I note that leading conservative evangelicals are quietly (and not so quietly) putting their eggs in the Mitt Romney basket. With Mike Huckabee going nowhere, Fred Thompson still mysteriously half-hearted, and Sam Brownback dropping out of the ‘08 race, most thoughtful social conservatives realize that Romney represents the only real chance they have to avoid having to cope with noted pro-choice philanderer Rudy Giuliani as Republican nominee.
Today’s endorsement comes from the professor and theologian Wayne Grudem, the leading defender of what egalitarian evangelicals like me sometimes call the “complementarian heresy”. This follows the endorsement of Romney earlier this week by Robert Taylor, dean at the ultra-conservative Bob Jones University.
The big question: will the fundamentalist Protestant elite succeed in convincing their footsoldiers that it’s okay to vote for a Mormon, or will a disconnect emerge between the relative pragmatism of folks like Grudem and Taylor and the evangelical base, many of whom will be unable to separate Romney’s politics from his LDS faith — which they regard as a cult?
I’m a progressive evangelical with no interest in supporting Mitt Romney. But part of me would like to see him gain the nomination (and then lose the general election), if only to strike a blow for religious tolerance. Maybe then Christian bookstores (like that at my own Fuller Seminary) won’t still stock books about Mormonism under “cults”, as it would be a bit awkward for evangelicals to view their political champion as a cult member!
UPDATE: I’ve been sent this link: Dallas minister urges vote for a Christian, not Romney
UPDATE II: Maybe Mike Huckabee is going somewhere. Lord knows, I like the way he talks about a responsibility to the poor; he’s a social conservative, but he makes good sense on some of the economic issues. After all, anyone who can attract the ire of the Club for Growth can’t be all bad. If I were a principled social conservative (I’m not, at least not the conservative part), I’d be an enthusiastic Huckabee guy.
I grew up in the Southern Baptist Church and Mormons were heathen on their way to hell as far as the SBC is concerned. In fact, at one time the SBC had a very comprehensive evangelism program to rescue Mormons from their heresy. They sent home missionaries to Utah and other Mormon populations to save them. It absolutely floored me when Tom Land and Albert Mohler stated their support of Romney. But here’s the question: will their SBC followers buy it? The SBC is the second largest Christian denomination in the US. Will generations of SBCers who have heard that Mormonism is a cult vote for Romney? It’s going to be interesting to watch.
I think there’s going to be a real disconnect. The pragmatism of the leadership (who are desperate to have a GOP candidate who shares their values on the pelvic issues, even if it means endorsing a “cult” member) won’t cross over to many in the SBC and the fundamental or pentecostal churches. Many die-hard fundies will worry that electing Romney will legitimize Mormonism and empower missions work by the LDS church; in the great eschatological battle that they believe we’re fighting, that’s the worst possible outcome. Even worse than a second President Clinton.
If I know my fundies, many of them will support a third-party candidate or stay home rather than vote for Giuliani or Romney. Remember that GWB got evangelical support because he convinced them that not only did he share their values, he shared their faith — that got him key votes in 2000 and 2004. Romney can’t do that.
The fundamentalist elite can separate political goals from theological ones. But many of the
simplefolk in the fly-over states cannot and will not make that distinction. For these folks, many of whom suspect that the End Times are at hand, theological purity trumps ideology every time.Hmmm. I’m not sure about that. Evangelical voters turned out in droves for George W. Bush who is after all a United Methodist and theologically fuzzy at best. Granted Methodism is probably not (yet?) considered a cult by the SBC, but I think evangelical voters may be more politically savvy than you’re giving them credit for.
Also, “the simple folk”?
Most evangelicals saw Bush as one of them — they were galvanized by his “Jesus” moment in the presidential debate, and I’d bet few of them could name what church W attends. And while they may not grasp the distinction between Wesley’s “Arminianism” and five point Calvinism, their ecumenism extends only as far as the boundaries of the broad evangelical consensus. W was inside it, and Mitt and the LDS church are way outside of it. And they know it.
I repent of the derisory “simple folk.” Sigh, I do try and hide that effete coastal elitism, but it slips out. (I note that the congressman who represents the district in which my family ranch is located, Pete Stark, is also having problems with words slipping out…)
Are you an alum of Fuller or a student currently?
Neither — but I’ve audited several classes, was married to a Fuller grad student, gave money to Fuller (and not just in terms of tuition for aforementioned ex), went to Fuller graduations, and taught workshops on sexual harassment to Fuller seminarians. And I live a quarter of a mile from Fuller. So I feel like a Fuller kinda guy.
Not to mention I’ve spent a lot of money in the bookstore. And heck, I just have this awful habit of appropriating things I like or live in proximity to. Los Angeles is “my city”, and so forth; I have several churches listed under “my” churches on the sidebar.
i’m a fuller baby (born while my father attended; an awful lot of alums from that era know me by name b/c of the circumstances of my birth)…and also just up the street.
since you follow mouw, you’re well aware, i’m sure, of him and zacharias speaking at the mormon tabernacle.
Yes, Mouw has been terrific about Mormon-evangelical relations. When Mouw was a graduate student at Alberta in the early ’60s, he played in a trio with my father (an atheist) and their mutual friend Dick Bosley (also a philosopher, and a former LDS missionary).
Mitt’s church, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has been often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers in the past . . Some accused the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . .
http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity’s theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. Mitt’s church believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, who prayed to his Father in Heaven in the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Jesus portrayed in the creeds of the 4th Century.
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian (New Testament) theology more closely than other Christian denominations. . Perhaps the reason Evangelical preachers promoted this mis-representation was to protect their flock (and their livlihood). It is encouraging to note that Evangelical preachers appear now to have a moral and competent president as a priority..
I wonder why Mitt’s dog does not attract more attention (Romney apparently strapped his dog in a dog carrier to the roof of his car for a drive home from vacation). Like the original curious incident of Sherlock Holmes: Romney straps his dog to a fast-moving car, and Hugo doesn’t bark!
As you said yourself, Hugo, better a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. I think you’re underating the intelligence of the simple people. Voting for a Mormon analagous to voting for a Conservative Jew, and plenty of evangelicals have no trouble doing that.
I sometimes wonder whether there’s not a bit of anti-Mormon bigotry-by-proxy behind the way so many on the left are so obsessed with the possibility of evangelicals refusing to vote for a Mormon.
Not to mention that there’s a lot of difference between “a Mormon” and “this Mormon.”
It’s going to come down to not just “can I vote for a Mormon” but “can I vote for Mitt Romney?” Put him up there looking clean cut with his five boys and applauding wife, give him a Billy Graham quote or two, and then stick him next to Hillary Clinton. I think for most Evangelicals, it’ll be an easier choice than Hugo thinks.
John, you may be right. Please know, even at my most Machiavellian, I would never want religious bigotry to play in my candidate’s favor.
Look, I think Romney’s still going to be the GOP nominee. As a registered Republican (albeit a liberal one on the social issues, the environment, and on foreign policy) I’m not going to vote for him in the primary (where I’ll vote for McCain, who has no chance at the nomination), and I won’t vote for him against Clinton (or, less likely, Edwards or Obama.) Romney will be a good, smart, campaigner — and he’s the only candidate the right has that can threaten to turn some marginally “blue” states (Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania) back into “red” ones without risking losing marginally “red” ones. (If evangelicals don’t turn out for Giuliani, the GOP loses, say, Missouri and Ohio.) As someone who wants at least a marginally better voice on the environment and global justice in the White House in 2008, Romney is the candidate I fear most. But I wouldn’t use his religion against him.