This LA Times story reflects an interesting aspect of the evangelical community's reaction to Mitt Romney that has not yet been highlighted by political analysts, at least not that I have seen. There's something of a gap between prominent conservative evangelical leaders and the people in the pew in terms of whether it would be appropriate for evangelical Christians to vote for Romney.
Let me back up a moment. For a long time, it has been clear that most prominent conservative evangelical leaders are ready, willing, and able to make common cause on policy issues with those with whom they have serious theological differences. The cooperation of politically conservative Southern Baptists and Catholics on policy matters like abortion and same-sex marriage is just one example. And, for the most part, evangelicals in the pew haven't seem to be disturbed by this kind of tactic.
Many of these same conservative evangelicals leaders have been willing to take a similar approach when it comes to presidential candidates. For some proof of this, check out Mitt Romney's "Faith and Values Steering Committee." And then there's this snippet from the LA Times story:
[Mitt Romney] invited leading pastors to his home for dinner last fall and gave the commencement address at Pat Robertson's Regent University in May. This courtship has paid off with public statements from leading evangelicals who have pledged to give Romney a fair hearing.
"The Mormon faith — most Christians would consider it a cult," says Franklin Graham, who runs an evangelical association named for his father, Billy Graham.
"But I've met Mitt Romney. He's a very nice man. Very brilliant. And he's a conservative…. In certain circumstances, I could vote for him."
This kind of approach, however, bothers some members of the evangelical flock. They cannot seem to figure out why the same religious leaders who have said that Mormonism is a cult would now say that they could vote for a Mormon for president. You can find evidence of this puzzlement around the interwebs here and there. The LA Times story also captures a quote that reflects some of this attitude:
[The owner of Shepherd's Fold Books, Thomas L. Wilson Jr., who is 82,] "expresses 'a lot of reservations' about a Mormon president. His concerns are not about Romney's policies or his character. They're far more fundamental: 'I wonder who he figures his savior is.' "
My view is that the conservative religious leaders I've described above are correct on these specific issues-- religious people should cooperate with others who agree on policy and vote for the presidential candidate who most closely shares the voter's values and policy positions, no matter how much the voter would disagree with the candidate's positions on purely theological matters. But clearly this is a place where there is something of gap between these leaders and some of their flock.
I have a variety of doubts about whether this will happen in any meaningful way, but one of my hopes would be that Romney's candidacy would provoke a dialogue in the conservative evangelical community about how the belief in the rectitude of one's own faith doesn't prevent one from voting for a person for president who holds a different faith or different theological beliefs. In short, voting for a Mormon doesn't make you a bad evangelical Christian.
This would be a step forward, I believe -- not because it would help Mitt Romney (I take no position on his candidacy), but because it would help foster a greater spirit of religious freedom. But let me also say that I don't think it should be the end of the line on these issues. As I've said many times before, my view is that one should vote for the presidential candidate who shares one's values and policy positions, no matter if the person is religious or not (see here, for example, for a criticism of Romney himself on this point).
I haven't seen much evidence that many conservative evangelical leaders are willing to take this latter step, and I'm not holding my breath. I was encouraged, however, to see that Cal Thomas recently said: "Competence, not ideology or religiosity, should be primary in this election." I'm not sure how far that statement goes, but it too is a step in the right direction.
Comments