Howell Scott on Governor Mitt Romney’s “Biggest Lie” by Peter Lumpkins

Howell Scott and I are friends. We view issues Southern Baptists face, more times than not, very similarly. We've not only chatted via cellphone, we've communicated both digitally and personally face-to-face. Howell is a self-professing Calvinist (an "inconsistent Calvinist" is the way he puts it) while I am a...a...well that is a problem because, theologically speaking, I'm not sure what I am¹ >>>

And, one thing I most highly respect about Howell is not only the aura of personal integrity which he seems to project, but also the desirable trait that one is not required to eat his beans when you come to his barbecue. You can if you like, and I'm sure he'd be happy if you did and serve you as much as you could hold. But so far as he is concerned, you can bring your own baked beans and still eat at his table.

If I could capitalize upon that little metaphor a bit, I'd like to sit a spell at Howell's barbecue on Romney's "biggest lie" and nibble on some beans I've baked using my own recipe.

In Howell's post entitled 'Romney's Biggest Lie: "All children of the same God"' he takes the Governor to task for faulty theology and then admonishes evangelicals for not employing both a "political lens" as well as a "theological one" when evaluating a presidential candidate—in this case, Mitt Romney. Howell implores: "For Evangelical Christians — including, but not limited to, Southern Baptists — we should be viewing this election through not only a political lens, but through a theological one as well." And, lest one think Howell is suggesting he favors a religious litmus test, he further desires to "clearly and unequivocally state" his full support for the Constitution's prohibition against "religious tests" for public office. So, one the one hand, evangelicals ought to use both political and religious (i.e. "theological") criteria in judging candidates, but on the other hand, we are not constitutionally required to do so because of clear and unequivocal support for the Constitution's prohibition against religious litmus tests for public office.

For my part, I perceive clear tension in what Howell is suggesting. If I ought to use both political and religious criteria for public office candidates, as an individual, I can do so apart from the constitutional clause prohibiting the religious criteria. Perhaps, for example, if the Bible instructs me to use both criteria, then I might appeal to the apostolic example of obeying God rather than man (Acts 5:29). But I cannot do so while at the same time stating I'm "clearly and unequivocally in full support of the Constitution's prohibition against "religious tests" for public office—at least I can do so with no semblance of consistency.

Howell's answer to obvious tension is to suggest that "just because a religious test is not required to qualify to run for office, that does not mean that voters cannot use their own religious tests when casting their vote for a particular candidate." Granted. We agree. What we do not concede, however, is to suggest one ought to use both political and religious criteria for public office candidates while at the same time stating that one clearly and unequivocally fully supports the Constitution's prohibition against religious tests for public office. I think Howell needs to pour us a little gravy on our potatoes if he doesn't mind.

Howell teases out his point further by offering a few examples. John F. Kennedy's presidency was marked by many who argued his Catholicism could and would be divorced from his politics. Similarly, many evangelicals are arguing Romney's Mormonism can and will be divorced from his politics. Howell writes:

"This election... asks voters — particularly Evangelical Christians — to act as if Mitt Romney's religious beliefs are irrelevant... When entering into the voting booth, some conservative, Bible-believing Christians will not think twice about pulling the lever for Mitt Romney... I do believe that it is a mistake for so-called Evangelical Christians, particularly Southern Baptists, to not think twice about Mr. Romney's Mormonism."

In response, I don't know how one may generalize the 2012 election as Howell has to be an election asking voters, especially evangelical voters, to dismiss Romney's Mormonism. I do not doubt Howell's impression he gets from the general media since I believe him to be an informed Christian. However, I haven't gotten that clear impression especially since it was obvious Mitt Romney was, like it or not, the inevitable nominee who would personify the only electable alternative to the incumbent president. Nor have I changed my view on this since I first addressed the potential Romney candidacy in 2007 (here and here).

What is more, Howell strongly cautions us about our alleged mistake of not "thinking twice" about voting for Romney because of his Mormonism but then proceeds to tell us he is going to cast his vote for Romney despite his Mormonism! I do not understand this. Is the only goal here to stop and think about the one for whom we are casting our ballot before we actually cast our ballot for the one we've just thought about? Admittedly, I am dense at times but I cannot grasp what my friend is driving at.

Howell offers another illustration which he apparently believes demonstrates hypocrisy in evangelicals who are presently dismissing Romney's Mormonism—President Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Writes Howell:

"...it was conservative Christians... who loudly and publicly argued that the President [Clinton] could not separate his "private morality" from his public responsibilities. It was often argued that President Clinton no longer had the moral authority to hold his office because of his actions which gave rise to the scandal."

Howell goes on to agree that any President should have a private moral character consistent with public leadership in the highest office in the world. We agree. On the other hand, we disagree with what Howell seemingly infers from the lesson gleaned from Clinton's scandal:

"For Christians to now argue that a President's morality — indeed his faith and sincerely held religious beliefs — can somehow be divorced from the way he governs is, in a word, hypocritical. Just because folks happen to like Mitt Romney's public policies should not give him a pass on his faith and religious beliefs, especially if those who are tying [sic] to give him such a pass were not inclined to give Southern Baptist Bill Clinton a pass in the 1990′s"

In response, Howell seems to have erroneously conflated morality and general faith beliefs. While it's true moral law is intrinsically wed to a Moral Lawgiver—or, to state it another way, moral law ostensibly requires theism—it remains verifyingly possible that men and women may be moral without necessarily being religious—Christian or otherwise—and certainly without being evangelical. It seems this is precisely why the Constitution prohibits a religious test for public office. Hence, we could have a moral grievance against President Clinton whether or not he was a faithful Southern Baptist which constitutionally was and remains irrelevant to his service as President of the United States.

More significant is whether Mitt Romney's Mormonism—his general faith beliefs—will inform his decisions in the White House. If Romney is a faithful Mormon, I cannot see how his general faith beliefs will not, at least in some ways, inform his administration. Paul Ryan admitted in his debate with Joe Biden that his Catholicism would inform his decisions. I would hope if I were in office my faith would inform mine, and I'm sure Howell would agree that, were he in public office, his faith would inform his policy decisions. However, the question is really not if our religion will influence our decisions (assuming our general faith beliefs are an undeniable, conversionary part of our lives).

Rather the question is, will our faith rule us in a way which discriminates against others, promotes injustice, peddles a culture of death, deconstructs our constitution, negates the public welfare, needlessly puts our troops in harm's way, exploits racism, encourages class warfare, crushes an entrepreneurial spirit, harms freedom of religion, of speech and of the press, expands an oppressive government, bleeds the taxpayer paying an ever increasing debt, institutionalizes poverty, penalizes charity, denigrates healthy family life, among many other things we might list? So, yes, predictably religious belief will affect the public official in office. Our most difficult task, however, is not to focus on whether a candidate for public office is a Christian or non-Christian, nor whether faith beliefs will or will not influence public policy. Rather it is to determine, as discerningly we can, who will best serve the general welfare of all citizens of the United States according to our constitutional republic of laws.

Finally, Howell states the foul for which he must toss Mitt Romney a red flag--"We're a nation that believes that we're all children of the same God" (article here). Consequently, Howell takes special issue with Romney's theological gaffe:

"No, Mr. Romney! Our nation does not believe what you stated. I do not believe what you stated. Most Evangelical Christians — including the overwhelming majority of Southern Baptists — do not believe what you stated. And, most importantly, the Word of God... most assuredly does not teach what you stated."

In response to Howell, I would first query, if our nation does not believe what Romney stated as Howell claims, precisely what does the nation believe? Does it believe that there is only one God over all and Jesus Christ is the only way to Him? Good luck with that one. One article in Washington Post suggested that while 92% of Americans believe in "God or a universal spirit" including 20% of those who call themselves atheists, a whopping 70% of those who are affiliated with any religion (including Christianity) believe that many religions can lead to eternal salvation (//link). I'm afraid our nation probably believes a theistic proposition closer to Romney's version than to Howell's, or mine or evangelicals generally.

Second, I wholeheartedly embrace the same negation as Howell if Romney was definitively speaking about all people being the children of the same God in the sense of redemption. Nothing could be clearer in Scripture as Howell rightly pointed out. However, it remains unclear whether Romney was speaking of all being children of God in the sense of redemption or was speaking of all being children of God in the sense of creation, a distinction routinely employed by a wide variety of Christians including evangelicals. For example, Millard Erickson writes:

"One of the great theological debates of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries concerned the extent of the fatherhood of God and hence the extent of humanity's brotherhood. Liberals insisted that there is a universal brotherhood among humans, and conservatives equally emphatically maintained that only those who are in Christ are spiritual siblings. Actually, both were correct. The doctrine of creation and of the descent of the entire human race from one original pair means that we are all related to one another. In a sense, each of us is a distant cousin to everyone on this earth. We are not totally unrelated. The negative side of our common descent is that in the natural state all persons are rebellious children of the heavenly Father and thus are estranged from him and from one another. We are all like the prodigal son" (Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998, 512-13).

