In The News
A few interesting articles you will want to read:
1. David Broder fantasizes about a Huckabee breakthrough.
2. Hillary & Bill almost divorced
Governor Mike Huckabee With Bill Bennett
Bill Bennett and Mike Huckabee recently engaged in a very interesting conversation on almost everything imaginable. Huckabee is making it ever more clear that he is the candidate with the best understanding of and agenda for America's domestic policy and international interests
To listen in, please check out this link.
Mitt Romney's Candidacy and Richard Land's Curious Logic (Part 2)
Written by guest blogger Susan Stilley.
In yesterday’s post, I discussed the current wave of Mitt euphoria and the way in which many conservatives are promoting the idea that any questioning of a candidate’s religion is strictly taboo. I see this as a preemptive strike to keep Mitt Romney’s Mormonism from coming back to bite him in his temple garment draped derrière’, should he actually become the Republican nominee.
Many conservatives are embarrassed by Romney's cult status but feel that loyalty to the conservative cause dictates that they try to protect him. This is eerily familiar, for Democrats likewise felt compelled to protect Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal out of loyalty to the liberal cause. The chant in the Clinton era was, “The man’s private life is completely separate from his fitness for the presidency”, just as the current chant is, “The man’s religious life is completely separate from his fitness for the presidency.”
America is not a theocracy and the President is not our pastor, priest or rabbi. However, is it not reasonable that voters take more than a passing interest in the religious practices of a candidate? Is it not the duty of thinking Christians to scrutinize a candidate's belief system and determine if such a person in the Oval Office would do harm to the cause of Christ? This is not to say we require lockstep agreement. I submit that a nonbeliever with no particular religious affiliation who holds to a high standard of morality and ethics could make a fine President. In contrast, a candidate who springs from an organization that wrenches biblical figures out of history and installs them in science fiction tales resembling a bad B movie, while audaciously claiming such imaginings to be true Christianity, could cause serious harm to the cause of Christ.
I believe Mitt Romney has the capacity to do such harm. Apparently, Dr. Richard Land of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention does not agree. On NPR, Land offered this perspective on a Romney bid for President.
"I'm not electing a pastor-in-chief. I'm electing a commander-in-chief.... He (Romney) can overcome the Mormon part of it. It's not a deal killer if he proves that he's the most viable social conservative candidate."
On the day of the second Republican debate, Land appeared on the Dennis Prager radio program to discuss the Republican frontrunners. When questioned about his willingness to vote for Mitt Romney, Land acknowledged that he could do so and that he had even advised Romney how to quell concerns about his Mormonism by making a speech in JFK fashion, assuring voters that he isn't the Mormon candidate but the Republican candidate. This meeting was at the invitation of Romney and held at his Belmont home where Land attended along with about a dozen other evangelical leaders. As quoted in The Boston Globe, Land said, "I told him I thought most Americans believed in fair play, and you have the opportunity to take the poison out of this issue the same way that Kennedy did."
First of all, I find the image of influential Christian leaders huddling around Mitt Romney's kitchen table and guiding him through the evangelical maze on his way to the White House, not only disturbing but downright creepy. As a Southern Baptist I am dismayed that Richard Land, who carries much influence within our denomination, would assist a man who falls into the category Paul describes in Galations 1:8. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." How do we go from 'be accursed' to support for the highest political office in the land? A man such as this should be witnessed to, not coached to the presidency. Because I normally have a great deal of respect for Dr. Land, this feels like a betrayal, something akin to discovering your husband was invited to have cookies and milk with Angelina Jolie...and he went.
Secondly, what exactly does Land mean when he tells Romney, "you have the opportunity to take the poison out of this issue"? What is the poison? Obviously the poison isn't Romney's own heresy, for that would imply the remedy would be a conversion. The only explanation is that the poison is in us! The poison is our so called "religious bigotry" which keeps us from taking the pragmatist's path and supporting the candidate with the whitest smile and the slickest delivery, the one most electable.
