I read an article recently that suggested that our country's evangelical leaders may ask Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry to bow out of the race for the GOP presidential nomination in order for their preferred candidate, Rick Santorum, to be able to go head-to-head against frontrunner Mitt Romney. The purpose for this tactic is to avoid a situation in which evangelicals against Romney split their votes between a handful of men, thus securing a Romney victory.The reason for this opposition to Romney? Well, he's a Mormon, and we all know we can't have one of those for a president. But the problem with this stance is that Santorum is a Catholic, and evangelicals were calling the pope the antichrist a good 200 years before Mormonism even existed. So American evangelicals appear to be caught on the horns of a dilemma: on the one hand we have a guy whose church believes he will become a god over his own planet one day with a host of spirit-wives at his beck and call, and on the other we have a guy whose religion believes that they are the one true church whose leader, the pope, is the pontifex maximus and supreme head of all Christians everywhere.
Hmm....
As long as faith and politics are intertwined, American evangelicals will have to implicitly choose between Mary and Moroni (an act that cannot but be accompanied by gagging and holding one's nose). But if we were able to distinguish between the earthly and spiritual kingdoms, we would be freed to vote for the person with whose policies we most closely align without feeling like we're endorsing his religion, too.
Heck, we may even find ourselves capable of voting for a black Muslim from Kenya.
Ron Paul 2012 :)
ReplyDeleteBut can you separate one's beliefs from one's principles? In other words, a Mormon has found it possible to believe in Mormonism, and won't that affect the fundamental way in which he views the world, society, politics, social issues, etc. etc. And if it doesn't affect those, it probably should I would argue and you have a different problem: someone who compartmentalizes his faith from his work of governing. Maybe like JFK, though I don't know enough about what he actually did in office.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, interested in your responses.
It seems like our system forces realistic candidates to adopt some version of a two-kingdoms approach, at least in practice. I just can't see Mr. Romney or Mr. Santorum using the presidency as a platform for promoting the specific tenants of the Mormon or Roman faiths. Sure, their beliefs give shape to their thinking on matters of policy, but they need to find a broader basis of support for their views if they want to win support for their position in a culture as pluralistic as ours. Doesn't this point to the idea of natural law / general revelation as the key for discerning what is just in the civil sphere?
ReplyDeleteAndy, I would chime in and say that, for example, Catholics are big proponents of the natural law, which is a good foundation for political life in a country. But are Mormons?
ReplyDeleteDevin, doesn’t the question as a voter have a lot more to do with whether a candidate’s political views and conclusions are ones with which you agree and a lot less having to do with his religious views and practices and their supposed relationship to his political outlook
ReplyDeleteI mean, let’s be honest. It’s all a fun jigsaw puzzle to put together and we could wrangle all day long about the relationship of all these things and “the way someone fundamentally views the world,” but at the end of the day it’s a lot of handsome theory and we actually end up assessing a political figure politically and not spiritually. And what you seem to want to call a compartmentalizing problem others would actually see as a sane solution for properly distinguishing the spiritual from the political. For without such a distinction a Protestant could never vote for a Catholic or a Mormon with whom he politically agrees or vice versa. Call it what you will, but I’d rather keep Catholics and Mormons from the Table, not from the Oval Office.
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteI hear what you're saying. But I take something like Mormonism, which has flip-flopped on important issues like abortion, and it gives me pause about a Mormon running for president. So political outlook is important but its influenced by his faith.
I would most love to have a Christian who knew his faith well and who was grounded in the philosophical and political principles (natural law, Thomism, etc.) that would help him govern the nation well.
I like (Catholic) Santorum and (Protestant) Paul: both believe in their Christian faith and are men of integrity and principle. Mitt Romney seems like he has become more principled over the years but has some marks against his record that make me squint my eyes in uncertainty.
Also we both believe Mary existed but we don't know if an angel named Moroni exists. Catholics are (even from your perspective) orthodox Trinitarian and Christological but Mormons aren't, etc.