The point Erickson makes is that there exists a sense in which we are all "Fathered" by God. Texts routinely used to argue this aspect of God's general Fatherhood of His creation are Lk 3:38 and Acts 17:24–29 among others. Warren Wiersbe makes this helpful remark: "As Creator, God is the Father of each man; but as Saviour, He is only the Father of those who believe" (Warren W. Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary; Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996, Eph 3:14).

Another example would be Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul:

"We often hear about the universal Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man. There is a limited sense in which this is true by creation (Acts 17:28), but, in terms of redemption, only those adopted into God's new family are his children and Jesus' true brothers and sisters" (R.C. Sproul, Before the Face of God: Book 2: A Daily Guide for Living from the Gospel of Luke, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House; Ligonier Ministries, 1993).

The point I simply make is there is just not enough evidence to assume Romney was speaking specifically as a Mormon or generally as an American inferring from constitutional language about all being "endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights" the equality of all people. In fact, the story Howell quotes lends credibility to the probability he was speaking in a creation sense rather than a redemptive one.²

In closing, I want to state that when I voted for Mitt Romney on Thursday of last week, I did not vote for Mormonism. Instead I voted for the one candidate I think represents the best candidate among those whom I judge to be electable candidates. In the end, I think that's all one can do in this fallen world. Mary England rightly indicated in a comment thread that while we've put Mr. Romney's Mormonism under the critical microscope judging it to be sub-Christian, we've hardly placed President Obama's purported Christianity under similar scrutiny; but if we did, we may discover our President's faith beliefs are surprisingly just as sub-Christian as we routinely judge Mr. Romney's to be.   

Perhaps Martin Luther concluded best:

I would rather be governed by a wise Turk than by a foolish Christian

 

¹though I remain dead sure what I am not

²no one should wrongly infer I remotely imagine Mitt Romney holds orthodox views on biblical redemption. If he holds to Mormon teaching on core Christian doctrines he holds to an horrendous, biblically inadequate understanding of the historic Christian faith as revealed in Scripture

Comments

[Dale Pugh]

I agree with the content of your arguments, Peter. And I will be voting for Romney based upon the fact that I've come to some of the same conclusions that you have.
My theological difficulty has become one of educating (re-educating?) the folks who sit in the pews of our church. I was having a discussion with some of them the other night and we were discussing Mormonism. I called it a "demonic cult." I believe both words a accurate descriptors of Mormonism. One of my good friends responded, "Well, yes, it's a cult, but it isn't demonic. It's based on goodness." My goal then became to show him the difference between "goodness" and "godliness." In my opinion, this weakening of our own theological and doctrinal positions is a greater danger to the church than who we vote for or why we vote for him in the coming election.
Thanks for keeping this out front for us. And thanks for your letter to Franklin Graham, as well.

[peter lumpkins]

Dale,

Thanks brother. I'm appreciative we can see eye-to-eye so to speak. Also, your conversations with local church folk over the nature of Mormonism remains encouraging. We so need more sit-down, personal conversational exchanges like you've described. Too often we "preachers" consider the pulpit the only means of teaching and discipling people. Grace, brother.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Steve Martin]

I do think that if Mr. Romney wins, that the liberal media, with the wrong motives, will expose the wackiness and un-Christianess of Mormonism...for 4 years.

And we'll get a President, while not a Christian, who at least has some American ideals. That's a big improvement from what we've got now.

[Max]

"... the question is, will our faith rule us in a way which discriminates against others, promotes injustice, peddles a culture of death, deconstructs our constitution ..."

Gov. Romney is a "good" man. It's getting increasingly difficult to raise a national son to the highest office in our land who doesn't have "something" in his background. Romney's faith may run contrary to mine, but his faithfulness to family and country is public record. His "good" report card has received high marks. What grade would we give our current President?

This is certainly not the first Presidential election in America with the absence of a genuine Christian on the ballot. And I suspect, as time marches forward, America will be faced with tougher choices. While there is no doubt that Mormonism is fundamentally not Christian, perhaps we should turn our attention to Romney's ideals, not his faith. Lord knows that Christians can't support our current President's ideals!

A candidate who embraces Christian principles, if not genuine faith in Christ, should be supported in the absence of a real Christian on the ballot. If a candidate's personal behavior and political platform are supported by Scripture, we should be able to vote for him with a clear conscience. Do they treat people justly? Is family important? Will they protect the unborn and helpless in our society? I would that this charge be led by a saved man, but a good man will do. At this point, it boils down to supporting the man most likely to advance the moral good of our nation ... while it is still light.

