If sales of Hugh Hewitt’s newest book are any indication, Mitt Romney is going to be a potent force in the next presidential race.
Hugh Hewitt does not need any defenders and Erick Erickson has written a capable and informative review of Hugh’s new book. (Note: I am featured in an interview in this book.) It is also sad to link to Erick Erickson and the fine folk at Redstate for the first time in a moment of disagreement, but who wants to read a blog post about how really, really swell someone’s review is?
Erickson makes a couple of claims at the end of his review that require comment. Of course they may not require comment from me, but it is the job of a philosopher to comment on everything!
Erickson says:
Hewitt offers a great snapshot of what truly delightful people Mitt Romney and his family are and tries to make the case for Romney as the conservative standard bearer in 2008. But in objective substance, Hewitt comes up deficient. In his conclusion, he quotes Dr. Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Convention as saying, “I would be hesitant to do anything that would draw attention to Mormonism as a mainstream part of American culture and, therefore, more likely to appear as a legitimate Christian denomination when I do not believe it is.”
Let me first say that an autographed picture of Al Mohler would immediately go up on my office wall. (Anyone listening?)
He has been a leader for many of the good, true, and beautiful things going on in American higher education. However, this particular quotation is unfortunate. I can only charitably assume Dr. Mohler would phrase it differently now.
Is Mohler implying that Mormonism is not a mainstream part of “American culture?” Given the fact that it has had politically powerful members in one state of the Union for over a century and is very powerful in at least three other states (Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho), this would be difficult to justify.
Mormons have leading positions in other state governments, the federal government (paging Senator Reid!), law, business, medicine, diplomacy, the arts, and entertainment.
Are we to stand in terror of the politics of Orrin Hatch? Will the religion of the author of the wonderful Ender’s Game ban Easter? What will happen to us if Los Angeles becomes as pleasant as Salt Lake City?
Pardon me if my terror is moderate.
There are millions of Mormons and they show no sign of disappearing.
It is time Christians deal with Mormons as another faith and not indulge in the wishful thinking that if we only marginalize them (by not inviting them to our Baptist cocktail parties?) that they will go away.
Let me stress that I do not think Mormon theology (as I understand it) is Christian. I do not agree with it, but then I do not agree with Islamic theology, Jewish theology, or other mainstream religious ideas. The best way to deal with these ideas is to forcefully witness for my faith (as Mohler does so ably!) and pray for my neighbor’s conversion.
Aren’t folk more likely to convert if confronted with the truth in a reasonable, honest, and charitable way than if we come across as rude? Mohler is, in fact, a model of this passionate, but loving discourse normally and so I assume that this quotation is just not Mohler at his best.
Perhaps, Mohler is merely hesitating to draw attention to the fact that Mormonism is a part of mainstream American life (which it surely is). In this case, he is saying what folk might say about the crazy aunt who lives in the guest room when company comes. “It is not that we don’t love Aunt Bee, just don’t let the Smythe-Wessons know she is here.”
At the very least this seems like a remarkably offensive view. My Mormon neighbor is a part of civil society. Our social compact is based on adherence to the Constitution of 1789 and does not require my Mormon neighbor to join my local parish.
While our commonwealth is based on general Christian principles, there is no indication that my Mormon neighbor rejects these particular principles, even if he is not a Christian (in my understanding of the faith). One can, after all, believe that all human beings are endowed with a right to life from their Creator without believing in the two natures of Christ . . .
It seems obvious that a group can be wrong about one thing while accepting good ideas about another thing.
Every study that I have seen shows that my Mormon neighbor is, indeed, most often a model citizen. The Mormon church seems remarkably presentable in the public square even if disreputable company for the church social.
If the Romney candidacy does anything, it should pose the hard question to Christians of why this is the case. What can we learn from the remarkable Mormon commitment to education and social welfare for its members? What can we learn from the high levels of patriotism and civil involvement?