ReplyDeleteDevin,
ReplyDeleteBut can you separate one's beliefs from one's principles?
Don’t most people? My guess is that most non-Christians think torturing five year olds for fun is bad, and that helping people is good. Romney and Santorum have very different beliefs about who Jesus was, and yet they’re both running for the Republican nomination.
In other words, a Mormon has found it possible to believe in Mormonism, and won't that affect the fundamental way in which he views the world, society, politics, social issues, etc. etc.
But if Romney gets the nomination, thousands of Christian conservatives will still vote for him, right? So maybe it should be ME asking YOU this question!
And if it doesn't affect those, it probably should I would argue and you have a different problem: someone who compartmentalizes his faith from his work of governing.
If I were elected president and America were attacked by Canada, should I turn the other cheek since that what my faith tells me is the proper response to being struck?
My point is that while I cannot simply stop being a believer for eight hours a day, I can still govern in a way that springs from something I have in common with others, rather than from what sets me apart from them.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteOkay, so "govern in a way that springs from something I have in common with others," which means looking for common ground, the most fundamental of which is our shared humanity and the law written on our hearts by God (the natural law). I'm all for that but I don't know whether a Mormon businessman is even heard of natural law. So what common ground is he operating on?
This is why we need a philosopher king.
If America were attacked by Canada, we could send the boy scouts to repel them (zing!). Seriously though, our faith informs our political understanding, so the example you bring up should show we need someone who understands 2,000 years of Christian political thought (I brought up Aquinas (Thomism)) but there's much more there.
But I take something like Mormonism, which has flip-flopped on important issues like abortion, and it gives me pause about a Mormon running for president. So political outlook is important but its influenced by his faith.
ReplyDeleteDevin, I don’t much about what “Mormonism” thinks about abortion. But doesn’t it really only matter what the candidate thinks? I mean, I never heard of Mormonism or Catholicism running for office, only Catholics and Mormons. But have you ever heard of “Secularists for Life”? They don’t have explicit religious faith, but they sure sound an awful lot like religionists for life. My point is that the idea that faith influences policy is way over rated.
Also we both believe Mary existed but we don't know if an angel named Moroni exists. Catholics are (even from your perspective) orthodox Trinitarian and Christological but Mormons aren't, etc.
Well, actually I BELIEVE more than I KNOW Mary existed. And I DISBELIEVE more the narrative of Moroni than I KNOW the narrative is false. But I fail to see how a Catholic’s Christological orthodoxy matters any more when it comes to political expression than a Mormon’s Christological heterodoxy. I could just as easily say since you guys are unorthodox on justification—Paul clearly taught sola fide and look how they twist such a clear theological doctrine—then can we really trust a Catholic with his finger on the button? Starting to feel the irrelevancy of spiritual belief to political ability bordering on religious bigotry now?
Take it further then, why not vote for a scientologist. Hey, he's got good "economic ideas"! But he accepts a religion that has a lot of wonky stuff, far-fetched, in other words, a divorce between faith and reason, and the right use of reason is necessary to govern well.
ReplyDeleteJustification: Catholics say faith alone so long as God's love (agape) is not excluded. Protestants deny (or do they?). In any case either can fit the biblical data "reasonably" well. That's different than saying Jesus is a created being and we will populate worlds with spirit babies one day.
Devin,
ReplyDeleteDon't you think the resurrection of Christ is a bit, umm, "wonky" and implausible?
I would absolutely vote for a scientologist if his politics were correct.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteFrom a certain (secular, wrong) point of view, yes the resurrection is wonky and implausible. I'm speaking of from the view of someone who embraces scientism, atheistic materialism, etc. But the right use of reason (via philosophy) supports the belief in God, and their are other motives of credibility for our Christian faith, as I would imagine you agree.
I admit I'm surprised by your last statement. I wonder whether a scientologist exists who has "correct" politics in the sense of just and wise politics that place the dignity of the human person above other priorities. My point is that someone who believes scientology is true likely is wrong on politics as well.