Of course Richard Land is very careful to note in just about every interview that he doesn't endorse any candidate. He explains that he believes in the priesthood of the believer and that each man must vote his own conscience. Who is he kidding? He need not formally endorse someone to endorse them nevertheless. When millions of listeners hear him say that he would vote for a Mormon for president, he has effectively given the green light to a large group of Christians who are undecided. Why are radio and T.V. talk shows eager for Land to appear? Not strictly for his individual opinion, as if it is isolated and floating around in space somewhere, but because he is the ethical voice of sixteen million Baptists and his opinion has the power to impact millions more. As Dennis Prager said, "When Richard Land makes statements properly, many Christians and people of faith take them seriously." Why did Mitt Romney seek Land's counsel in the first place? Romney invited him for a reason and it wasn't to compare Osmond albums. He wanted approval and Land gave it to him. Formal endorsements aren't necessary when a general 'all clear' signal will do the trick.
Surely Dr. Land understands all this. He is certainly confident enough in his own power of persuasion to shift support away from Rudy Giuliani. I am in general agreement with his assessment of Giuliani as discussed on the Dennis Prager program. However, the basis by which he gives Giuliani a failing grade as a potential President but gives Mitt Romney a pass requires strange logic. Let us try to unpack his argument.
First, let us consider Land's analogy mentioned above. Land says that he can vote for Romney because he is voting for a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief. That is a great sound bite, but it is horrible logic. Using the same reasoning a Giuliani supporter could justify his vote for Giuliani in that he is voting for a commander-in-chief, not a husband-in-chief. What would Land say to that analogy?
Land claims that Giuliani's troubled marital history disqualifies him from the office of the presidency. Giuliani is in his third marriage, having cheated on his first two wives, the second wife suffering much humiliation as Giuliani strutted his mistress on his arm at the former NYC mayor's mansion. His ex-wife had to get a restraining order and Giuliani became estranged from his own son...all ugly business indeed. Land is concerned about "what it would mean to the culture in terms of the acceptability of divorce and the desirability of divorce for young people for the President of the United States to be a twice divorced man." Land also states, "The presidency is a bully pulpit whether you intend it to be or not." After having made character and adultery an issue with Clinton, Land feels he cannot be inconsistent (even hypocritical) and turn around and ignore the same issues to vote for Giuliani. "I am not that ethically flexible" he claims.
I find this an admirable position. I just don't understand why the same reasoning is not applied to Mitt Romney. If the presidency is indeed a bully pulpit and a Giuliani presidency could therefore encourage acceptance of adultery and divorce, could not a Romney presidency encourage acceptance of Mormonism as a viable Christian faith? Already the propaganda machine is cranking out fresh media and literature, dishonestly representing Mormonism as Christianity. Callers to radio talk shows have repeatedly chimed, "I am a (insert denomination) myself but at least Romney is a Christian." Confusion is running rampant and he isn't even the Republican nominee yet! Is it not reasonable to assume that four or eight years of a Mormon presidency will lead to even greater confusion?
The poor moral example of Giuliani would indeed have an effect on the culture but it would be a passive effect. If I am approached for an extramarital affair, I seriously doubt the 'come on' line will be, "Let me tell you about what Giuliani did..." Whereas, if I am approached by those clean cut, eager missionaries riding their bicycles, I fully expect their sales pitch to include, "Let me tell you about our Christian faith, the faith of President Romney..." Such a scenario will play itself out millions of times over in living rooms and on doorsteps all over the world. People who are open to knowing Christ will instead be introduced to a counterfeit gospel. How many lost people will accept this false gospel and mistakenly believe they have trusted in the Risen Lord, only to be told by the Lord Himself one day, "Depart from me, I never knew you." Of Rudy Giuliani and also Newt Gingrich, Richard Land says he "cannot take moral responsibility for putting them in office." With the above scenario looming on the horizon, would Land be willing to 'take responsibility' for putting Mitt Romney in office? An interesting question.
One more thought regarding consistency. Land says it would be hypocritical to maintain different standards of marital faithfulness for Republicans and Democrats. However, he does not seem to be concerned about consistency when he claims that Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code is dangerous, but that he could vote for a Mormon who advocates similar beliefs. Think back to the opening of the movie The Da Vinci Code and the furor it caused in the evangelical world. After months on the bestseller list, Dan Brown's fictional thriller about a plot to cover up Jesus' supposed marriage to Mary Magdalene and their subsequent children, was coming to the big screen and Christians of all stripes launched counter measures. Every church with a marquee advertised "Cracking the Da Vinci Code" or a similar study, in an effort to educate church members and the community about the historical and biblical inaccuracies of the film. During an interview with Darrell Bock on the For Faith & Family radio program, Land shared the outrage he felt whenever he was on an airplane and noticed passengers reading, The Da Vinci Code.
"I just want to snatch it out of their hand and say, 'This is complete and utter nonsense... that you need to question everything in this book including 'and' and 'the'!"
You go, Richard! But where, oh where is the outrage at the prospect of a Book of Mormon toting presidential candidate? According to Mormonism, Jesus was not only married to Mary of Magdala, but had several wives, a whole bevy of biblical babes. If, The Da Vinci Code is heresy, then The Book of Mormon is heresy supersized! Land continued in his commentary on The Da Vinci Code,
"This book is a dangerous book. It's full of errors and it's full of errors purporting to be the real truth about the gospel."
This is the very essence of Mormonism, error purporting to be the real truth. The legitimization of Mormon theology by virtue of a Mormon president should be a 'deal killer' for Dr. Land. If he is not 'ethically flexible' with regard to Giuliani, he should not be biblically flexible with regard to Romney.
As a columnist from The Wall Street Journal said, "Richard Land is a man waiting to be courted." Very true. I only wish he were more discerning in regard to those with whom he sits in the parlor. I hope that Dr. Land prayerfully reconsiders his position and publicly reverses himself. To a large extent, the damage has already been done, the genie has been let out of the bottle, in that millions have already heard his comments. Still, a public reversal would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion which is currently reigning in our culture as to the acceptability of Mormonism as a Christian faith. Such a declaration might cost him another pair of "inauguration cuff links" but that is a small price to pay when the eternal consequences are so great.
Mitt Romney's Candidacy and Richard Land's Curious Logic
Written by guest blogger Susan Stilley
Al Sharpton recently commented that those “who really believe in God” will defeat Mitt Romney’s bid to become President of the United States. Since that time, conservatives in the media have been in full howl over Sharpton’s "religious bigotry" and "hypocrisy."
Perhaps his statement was in bad form, but surely it did not merit as much attention as it has been given. Still, it seems to have launched a cry from conservative pundits everywhere that a candidates’ religion is completely private and that it should have no bearing on one's fitness for the office of the President. Any scrutiny of a candidate's religious life is now dismissed without consideration. When callers to conservative talk shows raise questions about Romney’s Mormonism they are quickly cut off by hosts, who claim that "this is not the place to get into theology." Anyone who evaluates Mormonism and finds it more than a little bizarre, thereby questioning Romney’s judgment is de facto a religious bigot a la Al Sharpton.
There seems to be plenty of room on the "religion is irrelevant" bandwagon for conservative media personalities, political talking heads, and religious experts. Why?
Many conservatives have concluded that Romney might very well be the most attractive candidate for the Republican nomination. Giuliani scored big points in the second debate, however, he carries a lot of baggage for evangelicals and McCain is dropping in the polls. Thus, the attempt to completely separate Romney from his Mormonism seems to be a preemptive strike on the part of conservatives to keep Romney's questionable faith practices from being an issue later on should he be squared off against Hillary or Obama. I don’t believe this to be a conscious plot hatched in a smoke filled room, but rather a natural strategy born out of the desire to win an election.
The prevailing attitude of conservatives is reminiscent of the attitude of Democrats when Bill Clinton’s sexual scandals made the news. Most Democrats were embarrassed by Clinton’s escapades but he was their man and they felt it their duty to protect him, hence the need to erect the sharp separation of the man’s private life from his public life as President. Republicans are doing the same thing with Romney - he is not their man yet but he might be in the future. They are likewise embarrassed by Romney (at least those familiar with Mormonism) but feel it their duty to protect him, hence the need to erect the sharp separation of his religious life from his public life as a potential President.
