Would a Romney Presidency Fuel the Growth of Mormonism? — Romney and Evangelicals, Pt 2

Last updated on: June 13, 2011 at 2:25 pm by Timothy Dalrymple

Would a Romney Presidency Fuel the Growth of Mormonism? — Romney and Evangelicals, Pt 2 2011-06-13T14:25:59-04:00 Timothy Dalrymple

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Should Christians reject a Mormon Presidential candidate for fear that a Mormon presidency would help Mormons evangelize?

When I received Warren Cole Smith’s contribution to our discussion on Faith and the Future of Social Conservatism, I gave it the title, “A Vote for Romney is a Vote for the LDS Church.” (Believe it or not, I had no idea that this was an echo to a much more incendiary essay that made the rounds in 2007, “A Vote for Romney is a Vote For Satan.”) The title seemed like a fair summation of what appeared to be Warren’s main concern: that electing a Mormon would strengthen the LDS Church and fuel its further growth.

I already addressed the fundamental question: Is it bigoted or unreasonable to oppose a candidate on the basis of his or her religious beliefs? My answer was: Not necessarily. Religious beliefs speak profoundly to the character, the values, and the worldview that would shape the decisions a candidate would make were he or she elected to the White House. Yet there are right and wrong, reasonable and unreasonable ways of taking those religious beliefs into account. In this second part, I’ll ask whether Christians (and I’ll use “Christian” here to refer to adherents of the three great streams of historic Christianity: Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism) should be concerned that electing Mitt Romney could put “souls at stake.”

First let’s reconstruct Warren’s argument as charitably as possible. Warren is not the only evangelical who feels this way, and it’s a powerful argument if you grant its premises. There are several presuppositions here, but presuppositions which most Christians will grant. (1) There are true religions (or there is at least one) and false religions, true religious beliefs and false religious beliefs (how many false beliefs add up to a “false religion” is a question for another time). (2) False religions and false religious beliefs are spiritually dangerous, and detrimental to a person’s present spiritual life and eternal destiny. (3) Voters should consider not only the political, but even the spiritual, consequences of their votes.

In certain quarters, the belief that some religions and religious beliefs are false already amounts to bigotry. While I was a doctoral student at Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, I frequently confronted this attitude at the Divinity School: believing that you are right and others are wrong is arrogant, intolerant, possibly imperialistic and and quite probably hateful. If you are male and white, it’s misogynist and racist to boot. Yet this only worked one way. The reigning presumption was that religious liberalism was right, and religious conservatives were wrong, both morally and metaphysically. Some of the most negative commenters on Warren’s article were responding to the “arrogance” of believing that his beliefs about God and salvation are true while Mormon beliefs are false.

Yet Christians historically have attested that their beliefs are not merely therapeutic, but true in the old-fashioned sense of the word, and Christians have wrestled and argued and sometimes fought over the finer points of their doctrine because they believe it’s so utterly important to understand aright who God is and how God has made provision for reconciliation. Humbled though we ought to be in the face of our ignorance, our sin, our limitation, there are nonetheless metaphysical facts of the matter, and it is terribly, terribly important that we understand those facts. While salvation is not a product of intellectual assent to the right propositions, true beliefs are exceedingly helpful, and in some cases necessary, to a right relationship with God. This does not (or should not) make Christians arrogant, because the truth in which they believe is an unmerited gift of God, not an achievement of the believer but a gracious self-revelation of the One in whom the believer believes. “Our beliefs are true” is neither a boast in ourselves nor a denigration of others; it is spoken with the earnestness of a rescued man, with the gratitude of someone who received the undeserved but absolutely inestimable gift of Truth in the form of a person, a life, and with the compassion of someone who wants to share the bounty of Truth with others.

The third presupposition seems straightforward. Shouldn’t Christians care about the spiritual consequences of their actions? Isn’t the spiritual health of the nation even more important than its political or economic health? I can imagine some possible objections to the third presupposition, but let’s leave those for the comments, if anyone wants to challenge it.

With these presuppositions, then, the argument looks like this. (1) Christians should not fuel the growth of a false religion. (2) Mormonism is a false religion. (3) Electing a Mormon to the Presidency would fuel the growth of Mormonism. (4) Therefore (2 and 3): Electing a Mormon to the Presidency would fuel the growth of a false religion. (5) Therefore (1 and 4): Christians should not elect a Mormon to the Presidency.

