Fortunately for me, I had too many advertisements in my paper that month to accomodate his little piece of propaganda.

Oh, the stories I could tell. But I won't. And I don't name names. Not what God has called me to do in life to uplift the name of His Son. No glory whatsoever in words carrying tales, I figure.

Suffice it to say, that Reagan's words apply greatly in matters of politics, news reports and blogs---"Trust but verify." selahV

[peter]

Colin,

I think you are correct about more exposure to Mormonism if Mitt Romney were to win, which, in turn, would offer opportunities to parse the crucial differences between historic Christian faith and the sectarian beliefs of Mormons.

Dr. Mohler, if I understand him correctly, argues the same, but notes the consequences negative not positive. He seems to indicate that a Mormon in the White House would surely make Mormonism more attractive regardless whether Churches draw the proper distinctions. The impression was, it would end up hurting not helping global evangelism.

Dr. Mohler's reasoning stands indicative of the best argument available for believers not wanting a Mormon as President: possible consequences. Dr. Mohler chose the possible negative consequences and others look at possible positives.

Note: if persuasive Biblical or theological acumen exists to deny a Mormon the Oval office, am I to believe a theologian as nuanced--not to mention culturally outspoken--as Dr. Mohler wouldn't unload both barrels at once?

Yet we hear bloggers indicting believers who see possibly good consequences as little less than sitting smoking cigars with Satan himself. Where our reason fled remains mysterious.

Grace, Colin. Study hard. With that, I am...

Peter

[selahV]

Peter: Dr. Mohler's positioning is one that could start an all-out media war against any Christians who are outspoken in regards to the Mormon religion. Soon we'd all be painted with the same brush as the one which we dip in water and watch the colors appear on paper for homosexuality, abortion and perpetuating "God" on our coins, in our pledge and in other places.

In the final analyses we'd still be in the forefront of news--to share the Truth in Jesus. And in my thinking it would call all Christians to a higher standard of walking in the Spirit in order to illumine our Savior's love, grace, and humility.

Arrogance and piety will do nothing to advance the Gospel. But knowledge and understanding of scripture will be of utmost importance. Which brings us back to the basics...what DO we believe and why? Will all Southern Baptists be able to articulate their faith unashamedly and with gentleness, love and patience? selahV

[Colin]

Mohler is right, I think, in that there will inevitably be people that turn to Mormonism. But our prescription for stopping the mouths of the false teachers is by teaching truth, not suppressing their vocal ability. However, I would be interested in looking into the "conversion" dynamic a little bit further. I think there is an element of rebellion or separatism from the establishment when people turn to alternate spiritual enterprises. For instance, after 9-11, there were quite a few American converts to Islam due possibly a warped sense of sympathy or element of cultural rebellion against the establishment "Christian" west. Yet if Romney fits a highly conservative bill, will he (and his Mormonism) be liked or despised by the cultural elite?

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter said: "Dr. Mohler's reasoning stands indicative of the best argument available for believers not wanting a Mormon as President: possible consequences. Dr. Mohler chose the possible negative consequences and others look at possible positives."

Does anyone else see the irony? :)

[Tim B]

Right now the situation is that evangelicals have been duped into electing a universalist as president who hold similar moral values as they do. I am not sure that is any better a theological situation than electing a mormon. What if we find ourselves in a situation of either electing an individual with whom we agree theologically and morally but who is inept as a leader and governor or electing someone with a different faith but similar values but who is highly competent as a leader and at governing?

Tim B

[Debbie Kaufman]

Peter: If I were responding to a post that you have written, I think you know my writing enugh by now to realize that I would either link to your blog or mention your name in the post. No, I dide not write any of my posts in respone to yours. I wrote in response to Richard Land's endorsement, Bob Jones III's endorsement etc. I actually think the SBC and all leaders need to get out of politics. They should not endorse anyone publicly. It may be one reason that Mitt is the cintender here for the Republicans. Southern Baptist leaders such as Land etc have been grooming him and andorsing him since the time he announced his qunning, if not before that.

[Debbie Kaufman]

How many typos is one allowed in one post? I evidently made mucho mucho.

[Richard]

For those who insist that only an Evangelical Christian is fit to lead the government, I have one question.

Aren't there many examples of "non-believers" being used by God to lead the government in the Bible? Consider Joseph's support for Pharaoh, Daniel's support for Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and Esther's support for (and marriage to) Ahasuerus. If God saw fit to have those non-believers rule over the "Chosen People", why then is it so unthinkable that God could choose to have a Mormon serve as President of the United States?