| 
Blogging for Mitt
By Lowell Brown
At Article
VI Blog we cover the 2008 presidential campaign from a unique
perspective: We follow every bit of news and commentary appearing
on the Internet regarding religion and the candidates. We focus,
of course, in the one candidate who draws daily attention to his
faith: Mitt Romney.
What makes our blog different from
others is our Mormon-Evangelical mix. I am a committed member
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and my co-blogger,
John Schroeder, is a committed evangelical Christian. And — we
are friends! Both of us are conservatives politically. John is
sympathetic to Romney's candidacy, and I am a committed Romney
supporter.
The blog, of course, is written to a broad audience. Now, thanks
to Meridian Magazine, the Mormon half of the Article VI team has
an opportunity to comment on those same issues, but from an LDS
perspective. I'll be sharing with you each week my own views about
excerpts from our blog. Think of it as "Article VI Blog Especially
for Mormons."
So let's get started.
Are Mormons Worried About The Impact of The Romney Candidacy?
The New York Times published an interesting article about
how Mormons, primarily in Utah, view Mitt Romney's candidacy.
Entitled “Romney’s Run Has Mormons Wary of Scrutiny,” the article’s
theme is that is the Romney run is “both a proud sign of progress
and a cause of trepidation,” because “the moment is fraught with
anxiety because his candidacy is bringing intense scrutiny to
their church, and could exacerbate longstanding bigotry.”
I warned our blog’s readers who are
unfamiliar with Mormon beliefs that the Times piece might
leave them a little confused. Why? Because "Mormons are like
anyone else; they have a wide range of political and religious
views — including interpretations of their own beliefs."
Notice the comment in the article from a Utah radio talk show
host about Mormon views on Christ's Second Coming, and Mitt's
supposed mis-statement of Church doctrine. Actually, Mitt was
arguably right, and the radio talk show host may simply have misapplied
the Tenth Article of Faith, because ... the answer is not all
that clear! You'll feel like you're sitting in Gospel Doctrine
class.
Reaching Out to Other Christians
This last week Governor Romney also formed a national Faith
and Values Steering Committee composed of leaders from other
faiths. One member is The
Reverend Lou Sheldon, Chairman of Traditional Values Coalition.
Rev. Sheldon commented:
There's no
need to reconcile the Mormon issue. He's running for a secular
office. My thinking is that Mitt Romney is a person with the experience
and with the Judeo Christian moral values. A non-evangelical who
is socially conservative can be president. He may not have the
born again experience, but I've been around Mormons long enough
to know that when they pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ
they are sincere about that — that he is the Lord and the redeemer
and the one that they have to be answerable too.
Sheldon said this to the Christian
Broadcasting Network, which I think is significant. As most Meridian
readers are well aware, many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians
are concerned about Mormons generally and about a Mormon president
in particular. (That's a big part of what Article VI Blog is all
about.) Surely Romney's decision to form the Faith and Values
Steering Committee is an effort to make it clear to such folks
that there is no reason to be concerned about voting for him.
David
Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network was impressed:
"Mitt Romney has done it again. When it comes to assembling
a top notch team, he always seems to knock it out of the park
... He has some of the top social conservatives in the country
behind him ..."
Speaking of other Christians, Nancy French is one of the authors
of the pro-Romney blog Evangelicals
for Mitt. I could not resist stealing this bit from Nancy, quoting Bill Beaman in the Reader's Digest:
“Yeah, but he's a Mormon. And that makes him unelectable."
So let's see — he's up against one Republican who's supposedly
unelectable because he's not a real conservative and another Republican
who's unelectable because … umm … oh yeah, he's not a real conservative.
And on the Democrats' side, he'd be up against a woman who's said
to be unelectable and an African American who's said to be unelectable.
Unless we're just going to shut down the White House for four
years (tempting, isn't it?), someone's going to prove electable.
Might as well be a Mormon.
Just What Is A "Theo-Nerd,"
And Why Do Such Folk Attack Mitt?
"Attack of the Theo-Nerds." Sounds like the title of a bad sci-fi
movie, doesn't it? But such attacks seem to be a nagging problem,
kind of like flies buzzing around a fine horse.
What, you ask, is a theo-nerd? My co-blogger John Schroeder
coined the term, which he defines here:
Theo-nerds
not only love the intricacies of their own faith, they love proving
why their theology is superior to yours. Being seminary-trained,
I have engaged in this game and enjoy it from time to time; I
understand the impulse. But it is simply immaterial. I am sorry
these guys are not going to get to show off their theology chops,
but that's politics in a religiously diverse nation. This is a
presidential election, not a seminary. Give it up, guys!
A journalist named Terry Mattingly
has, I believe, refined theo-nerdishness to a high art, writes
on a blog called Get Religion. There
he referred to a recent New York Times story suggesting
that Mitt is not a faithful Mormon. (That's a theme we wrote about
on Article VI last week.) One of our blog's readers wrote
in response:
I'd like to
see you take [Mattingly] up on his challenge in that article to
search his blog for the term "exaltation." He alleges
that it always leads to Mormons disagreeing over doctrine. What
it shows to me is that Mattingly is ... bent on laying a snare
for Romney on this issue, and that he can't stop egging on the
press to push the issue of "exaltation" = "polytheism."
"People
need to know, 'Is this man going to take orders from Salt Lake
City? Are there elements of Mormon theology that will affect public
policy?' … But before he gets to those questions, Romney may have
to say, 'We have different doctrines. We have different scriptures
… We even have different concepts of God.' He has to know that
he can't just say, 'We all have the same faith.' That is not going
to work."
As most readers here know, Richard Ostling is the author of
"Mormon America: The Power and The Promise."
I won't say much more about Ostling’s book, other than to note
that Mormon
scholars (and any fair-minded person who really understands
the Church) generally consider it to be an unfair treatment of
the Church.
Mattingly and Ostling want Romney
to explain his religious beliefs, which no presidential candidate
has ever done. It seems to me that at bottom, both Mattingly and
Ostling are upset about the prospect of a Mormon president and
want the doctrinal issues that bother them to be widely discussed.
Mattingly and Ostling are the ones that need to make the case
for such a precedent-setting public dialogue, led by a presidential
candidate. So far neither of them has done so. The theo-nerds
have a steep hill to climb.
And Why Do Liberal Cynics Attack Romney?
Ann Althouse, a University of Wisconsin law professor who
writes a popular blog, wrote a provocative post in response to Andrew Sullivan's comments about "the bland, super-nice
'Up-With-People' vibe of Romney's cultural Mormonism." Here's
an excerpt:
Sullivan is pushing the envelope in trying to legitimate criticizing
people because of their religion. He seems to think that putting
the word "cultural" in front of the name of a religion
makes it acceptable: Once religion crosses the line from the purely
religious and becomes part of the motivation for achieving various
political goals, we've got to be able to criticize.
I agree that
we shouldn't hang back and act respectful simply because
it's religion. But anyone who takes the route and brings
up religion in a political discussion invites scrutiny. Surely,
he has legitimated the subject of whether he is bigoted against
a religious group.
I found a delicious irony in Sullivan's
condescending elitism toward Mormon "culture." Sullivan,
who seems to consider him self quite sophisticated, nevertheless
betrays an utterly provincial attitude about Mormonism. He seems
stuck in the late 1970s and the "Donny and Marie Show."
Now, I have great respect for the Osmonds, but how many Mormons
find the Osmonds reflective of their own views and experience
as members of the Church? Sullivan seems to know little about
Mormon culture, and a lot more about Mormon cultural stereotypes.
As I noted on our blog, we have not
seen this kind of sneering at Mormons from conservative commentators;
it has shown up only on the liberal side of the political spectrum.
Faith, Science, and Mitt
Finally, Romney published an op-ed
in the June 15 edition of National Review Online. It's
about the politics, values and science bound up in stem cell research.
Although the piece is largely political in nature, as a member
of the Church I found is fascinating because it so clearly reflected
the LDS tendency to combine faith, science, and values.
Our Church has taken no position
on stem cells, but the issue is undeniably and closely tied to
faith concerns. I am confident that Mitt Romney wrote the National
Review op-ed himself (he still writes all his own speeches), so
it's a good window into his thinking on matters involving both
politics and values — or, as some like to say, his "worldview."
Comments? Questions? Complaints?
Visit Article
VI Blog and let me know!
Click
here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2007 Meridian
Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
|
