I went into the speech thinking that if it were a purely political speech he'd probably done his job but if it were a spiritual speech he'd be hosed. As with all things political, it wasn't quite either one.
It was a good speech and it was well delivered. He seemed more comfortable and approachable and humble than any other time I've seen him speak. And measured by time and words it was an overwhelmingly political speech. He hit the points he needed to hit; he said again and again that there is no religious test for office and that the president isn't the president of any particular party. He talked about the American civil religion and was impressive and presidential. He dropped in evangelical code phrases and themes like the de-Christianization of Europe, the dangers of a secular America and America's godly heritage.
But it was also a profoundly spiritual speech. He said he was going to stand up for his faith and that he wasn't going to get into the business of theology. Then he did just that. In the middle of the speech was this:
There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. 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.
In that single paragraph he blew his chance to slam the door on the pastor-in-chief idea because he was, consciously or not, making the theological argument that Mormonism was basically a part of historic Christianity. And it is, in the judgment of most liberal and conservative Christian theologians, not a part of historic Christianity. The fact that we will now be debating this is evidence of the one paragraph gaffe.
Kennedy's 1960 speech succeeded in no small part because it was devoid of any religious sentiment. Nowhere in that speech did Kennedy say anything about what he believed. In fact, he said religion was a fundamentally private matter.
Romney's speech basically did the same thing. But then, perhaps because it is simply what he believes and didn't think it would be a big deal, perhaps because he wanted evangelicals to know that Mike Huckabee wasn't the only one who could talk about Jesus, he did the theology thing. And now, instead of moving past this matter - as we should be doing because debating theology is decidedly not what presidential elections are supposed to be about - we will be discussing Mormon theology.
All of this points to our very, very big problem.
Our debate and discussion about faith and politics is, increasingly, just a discussion about faith. That is toxic for our politics and for our faith.
We need to be having theological discussions. They are important and valuable.
We certainly need to be talking about politics. Pick your reason why.
But we're not getting either one. Instead we are getting politically-inspired theology discussions and theologically-inspired political discussions. Someone needs to hit a reset button because this is one of the ways religious intolerance takes root.
Perhaps what our country could use right now is a pledge by all of the candidates for president to:
1) Declare they respect and admire the faith of every other candidate;
2) Admit that no particular religion qualifies or disqualifies anyone for the presidency;
3) Promise not to manipulate religion to advance their political agendas.
Yes it is a small thing, yes it is a symbolic thing, but it might begin to restore some sanity to our increasingly goofy faith and politics discussion.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
I think that the foundation of this country is a Christian foundation. Not because we have a choice or not. It happened many years ago. I believe that is the reason we are the best nation in the world. If you don't believe that, go and live a few months some place else. I did. That's why I can say it. Another thing is. Have you all try to find out what the Mormons believe in? I did. I have some relatives that are Mormons and I investigated that church. It's very different than anything you guys can imagine. That is why I'll never vote for a Mormon.
Sorry, that is my opinion.
Whoa!
"Since there is no way to make non-mystics feel embarassed by what they believe in, they never get swept up in the strange stuff that cloggs up logics and politics."
Last time I checked, the Soviets were self-proclaimed atheists, how about that great Soviet experiment called the gulag? That didn't get people "swept up in the strange stuff that clogs up logic and politics?" How about the atheist Khmer Rouge and their massacres? Nothing to be embarrassed about there, huh? I guess when you have your own self-determined non-mystical morality, you can't actually do anything that is immoral...
Marcrega:
Would you refuse to vote for Barack Obama simply because he's an African-American?
(I'm deadly serious.)
The government is based on faith and religion. Our forefathers relied on faith and prayer. This world need men of faith and I think Rommeny would be a good man for the job. Mormons are good people that you can respect and honor.
For some reason there has been what seems to be underground debate as to whether Mitt Romney should be voted for because of his religion. While I believe that character and decision making ability are of the up most importance in a candidate, and religious conviction can be a good litmus test for these, I don’t believe that specific religious ideology is a benchmark to be used. This criterion smacks of religious bigotry and seems to disregard what the Founding Fathers initial declarations. The assertion most often being used against Mr. Romney seems to be that he is not a Christian. To maybe address those who are holding this as a criterion for this election, I decided to do some research. I should disclose that I belong to the same religion as Mr. Romney (which is probably obvious at this point). According to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary a Christian is as follows. Chris•tian: \ˈkris-chən, ˈkrish-\, noun, Latin christianus, adjective & noun, from Greek christianos, from Christos, 1526, 1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (1): DISCIPLE 2 (2): a member of one of the Churches of Christ separating from the Disciples of Christ in 1906 (3): a member of the Christian denomination having part in the union of the United Church of Christ concluded in 19612: the hero in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. By the first definition, I would propose that Mitt Romney is a Christian. The name of his professed religion is The Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints. That seems to profess a belief in Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon, a book of that Mr. Romney’s religious affiliation asserts as scripture, refers to “Jesus” 186 times, “Christ” 389 times, and they are used in conjunction 67 times. This does not count allusions to Christ through terms like “the Son of God”, “Messiah”, and the like. One of the many passages in the book referring to Christ states, “And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 25:26).” This seems to be a long standing confusion among other Christian religions. The misconception was addressed by the leadership of Mr. Romney’s religion whom released a “proclamation” reaffirming Christ in as the central figure of their worship “As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth (2000 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. English approval: 12/99. 36299).” This evidence alone would legally justify the use of the title “Christian.” Instead it seems that other faiths would like to create a new definition of what a Christian is in order to further their political or financial agenda’s? Is it just a way of excluding those they don’t understand, want to understand, or fear? I don’t know the answer to these questions but on the surface feel that not voting for Mr. Romney because he is not a Christian is somewhat ignorant. If this is your current view I would suggest you seek out a member of the church and decide for yourself if they are not Christian. Christ himself gave his own litmus test when he said, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them (New Testament, Matthew 7:20).”
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.