I am a big fan of Jim Dobson and his work with families. This blog has defended him against unfair attacks in the past, but he should avoid this kind of statement:

“I don’t believe that conservative Christians in large numbers will vote for a Mormon but that remains to be seen, I guess,” Mr. Dobson said on a syndicated radio program hosted by a conservative commentator, Laura Ingraham.

This is a cagey way of speaking. It does not endorse the attitude and later in the interview Dobson says some nice things about Romney, but this statement is a sad reminder of the “I am afraid America is not ready for a (pick an oppressed group) for (pick a high level job)” used to telegraph feelings about a group in the past.

This argument has a nefarious history in American politics. It allows the speaker to appeal to the prejudices of his followers while staying clear of them himself. I am confident Dobson (a good man) had no intention to do this, but it is a good example of accidentally falling into a dangerous language pattern that will allow his critics (and they are many) to paint him in bigot’s colors. Dobson is not so narrow and it would be a shame for him to allow the old-media room to attack.

So my advice: Oppose Romney for political reasons or if you oppose him for his religion, do so openly and not in the guise of “those other folk will not.” If you must make the argument that Evangelicals will not vote for a Mormon, do so using actual statistics to avoid the appearance that you are telegraphing your audience without stating your opinions (thus avoiding the need to defend them).

I have written at length about the reasons opposing Romney based on his Mormonism is unsound for traditional Christians. Since writing that article, I have received a large number of responses, but only one decent argument opposed to it.

A very thoughtful Torrey graduate pointed out that if one believes Mormonism to be false, then one should not do anything to encourage people to choose a dangerous falsehood. Electing a Mormon President of the United States, on this argument, might normalize the LDS Church and so lead to more conversions to Mormonism.

I think this argument breaks down for three reasons, First, it assumes that Mormonism is not already a “normal” part of American politics. Mormons are already major players in at least three states (Utah, Idaho, and Arizona) and highly influential in Republican politics in general. Evangelicals need to “get over” their wish that Mormonism would vanish or is a small group that can safely be dismissed with the label “cult.” Instead, we should begin treating Mormonism as a large, respectable, and powerful competitor in the marketplace of ideas.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no fan of Mormon doctrine, but then I work with pro-life Catholics while having very definite feelings about the Pope’s claim to be the universal head of the Church. Mormons never sacked Constantinople, the mother city of my church, like the Pope’s army did, but I manage to overcome serious historical and theological differences and join ranks with my Catholic pro-life comrades.

While we strongly disagree with Mormons and other religious groups (such as Judaism, Islam, or Hinduism), traditional Christians are wise enough to make common cause with them when we can. In the culture of free inquiry which traditional Christianity embraces, there is nothing dangerous about letting people get to know (or see us working with) people with whom we have serious disagreements, since we are confident in our theological arguments. I encourage my students to read the Book of Mormon and examine its claims seriously before engaging in any dialogue with Mormons. Knowledge not the prejudice that is the result of ignorance is our guiding light as traditional Christians.

If we could vote for Reagan, whose doctrinal notions were at best fuzzy, then my guess is that we can stomach Romney (whose theology is at least coherent). I don’t think my vote for my political hero Reagan converted throngs to Nancy’s well known use of astrology.

If I were Dobson, I would be more concerned about most pols worship at the Church of Me (see John McCain) more than Romney’s sincere Mormonism. At least we know Romney worships something beyond himself.

Second, common cause in politics is not the same as common cause in theology. Anyone who would pick their religion based on their President suffers from severe problems anyway.

Third, Romney is governor of an Eastern state without such a large concentration of Mormons and I have seen no evidence that this lead to increased conversion to the LDS Church. Absent such evidence Evangelicals should

At the moment, I have not decided on a candidate for President, but Romney’s Mormonism is an insufficient reason to oppose him and good people like Dobson should take care in respectively singling out one candidate’s religion in discussing him.