The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Matters of Faith

12.10.07 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 4)

There are defenders and then there are defenders. The kind of champion a candidate does not need is one that needlessly antagonizes potential supporters. In Ken Shreve's letter, he states:

"...to say that a Mormon is not a Christian is quite simply an ignorant, bigoted, lie."

Ignorant? Bigoted? I can understand theological disagreement. But to ascribe evil motives to anyone who thinks differently?

In a nutshell, Mormonism specifically rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Mormons and many others defend themselves by stating Trinitarian theology is a small detail or a minor dispute. But the Trinity is not an incidental, optional doctrine in Christianity. As a doctrine, it expresses a mystery of God as presented in Scripture without ignoring inconvenient parts of the Biblical witness and without saying more than Scripture itself testifies. In expressing this mystery, the mystery still remains and is impossible to understand logically. At the same time, the Trinity tells us who Christ is and (just as important) who He is not. Mormons are completely free to disagree; but they are in no position to tell Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. what historical Christian doctrine should not matter. In any event, Mormonism is rejected as Christian not because of bigoted ignorance but on solid theological grounds.

In our more immediate situation, it absolutely mystifies me why anyone would attempt to persuade Evangelicals to support his candidate by attacking their theology. The appeal should be made on shared views and political prudence -- not on the basis of "spiritual" fellowship. It is also dangerous to challenge Evangelicals to act out of their "better angels." Christians of all stripes are weary of being told to prove their "tolerance" by voting against their instincts. This particular gambit has been used one too many times as it is. Potential supporters looking on will not like it one bit.

We do not elect philosopher kings in the United States. We elect men and women for whom character and morality is not an incidental matter. We look for that uneasy combination of realism and idealism which may look foolish to the rest of the world but is essential to being an American. Each of us may or may not be a citizens in the Kingdom of God; but in this "kingdom" -- as limited and temporary as it is -- what is important is we gather around the same fire, share the same bread, grieve over blood lost, and love our country. By this measure, Romney is more than OK by this Lutheran.
-- Mike Dooley

Ken Shreve, in his letter of 12/7/07 says, "While I am not a subscriber to the tenets of Mormonism, to say that a Mormon is not a Christian is quite simply an ignorant, bigoted, lie."

I had to scratch my head on that one. Of course Mormonism is not Christianity, if Christianity is defined by at least the first 6 or 7 ecumenical creeds of the Christian church. Hasn't Shreve ever compared Mormon theology with historic Christian theology? I don't think so.

He says there's no religious test for office. That's true when it comes to government action, but not when it comes to what private citizens may do during election time. If Shreve thinks there's no religious test for office in that sense, what would he do if a radical Muslim, supporter of Shari'a law and all that, were running for president? Would he be so broad-minded in that case?

I don't have a problem with Romney, or Mormons generally, primarily because they hold conservative views. I would probably agree with them on most political issues and vote for them. Nevertheless, I would support Rudy this time around, despite my disagreements with some of his positions. He has experience under crisis, and that counts for a quite a lot. Romney and the others (save for perhaps McCain) just don't seem to have that.

I agree that one doesn't have to be theologically correct to hold public office in this country, but that doesn't mean it's not a component that should be weighed in assessing whether a candidate should be trusted with a leadership role in America. There are a lot of very weird ideas out there, after all, and if a political candidate holds some of them, it may say something about the candidate's state of mind or philosophical maturity. And there's nothing bigoted about making the best and most fully informed choice is there?
-- C. V. Crisler
Gilbert, Arizona

That's some rant, there, Ken. And, like you, I've managed, up until now, to avoid this Mormon business with regard to Mitt Romney. I like Mitt. He's a nice guy. But, he is not my choice as the Republican nominee for POTUS. Frankly, I think he's out of his depth, and too naive for the Presidency. After reading your letter a few times, though, it struck me that maybe we should be looking at this Mormon thing from a slightly different perspective.

Back in 1976, Bill Buckley and Ronald Reagan had a debate over whether we, the U.S.A., should turn over the Panama Canal to, well, Panama. Buckley was in the affirmative, and his reason was, as he put it, "spiritual." Ah, sometimes, it's hard to understand Bill Buckley, and if he had known the ChiComs would have become so chummy with the Panamanians, maybe he would have had a different point of view, but we can still learn something from his reasoning. Let's apply it to the 2008 presidential election, and thereby to Mitt Romney, as well as the other candidates. The election of an American President is about the closest thing to a spiritual event in which all Americans share. I'm for the guy who best understands that. It's why Ronald Reagan was a great President, and Bill Clinton was, well, you know. So, how do the 2008 roster of candidates for POTUS measure up in this regard? That's the question everyone should be asking. And, if asking that makes you a bigot, then so be it.
-- Mike Showalter
Austin, Texas

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Harry Reid, Business, Religion, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, NATO, Immigration