POLITICS APRIL 20, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
When Dallas First Baptist Church pastor Robert Jeffress endorsed Mitt Romney this week, it raised some eyebrows. Jeffress, after all, was the evangelical leader who roiled last year’s Value Voters Summit by casually telling reporters that Mitt Romney was “not a Christian,” but instead a member of the Mormon “cult.” His endorsement should serve as a warning to any Democrats who expect that evangelical distaste for Mormonism will cost Mitt Romney a significant number of votes. Most conservative evangelical political activists, like Jeffress, have long since subordinated any theological concerns about political leaders to a cultural agenda where all are welcome allies.
There’s nothing mysterious about this phenomenon, and it doesn’t reflect dishonesty, either. Jeffress himself explained his endorsement of Romney in pretty clear terms:
Given the choice between a Christian like Barack Obama who embraces very unbiblical principles like abortion and a Mormon like Mitt Romney who supports biblical values like the sanctity of life and marriage, I think there’s a good biblical case for voting for Mitt Romney.
In other words, so long as a candidate is on the same page as the Christian Right on same-sex marriage and abortion— and, increasingly, contraception—his understanding of the metaphysical nature of the universe isn’t a deal-breaker. Mormons are as welcome in the fight against encroaching secularism as anyone else.
The same principle guided the remarkable rapprochement between conservative evangelicals and “traditionalist” Catholics in recent decades. When the theocon Catholic theoretician Richard John Neuhaus and evangelical celebrity Charles Colson formed Catholics and Evangelicals Together (CET) in 1994, it was perceived as a quasi-revolutionary development. It was particularly controversial among Catholics who felt the group’s efforts to move from tactical political cooperation on issues like abortion to theological accommodation went too far. That controversy now seems quaint. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ recently released “Statement on Religious Liberty” went out of its way to endorse a recent manifesto by CET, published in the late Father Neuhaus’s magazine First Things. The Bishops’ statement echoes conservative evangelicals in demanding a high-profile campaign against the Obama administration’s so-called attacks on religious liberty—specifically, the contraception coverage mandate and recent judicial decisions that deny federal funds to religious organizations unwilling to comply with anti-discrimination laws.
To be sure, there are still cross-confessional tensions on the Right. While most conservative evangelical leaders are entirely comfortable with laissez-faire capitalism and have happily participated in the Tea Party Movement, many if not most traditionalist Catholics—along with the Church hierarchy—adhere to a social teaching tradition that inspires pointed criticism of the Ryan budget But the same Bishops who have chastised Ryan have this week cracked down on American nuns for elevating social justice concerns over “the church’s biblical view on family life and human sexuality.”
And seen from this perspective, Romney’s Mormon faith is as much a positive factor as a negative one. Indeed, another prominent evangelical critic, the homophobic American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer, has said repeatedly that his biggest problem with Romney is that “he’s not Mormon enough”—meaning, he has been insufficiently faithful to LDS teachings on abortion and homosexuality.
It’s still possible that the unfamiliar nature of Mormon doctrine may have a subtle effect on evangelical enthusiasm for Mitt. But any evangelical distrust of Mormon theology pales beside the evangelical distrust of mainstream Protestantism—which happens to be the strand of Christianity that Barack Obama belongs to. This attitude can be seen in Rick Santorum’s dismissal of mainline U.S. Protestants as “gone from the world of Christianity”—a comment from 2008 that came to light during the heat of this year’s primary season. While Santorum’s statement was widely criticized, it’s a broadly held, even axiomatic, view for many conservative evangelicals and Catholics. Indeed, conservative minorities in the mainline denominations (most notably Episcopalians) have become accustomed to accusing mainline leaders of heresy and apostasy.
Sure, conservative Christians would have preferred a candidate with a less complicated and controversial belief system than Mitt Romney’s. But as Bryan Fischer indicated, their doubts about Romney probably owe more to the conservative anxiety about his slipperiness than to any particular concerns about the LDS. And in the end, as Jeffress stated plainly, the only religious test that matters is whether you support the “Biblical values” of hostility to feminists, gays, and liberal Protestants like the president.