The logic appears valid. If you grant the premises 1, 2 and 3, then 4 and 5 do seem to follow. It’s always possible to undermine the logic by questioning definitions of terms, but I think it’s most important to question the premises rather than the logic. I’ll assume that most Christians would grant the premise 1, and I’ll address premise 2 at greater length in the next part in this series. Many Christians do view Mormonism as a false religion, so: Is there some way to convince people like my friend Warren Cole Smith that electing a Mormon to the presidency would not fuel the growth of Mormonism (i.e., a false religion)?

Here are four reasons why I think not:

The historical argument is perhaps the weakest, but it’s nonetheless important. Looking back at American Presidents, at least in recent memory, there’s no evidence that Presidents have served to advance the public relations interests of the faiths to which they belong. Did Carter and Bush make more people look kindly at evangelicalism? Did JFK swell the ranks of the Catholic church? Has Barack Obama made more people want to be a liberal, liberation-theology Protestant? It doesn’t seem so — but there are two reasons why this is a weak part of the argument. First, we don’t know, and there’s really no way we could know, the answer to that question. Barack Obama might actually have led more people to explore liberal Protestantism, but it would be almost impossible to ferret out that one influence (a positive impression of liberal Protestantism coming from Barack Obama) from the million-and-one other influences that cause people to attend or to leave churches. Second, a person like Warren Cole Smith could easily retort that evangelicalism, Catholicism and liberal Protestantism are not marginal traditions in the same way that Mormonism presently is — so placing a Mormon in the presidency could serve (in his words) to “legitimate” Mormonism, moving it from the margin to the center, in a way that would cause many more people here and abroad to give Mormonism a serious hearing. We could also point to the elections of Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid, and question whether they were PR coups for the Mormon Church, but Warren could respond that electing a Senator has nothing like the legitimating power of electing a President. So I consider this the weakest of the arguments, but it does not have a certain tacit plausibility. It may well be the case that Carter’s and Bush’s elections did more harm than good to the general public perception of evangelicalism.
The theological argument would state, as David French does in a column published today at the Evangelical Portal, that God is in control over the salvation of souls and God’s purposes will not be frustrated by a vote for a Mormon candidate. To Christians of a particular theological stripe, this is a pretty powerful response. To others, less so. Some will point to free will. Others will say that even though God is sovereign over the spread of faith, it is our responsibility to profess the gospel and to consider the spiritual consequences of our actions. I think the theological argument is more powerful when it’s tied to the historical argument. We cannot know in advance whether the election of Mitt Romney to the Presidency would help or hinder the cause of the LDS Church, but ultimately many Christians will believe that God is in control.
The sociological argument overlaps with the historical argument by giving actual data. Studies have shown, for instance, that Romney’s first run for the White House did not change the public perception of Mormonism. The obvious retort here is that the consequences of a campaign with a Mormon candidate and a Mormon presidency could be quite different. Yet we don’t really have any evidence to suggest that it would be different. While Mormons are the most conservative of American religious groups, the LDS Church is meticulously non-political except in basic moral matters like abortion and family — areas where their commitments are the same as those of most evangelicals. And Romney would not be speaking out as a representative of the Mormon faith. Recently, for instance, he refused to spell out the LDS stance on homosexuality. Americans are getting beyond thinking of Mitt as “the Mormon candidate,” and presumably it would not take long before Americans look at President Mitt without thinking of Mormonism. This makes sense, because the Presidency is not a position of religious leadership. People will assess Mormonism on the basis of its beliefs and its deeds, not on whether or not a Mormon sits in the White House.
Finally, there is a psychological argument to be made. A Romney presidency could make some slice of Americans more likely to want to learn more about Mormonism. It could also make some Americans (particularly those who opposed Romney, or who come to believe that he’s a terrible President) more likely to disdain Mormonism. But evangelicals should not be afraid of people learning more about Mormonism. They should also not be afraid, I think, of the “mainstreaming” of what has been, to now, a mostly marginal religious group. If fewer people think that Mormons are kooks, that’s perfectly fine with me, because I don’t think that Mormons are kooks. Their beliefs are certainly different from mine, and those differences are important, but Mormons by and large are loving, good and reasonable people. Given the ways in which Mormonism has evolved over the past century, I don’t think that Mormonism deserves to be marginalized. Also, Mormonism has brought some beneficent influences into American culture. Mormonism supplies evangelicals with co-belligerents on important matters of morality, law and culture. And faith is such a momentous movement of the soul that it will not be made, in my view, or even slightly influenced, by the fact that a Mormon achieved the Presidency.