The SBC blogosphere is abuzz these days with debates about the sovereignty of God vs. human responsibility. I know God is in control, but perhaps we need to help Him out on this one by exercising our free will to vote for a good man. ;^)

[Lydia]

Hey Peter, I could not agree with you more concerning Howell. From what I have read and interacted with him, he is a "thinker" who carefully considers each side while maintaining his firm beliefs and I seriously appreciate that.

I am just put out with him because he does not blog more. :o) But I certainly understand why he might not have the time or inclination. Usually it is when he has something to say on a subject. He and I are both process people and I sincerely appreciate that about him, too. He gets why that is so important.

Now that I have praised Howell, I am going to read the rest of the post and why you are bringing your own beans to the bbq this time. :o)

[David Mark]

Peter,

At least Romney is honest enough to profess his Doctrine. It is very unclear to me what Obama's Doctrine really is. I do think Christianity has a better chance in a Capitalistic environment instead of a Socialistic environment, but this is an opinionated remark.

In saying this, I personally know of a 5 Point Calvinist who started preaching and accepting monetary support in a SBC affiliated church. HE purposely didn't disclose his Calvinist Doctrine while at the same time was indoctrinating "TULIP" to an unknowing Congregation.
(it sounds like this is prevalent in many SBC affiliated churches with Calvinist Preachers hiding their Doctrine)

Peter, (or someone) please answer this question.
"How is this not lying or at least being deceptive?" (or practicing sin?)

I know in my lifetime I have been guilty of deception and the longer I put off confessing and repenting of this sin, not only have I hurt God and myself, I have hurt others. MY past sins shouldn't stop me from openly recognizing lying, stealing or deception when I see it.

I have asked this particular question in blogs like this and nobody will be bold enough to answer my question. They will accuse each other of being in "Cults" but they won't recognize dishonesty as "Sin"

Peter, I commend you for aggressively raising concerns of Calvinism and how it is being practiced. If lack of disclosure is sinful and finally recognized even by the 5 Point Calvinist then maybe some healthy dialogue within the SBC can actually be engaged.

No wonder the SBC is going through Division and Strife.

In Jesus
David Mark

[lydia]

"Howell implores: "For Evangelical Christians — including, but not limited to, Southern Baptists — we should be viewing this election through not only a political lens, but through a theological one as well." And, lest one think Howell is suggesting he favors a religious litmus test, he further desires to "clearly and unequivocally state" his full support for the Constitution's prohibition against "religious tests" for public office. "

You know, many did this with Jimmy Carter and it was a disaster.

I am to the point that I am a small government voter and not voting for a pastor in chief. That is not to say that there are policies I would ignore for a small government candidate. (I don't think Romney is a small gov guy. I think he MIGHT be a stick a finger in the dyke guy and at this point, I will take it)

I can promise you I would not want Winthrop for President but would vote for a Roger Williams. EVen within Christianity there are people who should scare us if they had power. There are dominionsists, (Doug Wilson/Rushdooney types) reconstructionists, social gospel types, etc.

I will admit I would probably not vote for a small government Muslim conservative. Since I have studied the Koran, I simply would not trust them.

We have to admit it is getting more and more complicated. ONe of the issues for me is funding overseas and domestic abortions. Those have been funded through exec order in the past. And while George Bush did not "overturn" abortion as some liberals like to trot out, he did rescind the exec orders that paid for abortions abroad. It is one thing to not overturn Roe but quite another to make us pay for abortions in other countries and our own. I have no idea how Romney will approach this.

As to his being a Mormon, yes, it bothers me greatly. I have been amazed at how the Mormon literature looks eerily like the promotional literature coming out of the local seeker mega. You cannot tell it apart!

However, as much reading as I have done on Mormons, he appears to be mostly a cultural Mormon. He is no Warren Jeffs. Yet, it still bothers me but I will be holding my nose and voting for him. We cannot take 4 more of the Marxist (which always turns out to be totalitarianism) who believes we are Imperialists and need to be brought down a few notches.

Never thought I would live to see the day I am voting for a Mormon. Wonder if guys like Voddie and other patriarches would vote for someone like Condie Rice over Obama? That would be interesting. :o)

[Howell Scott]

Peter,

I have been in the Baptist Convention of New Mexico's 100th Annual Meeting today and have not had time to read your post until after 11:00 p.m. Mountain Time. I appreciate the spirit and tone within which you dialogued with my post. Of course, you are always welcome to bring your own beans to my party anytime :-) Without getting into a long counter-argument as to each of your points, I will say that after reading your post, we are probably much closer on many of these issues than our two separate blog posts might indicate. For the record, I think President Obama has been a disaster for America in just about every way imaginable. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that he has been worse than even I thought prior to his election in 2008.

Will I be voting for Mr. Romney on or before November 6? Probably. I say probably because there is a part of me that has serious reservations about voting for someone who is not only a member of the Mormon church, but who described himself in the Town Hall Debate as a "member, missionary, pastor, and bishop" of the Mormon church. This is not someone who is tangentially involved in this cult, but someone who is a "true believer." What bothers me about some Christians -- including the recent move by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association to de-classify Mormonism as a cult -- is that how orthodox, Bible-believing Christians view not just a President Romney, but his Mormon faith, will have either a positive or negative affect on how both the short-term and the long-term acceptance of Mormonism as a valid expression of Christianity. I know you don't believe that and I certainly don't believe that. However, many folks in our pews seem to give a pass to Mr. Romney's Mormonism whereas they would not give a pass to Mr. Obama's non-orthodox Christianity.

As to Mr. Romney's "biggest lie" as I put it, why would I give him more of a benefit of the doubt as to his contention that "we are all children of the same god" and view this in a light that is somehow not redemptive in nature? If President Obama would have made the same statement, would conservative Christians been as willing to give him a pass on this or would some have read into that statement some type of belief conflating Christianity with Islam and that we are all children of the same god -- Allah? In this election, perhaps like no other, Bible-believing Christians have something to at least think twice about when it comes to voting for Mitt Romney. I'm not saying that it is wrong to vote for him or that is somehow is unBiblical to vote for him. At the same time, I would not accuse someone of aiding and abetting Mr. Obama were they to choose to vote for a third party candidate or a write-in candidate (i.e., Dwight McKissic). While Mr. Romney's public policies may indeed be much more beneficial to Christians and to religious liberty (although we cannot be certain), I will continue to argue that his Mormonism should cause at least a small amount of heartburn when voting for him. Last I checked in Scripture, Paul had the harshest rebukes for those who perverted the Gospel and were preaching a false gospel. I fully understand that we are not voting for a "Pastor-in-Chief," but we are voting for a man who not only believes, but teaches a false gospel. Maybe that doesn't give anybody else pause (I didn't say stop) when voting, but it will me. I'm sure we will continue this conversation tomorrow, but I wanted to at least check in before I turned in for the night (turned into what, I don't know ;-) ) Thanks again for the spirited and fair debate. God bless,

Howell

[Jon Carter]

Good article Peter. The advice that I have been given in this presidential debacle is this: "We are voting for a president, not a pastor." I think this is very sound advice...if you think it through.

[peter lumpkins]

David,

We think it is dishonest to come into a church one knows has a theological heritage in one direction to move it in another direction without making the church aware upfront what one intends to do. To speak to your example, many Founders-type Calvinists have come into SBC churches under stealth to do that very thing, and have done so with Founders' blessings. Ernest Reisinger, the man who, along with Tom Nettles, Tom and Bill Ascol, and a few others "founded" the Founders organization in the early 80s promoted an under cover operation to "reform" the church. This is explained in Reisinger's book, "Quiet Revolution." Interestingly, what did not go so well in individual churches--they bucked too hard against it--has apparently worked very well in institutions like SBTS and on the denominational level as a whole. Most notice the undeniably unbalanced number of Calvinists in leadership positions but Calvinists themselves continue to humorously assert no such thing exists.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Lydia,

I was one of the ones who sorta wasted my vote on our Georgia peanut president. President Jimmy Carter has apparently done much humanitarian good through charitable organizations but his role as President was surely the worst performance as a national leader in my two lifetimes...

Thanks, Jon. I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on this one. And, I so appreciate your spreading my posts across twitter to your followers...

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Mark]

Peter,

Thank You for responding.

This "Stealth" occurrence happened in our church a year ago, when it the church realized he was trying to indoctrinate "TULIP" he resigned.

During that occasion church attendance diminished, Children's Sunday School was eliminated and he was attempting to close the church moving the in a home church environment. Relying on a part time job and a 4 couple following for support.

It was later discovered during his Pastorate he was getting a Master's degree from Andersonville Theological Seminary from Camille, Georgia.

Would you considered this dishonest stealth practice "Sin"?

In Jesus
David