I admit I'm surprised by your last statement. I wonder whether a scientologist exists who has "correct" politics in the sense of just and wise politics that place the dignity of the human person above other priorities.
ReplyDeleteWell, I have never encountered a Christian politician who does this, so I guess I am open to finding it anywhere I can.
Shame on us.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind, since I don't vote for the guy with the same religion as me, but for the one who holds political positions similar to mine.
ReplyDeleteIf Christians should be "ashamed," it's for the arrogance that makes us think that our orthodox christology automatically baptizes our economic and foreign policy.
Devin, during the 2008 Presidential race Bill Maher suggested that Sarah Palin was unfit for office because of how she practiced witchcraft (referring to that video of her AOG pastor sealing her off from demons). The early Romans suggested that the Christians were unfit citizens because we practiced cannibalism (eating flesh and drinking blood).
ReplyDeleteMy point is that you can make anybody’s religion sound wonky and then try to tie it to civil unfitness. But the thing about religion is that it’s supposed to be weird. It’s called supernatural for good reason. The more you try to say Christianity is perfectly reasonable in order to politically discredit non-Christians the more you unwittingly strip it of its mystery and supernaturalness. Odd for a Catholic.
But if you think a right use of reason gets one to spiritual truth, and thereby shows one to be more fit to politically rule than those who don’t, then it sounds like you’re saying we are to live more by sight than by faith.
But Christianity is true, and so Christians should be the most just rulers. Shame on us if that has not been true. We have a lot to be ashamed about; orthodox Christology doesn't mean we will have good economics or foreign policy but heterodoxy (as Mormonism is) can indicate other problems in ones understanding.
ReplyDeleteI vote on issues as well, which would mean (potentially) choosing Romney over Obama if I had to, the lesser of two evils in some sense.
Devin,
ReplyDeleteBut Christianity is true, and so Christians should be the most just rulers. Shame on us if that has not been true.
You're still not seeing my point. It's not that we Christians all agree on what justice is, but that some of our elected Christians have failed to live up to that standard.
What I am saying is that I consider the official position of most Christian politicians to be unjust.
So it's not a matter of "Shame on us, we should try harder to be consistent," but rather, "Shame on you for governing consistently with your 'Christian' principles."
Big difference!
But, governing consistently with Christian principles can be clear as mud. For example, Mississippi recently voted down (by a large margin) a measure which said human life begins at fertilization. It got messy cause although many were excited of the prospect that abortion would be curbed, many were also concerned that some contraceptives would be banned. So, if I were a politician, should I only introduce measures that say life begins at fertilization (consistent with my Catholic faith), or might it be plausible that I'd intoduce a measure that's a bit contrary to the Church's teaching, such as saying life begins at implatation to the uterine wall? The latter might mean such a measure would pass in the state, practically putting an end to abortion there, but leaving me open to criticism that I'm not governing within my faith's principles cause I'm open to contraceptive use. I'd be governing in a manner inconsistent with my Catholic principles. Yet, much would be gained with regard to the right to life cause. It seems it can be a good thing to "bend" one's principles in the political realm, and as we know, it can be avery bad thing to bend one's principles. As said, clear as mud.
ReplyDelete...for clarification lest I be misunderstood... should have said, "... but leaving me open to criticism that I'm not governing within my faith's principles cause I'd be considered as open to contraceptive use, which I'm not."
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteI'm happy voting for some like Santorum who affirms Catholic social theory and Christian natural law (and whose record shows that he is reasonably consistent with such belief, which I think Santorum's is) because I am reasonably sure that such a person will promote conservative policies which will benefit the nation. Now on the other hand someone who affirms just the opposite, let's say a man who holds to existential ethics and legal positivism - you know, basic secular humanism, is more likely to hold to very politically liberal and socialistic political philosophies. This is not always the case of course, but in general I think we can draw a correlation between theological conservatism and political conservatism. To pick some extremes for illustration, Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler had a very different political philosophies than did Abraham Kuyper and G.K. Chesterton. But then they had very different theological starting points, no?