When Warren argues that electing a Mormon would strengthen the hand of the LDS Church — well, I don’t find that to be an unreasonable point of view. I just don’t think it’s correct. Perhaps the most important distinction is this: Would the election of a Mormon candidate to the Presidency lead more people to educate themselves about Mormonism? Yes. Would it lead to more people converting to Mormonism? I think the answer is no. I’m not afraid that more people should better understand Mormonism. In fact, I think that would be a good thing. Then the task falls to evangelicals to represent their faith well in word and deed, and to explain — if they feel this way — why Mormonism is wrong on significant matters. It’s not their task to exclude Mormons from the Presidency for fear that this would lead Americans to take Mormonism more seriously. Conversion is between the Spirit of God and the most inward heart of the individual, and it’s hard to imagine the faith of the President will be a significant influence. God is ultimately the author of salvation history.

Rather than basing my vote on something that seems, to me, so highly speculative, I prefer to base my vote on the merits of the candidate. So in the final installment of this series, I’ll turn to Mormon beliefs themselves. Are Mormon beliefs likely to make a Mormon a poor President, or do they point to faults that should concern the American voter? I’ll answer NO, and you can tune in tomorrow to find out why.

Christian Approach to Politics

Christians in Government

Election 2012

Mormonism

Peace Between Religions

Previous Post

June 12, 2011

Sunday Funnies

Next Post

June 14, 2011 Gift Ideas for Father's Day

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abortion adoption Africa Aging AIDS America Worship American history Americolatry An Open Letter to a College Freshman animals Apologetics art Atheism Authors Barack Obama Bible Biblical Scholarship Billy Graham Blogging Bono Book Review Books That Change Lives Breakfast Links Bulletin Board Business Children Christian Approach to Politics Christian Media Christian Right Derangement Syndrome Christianity and Homosexuality Christians in Government Christmas Chuck Colson CLS v Martinez Comic Creation Creativity and the Arts Cross Examinations Cross Investigations Daily Fragment Daily Trinity Death debt Deep Thoughts on Fatherhood depression economy education Election 2012 entertainment Environment Epistemology Erik Campano Euthanasia Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Gays Everyday Transcendence evil evolution Facebook Jesus faith Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics faith and reason family Feminism foreign affairs Franklin Graham Future of Evangelicalism Galen D. gay marriage George W. Bush Guest Posts Guns Gymnastics Harold Camping Heaven Hell Holidays Hollywood Homosexuality iam2.org Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration Reform Injustice Inspiration Interviews Islam Jeremy Lin Jesus jesus christ John Mark Reynolds Johnnie Moore Judgment Day Just War Theory Killing Osama Link of the Day Lists of the Week Mark Goldblatt Marriage Military Missions Mitt Romney Modern Western Thought Monastic wisdom Mormonism Morning Hash Morning Report Motherhood Movies Obamacare Old Testament Orphan Care Palin Parenting Pastoral Resources Patheos Peace Between Religions PEPFAR Persecution Peter Wehner Peter Wehner Philosophy Political Quotes of the Day politics Politics and Economics Pornography Prejudice Prisoner Rape Question of the Week Race Radical Faith Rapture Ravi Zacharias Rick Santorum Russia Salvation Sarah Palin Scandals Science Science and Faith Separation of Church and State Series sex sex slavery social justice Social Justice Ministry Spiritual Disciplines sports Steven Tyler Suffering Suicide Sunday Funnies T. Dalrymple Tea Party Technology terrorism The Christian Media Files The Daily Trinity The Electorate The Ethics of Rhetoric The Future of Seminary Education The Middle East The Obama Presidency theological Theological Renewal Theology Uncategorized Understanding Evangelicalism Vocation war War and Peace With Distinction Word to the Wise Writers

Select a Month October 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz