Yes, I'm voting for a Mormon.

(If you're pressed for time or attention span, feel free to skip to point #3. I won't be offended...much)

It's no secret that I've supported Mitt Romney before he was the inevitable choice for the Republican party. I love my Governor, however I do think Romney was the best choice in the GOP field. The truth is that he does have a track record of fighting for conservative causes. If you're looking for some context and details on his record I suggest two resources:
  1. Letter from Multiple Conservative Leaders in Massachusetts who worked with Mitt and saw him work for Pro-Family and Pro-Life causes first hand: Read the Letter.
  2. The book Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney (And Feel Good about It!) which outlines his conservative credentials and personal moral convictions. (I'll loan it to you via Amazon if you ask).

However, my main point here is to address the issue of Romney being a Mormon. This issue has been discussed a lot by some very well-respected individuals, however I am worried that there is still too much discomfort with the subject in conservative circles. At the end of the day, I doubt this question will really keep many in my circles from voting for Mitt, however it will lower their enthusiasm for the Romney-Ryan ticket and I think a Romney victory is only possible if we are enthusiastic enough to talk to our friends, family, co-workers (especially those in other states) about the election and Mitt.
I will address the subject in three points: 1) Romney is a devout Mormon, 2) Mormonism is not Orthodox Christianity, and 3) This is not a political problem.
1. Romney is a devout Mormon.
  • His family has been very active in the leadership of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) for many generations.
  • At the age of 19 he went on a 2 1/2 year long mission trip to France. "On a mission, your faith in Jesus Christ either evaporates or it becomes much deeper. ...For me, it became much deeper," he told reporters in 2007.
  • He graduated from the LDS Church-run college, Brigham Young University in 1971. 
  • "Romney was known for his powerful testimonies during church services. "I know that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the church is true," Romney would often begin his testimonies, with tears welling in his eyes, according to several people who worshipped with him." Full Huff Post Story.
  • Romney himself held multiple local administrative, pastoral, and teaching positions in congregations in Utah, Michigan, and Massachusetts, including his most prominent role as Bishop of the ward in Belmont.

2. Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity.
  • This is not a derogatory point, as some have suggested. Romney himself acknowledged his faith was different than historical Christianity when he delivered a very important speech at Liberty University's 2012 Commencement, saying, 
"People of different faiths, like yours and mine, sometimes wonder where we can meet in common purpose, when there are so many differences in creed and theology. Surely the answer is that we can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview."  
  • In fact, the justification of Mormonism's existence itself rests upon a rejection of orthodox Christianity, which was why they believe a restoration was necessary in the 1820s through the Prophet Joseph Smith. According to Mormon teaching, Christianity was corrupted and became the “Church of the Devil."
  • This undermines the orthodox Biblical doctrine of a closed cannon and Mormon teaching insists that Christianity adopted wrong theological views because of the corruption (as early as the 4th Century) or mistranslation of the New Testament. 
"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." -Mormon Article of Faith
  • In addition to Mormonism's dangerous attack on the foundational doctrine of revelation, at its core LDS theology rejects the central doctrine of the Trinity and the fully divine nature of Jesus Christ. 
    • This is usually articulated in a criticism on the Nicene Creed, which clearly articulates, 
"And [we believe] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made..."
  • There are other significant differences between Mormonism and orthodox Christianity, including the denial of God's transcendence and his self-existence, a denial of original sin, a works-based salvation, the denial of hell, however its enough to say, Mormonism is not orthodox biblical Christianity.

3. This is not a political problem.
  • The fact that Mitt Romney and others believe the false gospel of Mormonism, is a very real and pressing theological and evangelical problem, however it is not a political problem that should keep us from supporting his presidential campaign.
  • Despite the significant theological differences, I agree with Mitt's point above, we do share a worldview that grounds our moral convictions and our political concerns for the nation. 
  • Wayne Grudem explains
"I want to be very clear that I do not mean that Christians should only vote for other Christian candidates for office, or even that Christians should generally prefer an evangelical candidate over others who are running. The relevant principle is this: Christians should support candidates who best represent moral and political values consistent with biblical teaching, no matter their religious background or convictions."
  • Most Mormon ethical teachings are similar to those in the Bible, and it is clear that those teachings have supported Romney's conservative political values when he was governor and they will continue to do so if he is elected President. 
  • If you think you would be more comfortable voting for someone in your religion or exact denomination, look at a few of our past presidents: 
    • Jimmy Carter was a Southern Baptist Sunday School Teacher (and recently published a Study Bible with his own devotions and commentary).
    • Ronald Reagan attended the Disciples of Christ church and later became a member of the Presbyterian Church.
    • George H.W. Bush was a life-long Episcopalian. 
    • Bill Clinton was a life-long Southern Baptist.
    • George W. Bush was an Episcopalian and then United Methodist.
    • President Barack Obama is a professing Christian who was baptized in the United Church of Christ. 
  • Looking at this list, I have significant theological disagreements with the Presidents who I think have lead the country best according to Biblical principles and fulfilled the task of government that the Apostles summarize as "punishing evil and praising good" (Reagan and George W. Bush).
  • Furthermore, the Presidents whom I share a denomination with (Carter and Clinton) have made detrimental policy decisions that I believe violate basic biblical principles and values (i.e. Clinton's pro-abortion views and activism). 
  • Also, having a devout member of a religious minority in the White House (Mormons represent 1.7% of religious adults in the US) will help ensure policies/laws that protect the constitutional right of freedom of religion, which I see as being endangered by multiple government policies in recent years.
  • And finally, Christians are not called to Theonomy. 
    • It is a historical and hermeneutical fallacy to assume that all commands given by God through Redemptive history are appropriate for current civil law and enforcement (a view called 'Theonomy' or 'Reconstructionism'). Throughout the Old Testament there are specific God-given laws that have served their civil purpose in the nation of Israel and now serve a theological purpose in raising mankind's awareness of our fallen nature and personal sin.
    • God established human government in the Noahic Covenant and gave humans the authority to govern and punish wrong-doing in order to protect human life and civilization (Gen 9:5-6). This gives us confidence in the ability for a human-governed nation to thrive, ensure justice and protect its citizens.
    • Paul and Peter affirm this view in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 when they instruct believers to be subject to governmental authorities even though in their context these rulers were secular pagans. Yet, both apostles still affirm that governing leaders are instruments "to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good." (more on the purpose of government in another post)
So, since our goal is not theological when it comes to government, there is no problem voting for someone who hold different doctrinal views or none at all, as long as they will hold moral and political views that will support and further the biblical role of government.


I have only heard or read one substantive argument for why Christians should not vote for a Mormon, which claimed that Mormon evangelism will be strengthened by Romney's presence in the White House. To me this is more of an argument for: a) clarity that we approve of Romney but not the false gospel he believes, and b) better evangelism to those in the Mormon faith.


If you have another biblical or substantial argument for why Christians should not vote for an active member of the LDS Church, I would love to hear your argument/position here.


Resources:

Comments

  1. John, I especially appreciate the way you point out the professed faiths of the former and current presidents. This is a discussion the Christian community needs to have for the precise reason of widening an enthusiasm gap for this presidential race. Our votes and our enthusiasm matter and will get more voters to the polls if we are not afraid to speak out and clearly communicate our apologetic. This is an exceptional example!

    ReplyDelete
  2. John,

    Don't see any points of disagreement, kind of boring, eh? Agreed that it would be "outside of our state" as in Texas, all major office holders, are Republican.

    Also appreciate your passion for balancing your view of government as a necessary process that is led by fallible people. There is no room for lifting these people up as some type of savior's.

    That said, Romney '12!!!

    Take care,

    Tim

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,

      Thank you for this very sound and logical approach to this issue. I will share this blog for sure so more people can chew on this.

      My question concerns the distinction between Politics and Theology, as though they didn't overlap. I do not think this is what you meant to say and I know there is a difference between the two. However, I think a major problem is when Politics is totally divorced from Theology. It allows people to treat same-sex marriage, abortion, and other issues as though they had nothing to do with Christianity because they are "political issues". Obviously, this would be misguided thinking.

      So would you say a President's religion is irrelevant, so long as he promotes Christian principles?

      Do you fear his presidency will give Mormonism and their false gospel a credibility they have not enjoyed up to now?

      These are questions I ponder. Great article though.

      Delete
    2. Read my lengty (sorry) response!

      http://tedseago.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-few-thoughts-about-johns-post.html


      Dad

      Delete
    3. Jared,

      Thanks for the comments. In this post my main point was not to address the relation between theology and politics at large, but just the criteria we should use when looking at whether we can support a candidate. Because all legal/policy decisions are moral in nature, I believe you are right, every law we pass has a theological/philosophical grounding we cannot ignore. Sometimes that grounding is widely accepted and non-controversial, however we cannot ignore that we are dealing with deep philosophical issues in politics.

      I want to say more later about the role I think theology should play when we engage in the political process (which would directly deal with questions like whether adultery or pornography should be illegal), however I'm not ready to address those yet.

      I would not say a President's religion is irrelevant (it does say a lot about his character), but I think the primary question when looking at a candidate, should not be "Is he a Christian," but should be "does he promote biblical moral and political principles?"

      You're last question about giving Mormonism more credibility is the argument that was made by Russell Moore. He argued a Mormon in the White House would give Mormon missionaries easier access to the homes and hearts of Americans. This may be true, however its a theological/evangelical challenge not a political one. This also points out why its important orthodox Christian leaders who are endorsing Romney clarify that they are not endorsing his theological views, but our shared moral and political goals.

      Furthermore, Romney in the White House will lead to having Mormon leaders play a more prominent role in events like the President's prayer breakfast, press conferences on religious liberty, etc. This could lead to better ecumenical relationships between orthodox Christians and Mormons which could open up the opportunity to have better inter-faith theological discussions. Also, I wouldnt worry about having Mormons lead those types of events which are usually just pageants of civil religion anyway, which is also a real problem (as was highlighted last week at the DNC), however that's not our topic here.

      Thanks for the feedback. I hope you'll continue to read and contribute.

      Delete
  3. "Also, having a devout member of a religious minority in the White House (Mormons represent 1.7% of religious adults in the US) will help ensure policies/laws that protect the constitutional right of freedom of religion, which I see as being endangered by multiple government policies in recent years."

    /\ There is a lot of wisdom here.


    Could you elaborate on why a government that has Biblical values would not lean towards socialism or fascism? Hate to drop the f-bomb because of its connotations, but I always thought an "ideal" Christian candidate would weigh in as a conservative on the social spectrum and a liberal on the wealth-redistribution spectrum.

    Subscribed.

    Thanks,
    Jason

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. I strongly disagree that "there is no problem voting for someone who hold different doctrinal views or none at all". I see two significant problems. You touched on one of them here, but I think your response is somewhat inconsistent with other positions you hold.

    However, given that I agree with your assessment of the importance of enthusiasm in ensuring a Romney victory, I'm very hesitant to post anything that could erode that enthusiasm, thereby rendering my reply mostly useless...

    Let's talk offline.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your doing:
    http://lockerroomtheology.blogspot.com/2012/09/we-people.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment