Today, Mitt Romney will defend his faith to the nation, suggesting primarily to conservative Christians that it's okay to be a Mormon and still be the president of our country. Some are comparing it to Kennedy's speech when he defended his Catholic faith for the same reason. And I don't know that Romney is far wrong. There appears to be many Christians who simply refuse to vote for a Mormon for president.
Frankly, I'm baffled. (Any of my regular readers will add, "And what else is new?") What does one have to do with the other? What does one's particular beliefs regarding the sacred have to do with the secular? Where do we (by "we" I mean "conservative Christians") find any sort of basis for "only a Christian in the White House"? I don't find it in the Bible. (Funny ... I don't even find "the White House" or even "America" in the Bible.) I don't find it in the Constitution. I don't find it in logical thinking. What does one have to do with the other?
The truth is that Mormonism is not classical Christianity. There is much debate on that count, I know, but really, there isn't much to talk about. At its core, classical Christianity is monotheistic. Everyone knows the link between Judaism and Christianity (as evidenced by the well-known term, "Judeo-Christian"). Both share a monotheistic religious perspective. Both share the same "God". Mormonism is unabashedly polytheistic. Right or wrong, that disqualifies it from being part of classical Christianity. If you define a Christian as a Christ follower, there still remains the question of "Which Christ?" Christianity has maintained from its inception that Jesus was "in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6). The doctrine of the Trinity, as much as detractors might disagree, has been there since the beginning. Mormonism argues that it is a deviation from the original intent. Again, right or wrong, that disqualifies it from being part of classical Christianity. Further, it means that while they may be "Christ followers", it is a different Christ that they are following. In Christianity, Jesus was God Incarnate (or "God with us"). In Mormonism he (note the lower case "h" there) was the son of God, the spirit brother of Satan. That is a different Jesus. Mormonism can claim to be correct -- that is their prerogative -- but it doesn't make sense to claim to be Christian without first agreeing that all of classical Christianity and its adherents are not Christian. The two are incompatible. And, of course, when you diverge on basic claims like "Is there one God or more than one?" and "Who was Jesus?", it follows that you will diverge on all sorts of other things. Mormonism and Christianity are not compatible.
Still, I can't imagine what any of this has to do with running a country. If you have a theocracy, you would need a leader who is a theocrat, a leader who agrees with that particular form of theism. An Islamic nation would need an Islamic leader. This is not such a nation. It is a democracy (generally speaking -- more correctly a republic) without the fundamental definition of "Christian". If you have a church, it would need to have a pastor that agrees with the church perspectives. That seems logical. If you have a religious organization, it would be important to have a leader who agrees with the religion of that organization. America, however, is a secular nation. To be the leader of this country does not require that you have any specific religious views.
What is important for the leader of the United States? Since it is a republic -- a representative government -- it would need to have a leader that shares the same values as the majority of the country. Voters, then, would want to elect a person who shares their values, not necessarily their religion. Do you value life? You would want a president who values life. Do you want the freedom to bear arms? You would want a president who would defend that freedom. Do you value morality? You would want a president whose moral values are similar to yours. And, Christians, let me say that in almost every way the moral values of Mormonism are equal to -- sometimes higher than -- the standard Christian values. What does it matter if that leader worships a different Christ or has a different God if that leader shares your values in the matters of state?
Sometimes I think that Christians get too caught up in peripheral matters. Nowhere do I read, "If you love Me, you will vote for a Christian." Nowhere do I find the command, "Go ye into your world and make your nation a Christian nation." My Bible seems to be completely lacking in commands for political views. We are commanded to share the Gospel and we are commanded to be salt and light in our world, but I cannot find anywhere that says that we should demand that the President be of the same religious persuasion that we are. Look, let's be honest here. If that is your demand, I suspect that it is an ultimately impossible demand. I doubt that you will find anyone who is 100% in line with your own views on everything theological. So why are we making it such an issue that Romney is a Mormon while many are saying, "We'll vote for Giuliani" (whose life and values run counter to our own)? Is it possible that we are being a bit misguided here?
2 comments:
Yeah, I don't quite understand that either. For a nation that loves to separate church and state, we sure like to be concerned about what 'church' is in the state. Like you said, as long as his political and moral issues line up with yours, it shouldn't matter, even if he was somehow a satanist, however unlikely that may be. Nowhere does the Bible command to follow only Christian leaders. Only to obey the leadership so long as it doesn't lead you to obey the Leader.
It's a good thing to remember, even though we live in a democracy (or so), that we don't give the authority to people -- God does.
Post a Comment