By Dan Gilgoff
When Mitt Romney stands before the nation tomorrow to deliver his much-anticipated "religion speech," evangelical Christians will be listening particularly intently. Though polls show that one in four Americans feel squeamish about voting for a Mormon president, an even higher proportion of evangelicals--more than one in three--feel uncomfortable doing so. They view the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as Mormons are formally known, as a cultish offshoot of "true" Christianity.
And a Mormon president? For many of them, the idea is beyond the pale.
Yet for Romney, winning evangelicals is a must. They constitute the base of the Republican party and are beginning to turn toward former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, a Baptist pastor, as their candidate. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s appeal to more moderate Republicans makes conservative evangelicals even more vital in Romney’s battle for the Republican nomination.
The speech, to be given at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, will be the most important of his candidacy. The site is less than 100 miles from where John F. Kennedy delivered his famous 1960 speech about his Catholicism, in which he vowed to keep a high wall of separation between his faith and his politics. Romney's speech is billed as his most public attempt yet to explain how his Mormon faith would influence him as president.
The big question for evangelicals: Will he own up to the distinctions between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, even as he argues that members of both traditions share many political values? Some evangelicals say that Romney's refusal to do so up to this point has alienated Christian conservatives who might otherwise support him. They also say that his attempts to paper over differences between Mormons and other Christians have exacerbated his broader authenticity problem, due largely to Romney's reversal on hot button social issues. While Romney was pro-choice and pro-gay rights as recently as a few years ago, he is now adamantly opposed to both.
But the bigger problem for some evangelicals is that they say Romney has tried to pass himself off as a traditional Christian. "In the few times he’s addressed the [religion] issue, he talks about the importance of religious values and dips into evangelical language, and neither of those is very impressive to evangelicals," says Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary. "Evangelicals aren't very reassured when he’s saying something that makes him sound like us when he really isn’t like us…. it borders on deception."
The risk for Romney giving a Mormon speech, however, is that owning up to his religion's distinct beliefs--for instance, that Jesus will return both to Jerusalem and Jackson County, Missouri--could scare off evangelicals and other conservative Christians. "Evangelicals want reassurance that Mormonism is not a cult and that his beliefs are things they’d accept, and by avoiding Mormon theology he won't be able to give that assurance," says Alan Wolfe, a religion sociologist at Boston College. "But it's suicidal for any candidate to start talking theology, and Mormons have that problem more than others because their theology is so widely distrusted."
On the campaign trail, Romney has called Jesus Christ his personal savior, a line common among evangelicals but almost never uttered among Mormons. When Romney was asked at last week's Republican presidential debate whether he believed every word of the Bible, he answered, “I believe the Bible is the word of God, absolutely.” But Mormons also believe that the Bible contains errors. And Romney glossed over the Mormon belief that books outside the Bible, such as the Book of Mormon, are Holy Scriptures.
Mormon scholar Richard Bushman says that, while Romney hasn't lied about his Mormonism, he has given it a "different twist."
But the strategy seemed to backfire with the recent emergence of Huckabee as a serious Republican contender for the White House. In Iowa, home of the first presidential caucuses, polls show that Huckabee has dislodged Romney as the GOP's frontrunner. For many Iowa evangelicals--who account for roughly half of the state's Republican caucus goers--Huckabee's Christian credentials are much more solid than Romney's.
“Romney was trying to be the same kind of Christian as [evangelicals] were, and then came along someone who’s been a Baptist minister saying You want a Christian? Here I am," says Bushman, author of the Joseph Smith biography Rough Stone Rolling. "Romney took it too far in that he was unwilling to admit there was even a tiny gap between the two, and that’s what got him into trouble.”
Romney's aides deny that he has attempted to blur the line between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity. And they say his speech tomorrow is aimed to all voters, not just evangelicals. "This is a big picture question that's historical in scope and it would be dangerous to minimize it," by focusing solely on how it affects evangelicals, says a senior Romney advisor.
Romney himself lowered expectations about the extent to which his speech will focus on Mormonism after announcing on Sunday night that he would give a speech entitled “Faith in America.” He told reporters this week that it won't be "a repeat or update of the Kennedy speech," and that "there are a lot of websites people can go to" if they want to learn about Mormonism." While some evangelicals and political pundits have called for Romney to give a Kennedy-like address, others have said that echoing Kennedy's line about keeping his faith and politics separate would turn off evangelicals.
But a senior Romney advisor tells Beliefnet that the speech will satisfy those who "want to hear his heart more" and that it will acknowledge the role of Romney's Mormonism in his life: "There hasn't been a clear acknowledgment, and the speech is the answer to that need for a clear acknowledgment."