Two of the most important qualities we seek in a President is that of personal integrity and sound judgment. Romney’s Mormonism gives us just cause to question both. As a religion, Mormonism ranks on about the same level as Scientology in that they are both science fictionesque. However, Scientology is the more honest of the two. Scientology is what it is and doesn’t claim to be anything else. Mormonism, on the other hand, claims to be Christianity (in fact, it claims to be the only true Christianity) yet does not hold to the basic tenets of historic Christian faith. If one wishes to weave fantastic tales of Jesus and Lucifer being brothers, God the Father having physical sex with the Virgin Mary, Jesus having several wives, Jesus appearing and teaching to the North American Indians, the ability of mortal men to become gods and rule over other planets with multiple goddess wives, well...he has the right to start a religion based on such fiction. He does NOT have the right to call that religion Christianity.
Mormonism is the Premier Bait and Switch Religion. Missionaries (including Romney who did a two year stint in France) are trained to use Christian terminology to initiate potential converts, implying that Mormonism is another branch of Christianity, all the while knowing that the Mormon Jesus and Mormon salvation is something altogether different. Not the most noble training ground for someone seeking the highest political office in the land. We already have a problem with disingenuous politicians who say one thing when it is politically expedient while believing and acting otherwise. Do we really want a President whose missionary activity and leadership roles in his ‘church’ have been steeped in bait and switch tactics as a philosophy of faith? There is strong evidence that such chicanery has found its way into Mitt Romney’s political practice. His constant switching on such issues as abortion and gay rights, and his embarrassing claim to have been a hunter all his life are indicators that the man is lacking in personal integrity.
But what about that (sigh...) winning smile? The graying at the temples that give him such a dignified appearance? The voice as smooth as silk? Mitt sounds oh so presidential. He looks oh so presidential. And he’s so tall! Shouldn’t our next President be tall? The thought of Mitt Romney besting Hillary Clinton is enough to make many in the Republican party grow weak in the knees and swoon in victorious ecstacy. At a time when conservatives should be engaged in mature reasoning and sober evaluation of the candidate, they are looking more and more like teenage girls in the audience of American Idol, fawning and crying over Sanjaya.
For several weeks I have listened to the Mitt euphoria on radio and T.V. talk shows with irritation but not surprise. After all, in political life pragmatism often wins the day so why should the eensy weensy detail of a Presidential hopeful’s participation in a cult bother anybody? I can understand how talk show hosts who are unschooled in Christian theology could go down this path. However, this week I heard something that not only alarmed me but sent chills down my spine. As I was driving my car I tuned into the Dennis Prager radio program just as he was declaring, “This major evangelical would vote for a Mormon.” Which major evangelical, pray-tell, is he talking about? I wondered. It turned out to be none other than Dr. Richard Land, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. As a Southern Baptist myself, I was so annoyed I actually stared at the radio for a few seconds in disbelief and almost ran off the road.
To be fair, Richard Land’s purpose on the program was not to endorse Romney but to promote his latest book. Due to Giuliani’s adultery and especially the mistreatment of his second wife, Land stated that he could not in good conscience vote for Giuliani for President. Point well taken. Then when Prager questioned him about voting for Mitt Romney, Land admits his conscience would allow him to vote for Romney. He even explained how he had met with Romney and advised him to make a speech similar to the speech JFK made to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. This would presumably overcome Romney's Mormon problem with evangelicals and we would all sleep better at night, ready to bound energetically to the polls on Election Day. The idea that one of the most influential evangelical leaders in the country would act as ‘coach’ to a man whose very presence in the White House would legitimize ‘another gospel’ is appalling.
I have several problems with Dr. Lands’s position on both biblical and logical grounds. His reasoning as to why Giuliani and Gingrich could not garner his support, but Romney could amounts to a curious logic. Considering he received his doctorate in philosophy from Oxford, is the ethical voice of sixteen million Baptists, and was featured in Time Magazine as one of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America, I would have expected better. In tomorrow’s post (Part 2.) I will elaborate on my objections to his reasoning.
In the meantime, it looks like the Romney groupies better start making room for the Evangelical cheering section.
CLICK HERE TO READ PART TWO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