The second fear that Mohler expresses is also misplaced.
He worries that Romney will make Mormonism seem more like a “legitimate Christian” group.
He will be glad to know that my faith in the holiness standards of Baptists survived Clinton and my belief in their sanity survived Carter, though that was a closer call.
Anyone who picks their view of a religion (as a religion) based on the President’s faith is so irrational that they cannot be the subject of a reasonable man’s concern. There is just no predicting how such folk would act!
I think it far more likely that it is a traditional Mormon that should worry about a Romney candidacy pressing Mormonism in an Evangelical direction. There is always social pressure on a religious minority group to conform to the larger group. In explaining their ideas to the rest of us, I think it far more likely that Mormons will evolve in a Christian direction, than that the rest of us will suddenly decide their more esoteric theology is mainstream.
A good Baptist like Mohler should welcome anything that ends Mormon isolation and gets them into dialog with smart, theologically sound, robust leaders like . . . well, like Al Mohler!
Craig Hazen, the first-rate head of the Biola apologetics program, spent a semester with my Torrey Honors students reading primary Mormon source documents. The students read the book of Mormon and then were able to dialog with Mormon leaders intelligently.
No students became “more Mormon” or decided that Mormon views were mainstream . . . years of Bible study, sound reasoning skills, and a broad reading of Church history prevented that!
Instead, they were able to question Mormon friends and leaders better. Understanding led to charity, but it did not lead to compromise!
I am confident that Dr. Mohler would agree with this approach . . .
As to the public square, my Mormon neighbor should bring his public policy assumptions and ideas to all of us. I should hear them and judge them based on my own views. Romney obviously has views well within the American political mainstream as a conservative.
Will he get my vote? Perhaps, but not because (or despite) his particular religious beliefs. Elsewhere I have described a three fold test to apply to see if a “religious” system is too “far out” to be worthy of consideration.
He also quotes blogger Ed Morrisey, who said, “If Mitt can avoid too many public connections with the Mormon Church and show some strength in the early primaries . . . he can win the nomination.” Those quotes draw me back to one of the strengths Hugh cites — the great horde of Mormon missionaries who will help Mitt in the Iowa caucus, the very first state on the road to the White House. I wonder why it is that Romney can take such a great advantage of these young people, but evangelicals and others should not even consider it. Hugh’s failure to substantively, objectively address that issue, the central issue of his book, will leave all but those already supporting Mitt Romney or leaning in his direction, wanting more.
This last bit is very confusing to me. Why is it surprising that Romney would have a home team advantage like that enjoyed by any religious candidate?
I assume a serious Catholic (Rudy need not apply) would enjoy many a large home school Catholic family knocking on doors. Will Governor Huckabee ignore Baptists in his quest to the White House or work his network? Don’t we all remember groans of fear when “Christian fundamentalists” came to vote in Iowa and how offensive they were?
Nobody should suggest that Mormonism as a social network (and religions are those!) cannot help Mitt . . .
Religious movements have many functions . . .and the social network is one that a politician can licitly exploit if he stays clear of the religious aspects. This has always been true in American history and the know-nothings who oppose it have never fared well.
If the President of the LDS sends floods of Mormon missionaries to Iowa to vote for Romney with the candidates consent, then he will lose the votes of most sensible non-Mormons and deserve the loss . . . just as the Pope telling Rudy what to do about Iraq . . . and Rudy vowing to do whatever His Holiness says would be equally damaging.
Even a quick glance at the Mormon church shows that the first fear is as ludicrous as the second. I for one welcome any social swarm of hard working, patriotic, people that descend on California before the primary! If they are (partly) motivated by a (justifiable) pride in one of their own, then I will understand that pride.
If they talk politics, I bet I will agree with them.
If they stray into theology, then I will give them a good argument.
What is to worry about?
Any Christian who fears hordes of Mormon political workers coming to his house has too much time on his hands.