Ed Kilgore is a special correspondent for The New Republic, a blogger for The Washington Monthly, and managing editor of The Democratic Strategist.
14 comments
Most of those "conservative minorities" in the Episcopal Church complaining about "heresy and apostasy" are EINOs, evangelicals who joined the Episcopal Church later in life because they liked the stained glass windows and the ritual, only to "discover" they didn't care for the Church's tolerance for different social views, and who now wish to either remake the Church in their own intolerant image or, if they fail to do so, leave the Church but take the stained glass windows (and the buildings to which they are attached) with them on the way out the door. What this unfortunate episode in my Church reveals is that we, unlike Roman Catholics, are way too tolerant in welcoming outsiders, outsiders who don't share the traditions of our Church, and who are more than willing to destroy the Church if necessary to achieve their ends of remaking the Church in their intolerant image. They are EINOs, not Episcopaleans.
- rayward
April 20, 2012 at 8:36am
" Most conservative evangelical political activists, like Jeffress, have long since subordinated any theological concerns..." See, this is why we so desperately need "Separation of Church and State". Because when they become un-separated, political considerations start corrupting theological ones. And corrupt theological leaders allow their morals and support to compromise their views. I guess this is yet more "Etch-a-sketch" religiosity. "Romney's not a REAL Christian", oh wait, "He's anti-abortion, I'm for him". "Theo-cons", I like that. Ed, it's good to see you back.
- AllanL5
April 20, 2012 at 8:43am
Agree with rayward. My father grumbled mightily when liberal values started invading the Episcopal church in the 1970s, but he never thought of leaving, let alone booting the bishop. I studied a little theology and I think anyone who thinks the church is heretical now should read the 16th century Cranmer and Hooker. (Of course "fundamentalism" only dates back to 1910.)
- polijunky
April 20, 2012 at 10:08am
Kilgore is confusing the leadership with the rank and file. No one is saying that the rank and file will vote for Obama, the question is will they vote for Romney when they are in the ballot box or will they either vote downticket or vote an alternative Conservative independent? And in the swing states it would only take a small percentage of these people not voting for Romney to kill his chances, and since Romney is likely going to have to take Rubio you might have zero what they believe to be Christians on the ticket. And if Romney goes with an evangelical, then he might win most of them back but will lose the independents and can pretty much kiss any hispanic votes. Notice how Romney spends all of his time attacking Obama and no time laying out his own plans, and when Obama points this out Romney whines that Obama is running from his record I think Kilgore is way overrating the influence of talking heads. Romney has a very tough road ahead of him. He better hope Israel bombs Iran because gas prices will begin to trend down, and the economy to continue to improve.
- blackton
April 20, 2012 at 10:24am
I never thought I would say this, but I miss the religion of my youth, where Catholics were not Christians and Mormons were a heretical cult. (A line I remember: "All that Mormonism promises women is an afterlife of perpetual pregnancy!") This is why ecumenism is a bad idea. It waters down religious convictions too much. If you're compromising your beliefs for political advantage, what are you left with?
- zardoz67
April 20, 2012 at 10:53am
This is more my gut feeling, than anything that I can prove; but I think that blackton is on to something. Romney will get the endorsements and the evangelical vote. But there will be a lack of enthusiasm that will reduce the numbers that vote for him. Not all evangelicals will accept that he is a Christian, and not without reason. The theology of LDS is way different from the Pauline/Augustinian theology that is the bedrock of almost all Christianity. When Bush ran against Kerry, Rove acted to get anti-gay marriage state constitution measures on various state ballets. This helped insure a great turnout. Romney's Mormonism will work in the other direction. The question is how much?
- Vekert
April 20, 2012 at 11:32am
As a nihilist, I guess I don't have a pony in this race. As an ethical nihilist, I guess I won't shoot the other ponies.