The advisor also says Romney "could draw distinctions between LDS and mainstream evangelicals while pointing out that they share a Judeo-Christian foundation without saying 'I'm a Christian just like you.'"
But Mormon-evangelical relations have always been contentious, in part because both groups are trying to win new converts and feel that they are competing for the same souls.
Still, not all evangelicals believe that Romney has tried to sell himself as a traditional Christian. Oran Smith, president of South Carolina's conservative Palmetto Family Council, says that Romney has stuck to a strategy that one of Romney's advisors floated by him last year: "we don't have the exact same faith, but we come to the same values that grow out of our faith."
"In most cases, he has ducked the Mormon question to keep it from being an issue," Smith says. "But I don't sense that he's been disingenuous or that he's tried to fudge the differences [between Mormonism and traditional Christianity] in a way that is trying to trick someone.”
And many evangelicals feel that a “Mormon speech” could do more harm than good, particularly if it includes references to Mormon doctrine and beliefs. Asked if he would have advised Romney to give a “Mormon speech,” Family Research Council president Tony Perkins says, "I probably wouldn't."
"I don't see how in one speech you could make evangelicals comfortable with the Mormon faith," Perkins says. "Like it or not, a large percent of Americans want to support somebody who is like them, and that’s most easily found among people who believe what they do in terms of their faith. Romney can’t lay claim to that."
Perkins said that Romney has nonetheless convinced many evangelicals that his conservative transformation on social issues is genuine.
Still, many evangelicals say that Romney needs to go further in tomorrow’s address. "For Romney's speech to be successful in the minds of evangelicals, he would need to offer some sort of new line, some more detailed reasoning as to some of the differences between the two religions," says David Brody, Capitol Hill correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network. "But he doesn't want to go too far. And that's his challenge."
For more on Romney's "religion speech" and his Mormonism, check out New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III's essay on how Mitt Romney's 'Mormon speech' could connect with evangelicals, our What Do Mormons Believe? Guide, and the Southern Baptist Convention's Richard Land on what he'd say if he were Romney.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Diana Butler Bass is a religion scholar and author of Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the Neighborhood Church is Transforming the Faith. She blogs at 
Tony Campolo is Professor Emeritus at Eastern University and author of The God of Intimacy and Action: Reconnecting Ancient Spiritual Practices, Evangelism, and Justice, with Mary Darling. He blogs at 
Rod Dreher is a columnist for The Dallas Morning News and author of Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots. He blogs at 
Bruce Feiler is the author of seven books, including Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses. He blogs at 
Dan Gilgoff is Politics Editor at Beliefnet and author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War. He blogs at 
David Kuo served as a special assistant to President George W. Bush and is the author of Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. He blogs at 
Dr. Richard Land is president of The Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and author of The Divided States of America? What Liberals AND Conservatives are missing in the God-and-country shouting match!
Michele McGinty is a mom and a student at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. She blogs at 
Brian McLaren is a pastor, musician, and author of Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope. He blogs at 
Steven Waldman is co-founder, CEO, and Editor-in-Chief of Beliefnet. His book Founding Faith will be published in March, and he can be reached through 
Jim Wallis is executive director of Sojourners/Call to Renewal and author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. He blogs at
Again, your ignorance on the early Christian doctrine of theosis (deification) is stunning. Some of the greatest early Christian Church Fathers taught these doctrines:
One of the most important early Christian theologians in the second century, Saint Irenaeus, said this: "Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."
Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." And, "if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God.... His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus was right when he said, 'Men are gods, and gods are men.'"
Saint Justin Martyr insisted that in the beginning men were "made like God, free from suffering and death," and that they are thus deemed worthy of "becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest."
Saint Athanasius once said, "The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods.... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." And, ""He became man that we might be made divine."
Even the great Saint Augustine once wrote, "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1:12] If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."
Every single one of these five were orthodox Christian saints, who wrote within 100 years of the time period of the Apostles. This has been a doctrine of Christianity for most of history only until recent times. Even the current Roman Catholic catechism still reads, "The Word became flesh to make us 'partakers of the divine nature': 'For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.' 'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.' 'The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods'" (Paragraph 460).
Thus, your understanding of the doctrine of deification, the concept that Christians can become like Christ and like God, is very weak.
I don't reject Romney because of his mormanism, but because he lies about his beliefs. Mormans like to make little statements that sound Christian but if pressed on these issues there will always be some qualifiers that come with their statement. Romney says he believes there is one God (Mormans believe there are gods many (this is their language)). He says he believes that Jesus is THE Son of God (Mormans believe that Jesus is A son of God). And if you believe his statement that there will be no influence from the prophets in Salt Lake City, then I have some oceon front property in Utah I want to sell to you.
Mitt Romney has sold his soul to become president. Its all in the record, on tape, in black and white- preserved forever in the ether, in cyberspace and in the hearts and minds of the spiritually discerning. I will demonstrate this reality in his own words. Here they are from his recent speech where he sought to allay concerns over his Mormonism... let's parse it together shall we?:
Romney:
"A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith. Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin. As governor, I tried to do the right, as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution. And, of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law."
SS says:
So, its pretty clear from this statement alone that Romney's allegiance is to the nation first and God second. That's what is called idolatry in biblical terms. This pretty much proves the thesis in much of this blog and in my personal communications that the idea of a "Christian nation" is an oxymoron and pretty much of an impossibility. Greg Boyd, preacher and author of "Myth of a Christian Nation", was cited in the CNN special "God's Warriors" as saying, "you can no more have a Christian nation than you can have a Christian Bicycle". Mitt Romney is confirming that thesis with great clarity in his statements. The Bush II administration and others before it insinuated with their campaigning for office that the possibility of a Christian nation is an attainable goal- that it is a reachable ideal. The idea of this is of course extremely appealing to those who count themselves among the Christian faithful. In the simplest of terms "One cannot serve two masters". The religious folks are equally prone to not comprehending this maxim which is from the very words of Christ. I just heard a radio sermon today on my daily commute where a well known preacher was reasoning that since Jesus referred to his followers as the salt of the earth and it is impossible for salt to season something unless it comes into contact with it
that it stands to reason that it is in fact a Christian duty to get involved in politics. It is amazing to me however, that this sort of reasoning does not seem to comprehend that the best way for the church to influence the world is to BE the Church, affecting culture from the roots up by living out the ideals of the Church by example and so affecting culture from the roots up. That's a full time job. That does not mean that Christians should not be unaware of politics and their implications or let themselves be heard especially in the voting booth. What it does mean is that Christians trying to serve two masters must always make compromises that detract from their faith and so participating in worldly, political power games should be done with great caution if at all. Romney shows exactly why is his speech.
The faithful of course expected G.W. Bush to do the opposite of what Romney is assuring everyone he won't do.... that being let his faith or religion exert influence on presidential decisions. Of course it is impossible to imagine someones whose religious beliefs, no matter how paper thin or shallow, would not surface at least as moral attitudes or core values in decision making processes. To suggest that they wouldn't is not only bad psychology but... well amoral and/or immoral to boot. I listened to several radio commentators remarks on Romney's speech today. Most of them being so-called conservatives were busy rationalizing Romney's remarks and failed to even bring up the points I raise here. This pretty much confirms for me once and for all that these guys armed with microphones and radio towers are for the most part either not very smart, morally illiterate and/or bankrupt, completely sold out or all of the above.
I digress.
More Romney:
"Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism, but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle, indeed, if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
SS says:
Well, a week or two back I heard some remarks Romney made along these lines after John McCain, an opponent for the presidency, took a shot at Romney's Mormon roots. Romney basically said that to criticize someone about their religion was un-American. All the talking heads on TV that night seemed to agree that this turn of events would work in Romney's favor.
Now, they postulated, every time someone asks about Romney's religion or begins to critically analyze the doctrines of his religion and their possible influence on him and his decisions he can now play the "un-American" card. The problem with this sort of thinking is that its ridiculous to assume that if Romney were, say a Satanist, Voodoo priest, u.f.o. Cult member, Muslim, Qabbalist, Scientologist or one of those snake handling, charismatic Christians that it would be inappropriate to ask him about it or ponder the implications it might have for the presidency. Such a concept is, of course, ridiculous. The fact is that Mormonism is not a mainstream belief system either. I will address that more in a paragraph or two.
More Romney:
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
SS says:
I question why he would bother putting his hand on the Bible, make an oath or promise anything to God at all. Of what value would it be since he has already stated that his nationalism comes before his religion, his faith and thus before God and that, "A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States?"
Believe me I understand the principles and advantages of separating the Church and State. I don't need a civics lesson. However, I think its safe to say that a real disciple of Christ is not very well suited to the compromises of governing anything larger than a small community, clan, tribe or village. Its unthinkable in this day and age of mega cultures and megalomania that a meek, humble, non materialistic, non violent, lover of neighbor as self, lover of enemies and deeply committed spiritual person could attain let alone hold the office of president of the USA without selling out his spiritual values to some degree.... like Romney just did. This selling out is also manifested for Romney in the positions he has articulated where he condones pre emptive warfare (which is what the attack on Pearl Harbor was), torture, secret prisons and the contravention of the rule of law not to mention the scriptural mandate to love your enemies and treat everyone as you would be treated with regards to 'enemy combatants" (who are essentially whoever the president decides they are nowadays). He also has resolutely refused to negotiate with enemies whatsoever which is neither wise nor biblical.
Separating church and state then, is not only a protection of the value system of the state (AKA in biblical terms "the world") but also a concept that protects the virtue of the Church.
I also understand that a person's theology definitely matters, especially when they hold the most powerful office in the world. Theology matters. look at the conflicts in Israel, Palestine, the entire Mideast. All the different groups believe it is they that have the rights to certain blocs of land... it is they that hold the truth... it is they that will survive and triumph with God on their side. On that score Romney's Mormonism frightens me as well. There are doctrines in the Mormon faith which should make everyone somewhat uncomfortable. Mormons believe that the Bible is valid, but that the Book of Mormon is the completion and perfection of the Bible. As a traditional, mainstream Christian I have no problem saying that I have a problem with that. If you look at the skirmishes between the Arab world and the Christian West its safe to say that the beliefs of both sides concerning, eschatology, the end of days, prophecies about the end of the world all play into the geopolitical dynamics of things. This realization is where I got the concept for the title of this blog, Geotheology.
The end times doctrine, or eschatology of many Mormons holds the belief that in the "last days" (which a lot of people anxiously ASSUME we are in) a Mormon world leader from the USA will arise and save the nation from complete destruction and set the world to rights. Then Jesus will come back and set up the millennial reign of His Kingdom somewhere in Missouri. I don't know about you, but at this stage of things I am really not comfortable with another cowboy with delusions of glory and saving the world for Jesus, as if he needed help, at the helm of the world's only superpower and with his itchy trigger finger on the button of its nuclear arsenal.
The last Bit from Romney:
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong."
SS says:
This last set of statements is just a lot of hot air designed to somehow qualify his statements and appeal to those among us who are worried that God is losing and the secular world is winning. I would encourage such people to re-read their religious texts and see who always wins in the end. Its funny that Romney wants to keep the ten commandments hanging on the walls in public places but has already in his previous statements broken the first three commandments ;
Exodus 2:3-7
3 Do not have any other gods before Me.
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.
Romney has already shown in his own words who his god is, the USA, his idol. He has also in this statement taken the name of the Lord in vain, essentially swearing to God to put the USA over Him:
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
I won't even go into the other commandments that he will undoubtedly break if his ideas on policy, warfare and the treatment of prisoners go into effect with him as president.
Think eternally. Act spiritually. Pray Hard.
How sad that an evangelical Christians have taken it upon themselves to pass judgment on religions that fall outside their boundaries. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are indeed Christian in their beliefs. That means that they embrace the Gospel of Jesus Christ as their core belief, the foundation of their religion.
We are voting for a President in the worst of turmoil on this earth. The compassionate values of Mitt Romney, or someone like him, would be a welcome relief to the tortured, vindictive, self serving man who is in office now.
Let's welcome our political and religious differences and cast our votes for who we each feel should be the next president, that's what democracy is all about. But remember that this country was built on FREEDOM OF RELIGION and that all men are created equal. The Bible tells us not to judge so knock it off.
You cannot build up your own house by destroying the house of another.
01:35 AM
I am offended by and tired of people slamming the Mormon church. Romney is open minded person free of personal prejudice. Romney will equally serve and treat all citizen of our nation with fairness. An article of faith in his church is "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all people the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may." Mormons hold the U.S. Constitution in the highest regard and respect the separation of church and state. Thus, no Mormon leader will ever try to use his office to press his faith on other people. Yet, in this campaign we have seen a candidate (Huckabee) propose amending the constitution to agree with his interpretation of the Bible. Why aren't the voters outraged at such a proposal? It clearly violates our founding fathers respect for the separation of church and state. I am tired of postings claiming Mormons are not Christian and am offended by the Evangelical's voter guide which makes this unfounded and cruel claim. Evangelicals DO NOT OWN the word Christian. They do not have the right to tell another person whether or not he is a Christian. Their bigoted judgments impress me as very un-Christian. Perhaps a better qualification as to one's Christianity is in his willingness to follow Christ's teachings (Christ did say, "Come Follow Me") rather than whether they fit a definition some man or society has formulated in a particular denomination.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.