There are certainly liberal Mormons like there are liberal Catholics and Protestants, but I cannot say that I would have a problem with voting for a Mormon in general. At least for the conservative ones, on their philosophy towards such matters as limited government and various social issues they adopt something very close to what their conservative Protestant and Catholic counterparts do. But even here there is a connection between belief and politics, even if the belief does stand on some very shaky ground.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of incremental approaches, for example with pro-life laws like you mentioned. This has worked really well in Texas, where my wife and I were involved for many years in getting such legislation passed.
Also, what Andrew M. said. :)
ReplyDeleteIsn't the phrase "on the horns of a dilemma," not "between the horns of a dilemma"?
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteThis is not always the case of course, but in general I think we can draw a correlation between theological conservatism and political conservatism.
Sure, if you’re American and never leave America. But I am sure you have found in your own travels that European Christians (heck, Canadian ones even) have a far more left-leaning outlook than most believers in this country. Take as an example the beating from fans that U2 have taken for moving some of their business operations to the Netherlands in order to pay fewer taxes. Paying your share and thereby helping the poor is simply part of what being a good neighbor means to a lot of people in the U.K., whereas here in America taxes are inherently evil in the minds of many Christians.
I guess I just have a hard time with the idea that if you’re theologically conservative you’ll be politically conservative. It seems like a completely arbitrary statement to me.
Elliot,
ReplyDeleteIsn't the phrase "on the horns of a dilemma," not "between the horns of a dilemma"?
Ha ha, you're right! I knew something seemed off about that. Now I feel like I'm caught on the horns of a rock and a hard place.
Or between the horns of Scylla and Charybdis. You know, like when your face turns to alabaster when you find your servant is your master.
ReplyDeleteI had a line in Dual Citizens that went something like, "caught between the Scylla of the already and the Charybdis of the not yet," but my editor made me change it. He must hate the po-po.
ReplyDeleteWell, he's no pool hall ace, that's fo' sho.
ReplyDeleteJason,
ReplyDeleteI think that you have set up a straw man in saying that many/most conservative Christians believe all taxes are evil. I have been closely associated with conservative Christians by the hundreds if not thousands for 60 years, and have not met one that had that belief. I know that may be a bit inductive, but if you have met some, saying that all hate all taxes is a huge inductive leap of "faith".
Anyway, I'm praying for you and Sy at Presbytery.
Devin,
ReplyDeleteI think that you are overlooking a fundamental point when you ask "what common ground is he operating on?". I know several atheists who would never murder. I can tell them easily that their "worldview" would allow for such, without problem. But given what they claim is their worldview, that says little about whether they desire to murder. They may deny that God is, but that does not entail that somehow natural law is now inoperative, that they now cease to be God's creatures with His image. They do not (nor cannot) cease to practice natural law even if they explicitly deny it.
This is not to deny horrific acts of murder, even many of those self-justified through atheism, but even for those acts, there was not an immediate deduction from a denial that God is that lead to horrific murder. Sin manifests itself in various ways and degrees that are not always predictable. Christians of course are included, which would thus exclude the notion that ipso facto Christians would be the best national governors. In all cases though it is a rejection of the call of God to be His image bearer.
Mormons and Mormon politicians practice natural law even if they do not have great theology, and I don't think there is anything to dispute there. We have common ground even if it is not recognized as such. They may not practice it perfectly, but who besides our Saviour has?
Jason, Agreed. I get lots of pushback from well-meaning Christians who just can't understand how I can support Newt Gingrich, because of his moral flaws. I tell them that they're minimizing the power of the Gospel. I just happen to be a Christian and conservative but don't think that theocratic candidates are the answer. A lot gets cleared up when one views the kingdom distinctions rightly.
ReplyDelete