- skahn
April 20, 2012 at 12:25pm
The bigger question is whether the predominately white evangelical church leaders see their endorsement as enough sway to get conservative black churches (which tend to be hostile to homosexuality and firmly rooted in traditional family values) will back up Romney, yeoman of that faith known for its historic institutionalized racism towards blacks until the tail end of the 20th century. I doubt it. I agree with Blackton, that there are many faithful in the flock (predominately those Episcopalians and Catholics) who do not necessarily prescribe directly to the dictates of the bishops or rectors and may not vote for Romney despite his anti-abortion and views on homosexuality. Many of the Catholics and Episcopalians I know are social centrists but tradition conservatives (meaning they were born and raised in the Church but won't leave it, despite the flaws or changes). How else does one explain a plurality of Catholic women using birth control not of the 'rhythm method' which contradicts Papal decrees? Many Catholics are still getting used to the revised Mass readings. But as we've pointed out, for Theo-Cons, it doesn't matter your religious persuasion in the end, as long as you prefer subservient women, hate homosexuals, and are pro-life who cares what you wear for underwear.
- singlspeed
April 20, 2012 at 12:34pm
God, what frauds politicized Christians are. Jesus Himself would puke, if He saw them in action. Christian Rightists would get in bed with Satan, if the Devil promised to help them implement their twisted social agenda. Come to think of it, Romney believes that Jesus and Satan are brothers. This allows him to do disgusting things in the name of Christ via His brother. Romney's campaign against Obama is going to be one of the filthiest in U.S. history. You go, Satan! Win this one for your Brother!
- magboy47.
April 20, 2012 at 2:34pm
It is worth remembering that this whole religious right/Moral Majority/whatchamacallit business got its real impetus as a convulsively rabid reaction against the presidency of a Southern Baptist Sunday School teacher. (Indeed, at about the same time as this right wing was politically lining up against the Sunday School teacher, it was denominationally launching its fundamnmentalist takeover of said Sunday School teacher's denomination, so that it now serves quite reliably and effectively as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican Party.) For their paragon of religious virtue they turned to a long-lapsed Presbyterian who hadn't seen the inside of a church in quite a while and whose wife was into astrology (though they probably didn't know that). Given those origins, the ability of these political fundamnmentalists to line up behind a Mormon against a mainliner should hardly be surprising.
- cspencef
April 20, 2012 at 5:08pm
"..the same Bishops who have chastised Ryan have this week cracked down on American nuns for elevating social justice concerns over 'the church’s biblical view on family life and human sexuality.' " Tangential comment, but if there is a part of the RC establishment for which I still feel any great respect, it is these ladies of the church. The ladies, who know about real life & the problems faced by real people - unlike the strutting, self-infatuated church fathers, with minds lost in theological absolutism, in utter unreality. These men seem bent of doing whatever they can the destroy the living heart & soul of the institution over which they preside.
- Haole45
April 21, 2012 at 1:03pm
erratum: can the destroy -> can to destroy
- Haole45
April 21, 2012 at 1:04pm
>"Mormons are as welcome in the fight against encroaching secularism as anyone else." Epic fail. If you ever spoke to anyone on the Christian right - and listened - you would know that "doesn't care" is far, far too strong a formulation. "Can grudglingly live with the fact" is closer to the truth, but still too strong. I believe there's real discomfort there, which won't ease as the reality of Romney as the nominee is ratified and sinks in. I expect an intra-Republican-party backlash about this during the campaign, and that a big chunk of the "base" will be unenthusiastic about donating or helping the campaign, with some getting vocal about their discomfort. Quite possibly enough so to tip the election, if it's close. This will also be one of the factors keeping Romney "righter than right" throughout any Presidency we are unfortunate enough for him to have; Christian rightists don't like his religion and are looking for reasons to turn on him.
- floydsm8
April 21, 2012 at 10:35pm
@blackton excellent points. One quibble: I happen to believe that if Israel bombs Iran before the election, Obama would have no choice but to put the US all in in support - and would win in a landslide as a result.
- floydsm8
April 21, 2012 at 10:39pm