Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Religious tests

Religious tests

Last updated on: July 5, 2007 at 10:23 am by Fred Clark

Religious tests 2007-07-05T10:23:01-04:00 Fred Clark

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.

[NOTE: Much of this post is based on an Emily Litella-ish misreading, in which I fail to recognize satire as such. Please scroll down to the bottom and read the update/correction first. Thanks, sorry, etc.]

Prof. Mark Elrod, of the Church of Christ-related Harding University, doesn’t believe that Fred Thompson is a Real True Christian. [Note: Not really, see update below.] He’s wagering $100 that no one can prove the lawyer/actor/senator/actor/candidate is more than a “lapsed member” of the conservative denomination.

Thompson’s sectarian bona fides really shouldn’t be an issue in a presidential campaign. Article VI of the Constitution wisely forbids any “religious test” as a qualification for office.

Individual voters, of course, are free to consider such “religious tests” individually if they choose to. Voting for Candidate X because he/she is or is not a member in good standing of any given sectarian group is a dumb reason to decide how to vote, but individual voters are free to cast their ballots for all sorts of dumb reasons.

When this dumb reasoning expands much beyond the realm of individual choices, however, it becomes dangerous. Al Gore explained why in response to a question from CNN’s Larry King about whether or not Mitt Romney’s Mormonism was a “fair issue” in the campaign:

GORE: I do not — I don’t think it’s a fair issue. I really don’t. … I think that he’s entitled to his own beliefs. … that goes back to our founding fathers, goes back to the debates that we had more than 200 years ago about why religion should be kept out of the way in which our decisions are made.

Except to the extent that individuals, of course, who are motivated by their religious faith, as I am, as so many people are, are going to make that a part of their decisions. But here’s the critical distinction. When America was founded, they — our founders said, OK look, we are not going to pretend that whoever is elected to office has been ordained by the almighty to be the decision maker. The person who is elected is elected by us, the people of this country. And the divine right of kings was rejected by the founders of the United States.

And what replaced that, the divine right of individuals in this sense, we believe that we are all created equal. And that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

The imposition of religious tests leads to people who think they rule by divine right, to people who therefore think they’re above the law. That’s why religious tests are incompatible with a healthy democracy.

It’s also why they are incompatible with healthy religion. [Note: Here, in particular, you need to scroll down and read the update/correction below.] The striking thing about Elrod’s attempt to quantify the quality of Thompson’s church membership is how paltry it seems. It’s a remarkably shallow estimation of spiritual depth:

Specifically, Elrod is soliciting any information about Thompson having:

Taught a Bible class,

Presided at the Lord’s table,

Served as a greeter,

Or led singing …

Those are very nice things to do and I wouldn’t want to diminish the contributions of any of the very nice people who do these things every Sunday. But Elrod’s checklist doesn’t strike me as terribly useful for evaluating either Thompson’s state of grace or his ability to lead the ship of state. The only president in my lifetime that I’m certain did all of the above was Jimmy Carter (who did them all regularly while president), yet such actions are woefully inadequate for judging Carter’s merit as either a president or a Christian.

Elrod’s attempt to quantify whether or not Thompson is a “real Christian” winds up rewriting Galatians: “The fruit of the spirit is regular attendance, teaching classes, presiding at ordinances, chorus leading and ushering, against such there is no law.”

Elrod’s artificially flavored fruit reminds me of a recent discussion on Out of Ur, the (evangelical) Leadership Journal’s blog, asking “Is Your Gospel Robust?” (Worth a look as an alternative to, for example, the “magic words” gospel of LaHaye & Jenkins.)

The original “fruit of the spirit,” I think, provides a better set of criteria for evaluating candidates and their policies: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” If a candidate’s agenda promoted those kind of virtues, I wouldn’t much care how they spent their Sunday mornings.

Richard John Neuhaus, on the other hand, thinks how candidates spend their Sunday mornings is something voters ought to consider “very seriously.” Thus, he says, making a campaign issue out of Romney’s Mormonism is a reasonable prejudice:

Anti-Catholicism is, in my judgment, an unreasonable prejudice. … Anxiety about the strengthening of Mormonism by virtue of there being a Mormon president is not unreasonable.

It’s not unreasonable, he says, because:

The question is not whether, as president, Mr. Romney would take orders from Salt Lake City. I doubt whether many people think he would. The questions are: Would a Mormon as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism? The answer is almost certainly yes. Would it therefore help advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion? The answer is almost certainly yes. Is it legitimate for those Americans to take these questions into account in voting for a presidential nominee or candidate? The answer is certainly yes.

He does go on to say that these are “not the only questions that matter,” but that qualification doesn’t much change the inherent strangeness of what Neuhaus is suggesting ought to be considerations in electing candidates to a secular office. He believes that casting a vote for any candidate entails endorsing and enhancing the “credibility and prestige” of their personal, sectarian faith, and thus also advancing “the missionary goals” of that sectarian faith. Elections thus become spiritual and sectarian contests in which the respective faith traditions of the respective candidates will either gain or lose “credibility and prestige.”

Sure they do. Everyone remembers the surge in Episcopalian membership following the election of George H.W. Bush. Or the mighty wave of Quaker prestige that followed Nixon’s “Checkers” speech. These examples are, of course, absurd — much like Neuhaus’ contention that fear of Romney’s candidacy sparking a Mormon renaissance is a “reasonable prejudice.”

Neuhaus’ confusion gets back to my earlier point that sectarian religious tests are bad for religion. His error echoes that of the religious wars of Europe, in which spiritual battles were fought in the temporal realm. If Neuhaus is concerned about the “missionary goals” of the LDS church, then the ballot box is absolutely the wrong place to address those concerns. He should instead, perhaps, be trying to figure out how young people from his own church might be persuaded to match the missionary commitment demonstrated by young Mormons.

Neuhaus, like many of the religious voters making the most noise about Thompson’s church attendance and Romney’s Mormonism, is an admirer of both President George W. Bush and President Ronald Reagan — the only two presidents in my lifetime who did not attend church. That tells me quite a bit about the legitimacy of their alleged concerns about Thompson and Romney.

One more note: Elrod’s wager stems from spanking guru James Dobson’s prior assertion that Thompson is not an RTC. In response to that, Thompson’s campaign began talking up his longtime membership in the Church of Christ. In that sense, Elrod’s contention is legitimate. If Candidate X says he attends church every Sunday when, in fact, he/she does not, then the honesty and accuracy of Candidate X’s claim is a legitimate issue. But the issue in question is the candidate’s honesty, not the candidate’s church attendance. The controversy thus ought to be no different than if the candidate had falsely claimed to belong to a Tuesday night bowling league.

UPDATE/CORRECTION: Glad to learn from better-informed commenters that Elrod’s challenge is a largely tongue-in-cheek contention of the sort described in the paragraph above. I should’ve known better than to rely on WingNut WorldNetDaily’s characterization of it. Here is Elrod’s engaging blog, titled “Mark Elrod’s Lame-O Weblog.”

My initial (humorless) reading of Elrod’s list of Church of Christ bona fides misread what he’s after here. He’s offering a list of subcultural shibboleths, seeing if Thompson knows the idiom of the native speaker (which, it seems, Thompson doesn’t — Elrod’s $100 is safe). My old partner in crime Dwight Ozard would’ve been much quicker to recognize and appreciate what Elrod is up to here. Dwight always said that attempts to provide a theological or doctrinal definition of American evangelicalism were pointless, because its defining characteristics were not theological, but (sub)cultural. Elrod, like Dwight, seems to recognize the existence of these cultural markers while at the same time lamenting their inadequacy as evidence of meaningful faith.

His point, in other words, was pretty nearly the opposite of what I mistook it for above. You know that guy who doesn’t quite get the joke, and right after you give the punchline he loudly paraphrases it in less subtle terms, thinking he’s somehow rescuing you or correcting you when all he’s really doing is repeating what you said in less clever terms? You know, that guy? I was just that guy. Sorry about that.

P.S.: Mark Elrod drops by in person in comments below to confirm that, yes, I’ve been a tone-deaf, humorless git.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

July 4, 2007

This train

Next Post

July 6, 2007 Dwight & dog whistles

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 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 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What animals did Jesus ride into Jerusalem?

Select your answer to see how you score.

An ox A camel A donkey A horse