Evangelicals for Mitt is rapidly becoming one of my favorite blogs. The writing is interesting and well-done, and the bloggers are unrepentant about their support for Mormon Mitt Romney.
This post quotes Ezra to show that the Lord works even though “unbelievers” such as Cyrus so there is no reason not to support Mitt even though he is not a traditional Christian.
Now before we get some nastygrams from Mormons against the evangelicals, the blog points out that Mitt expresses his love for Jesus and points out that evangelicals also have doctrinal differences with Catholics as well as Mormons. Although I think evangelicals who say Mormons are not Christians are simply ignorant (how many times do I have to tell them that Jesus Christ is my personal savior before they believe it?), I do think the evangelicals at “Evangelicals for Mitt” are well-intentioned. Their primary purpose is to bring evangelicals behind a Mormon candidate, and that is a very, very good thing.
Isaiah points out, by the way, that Cyrus was an instrument used by the Lord to bring Judah back to Israel, and I agree with the broader theme of the post, which is that the Lord uses many vehicles, including non-believers, to bring change to the Earth.
Their primary purpose is to bring evangelicals behind a Mormon candidate, and that is a very, very good thing.
It isn’t readily apparent to me that this statement is true. The simple fact that he is an LDS candidate doesn’t imply to me that gaining the support of any particular group is a good thing. Especially if the post in question is essentially ambiguous on the question of whether the candidate is a Christian.
Neither does the simple fact that he is an LDS candidate imply to me that his election would necessarily be a good thing. His recent full-throated support for the administration’s position on torture and the Geneva convention persuades me that this might not be the case.
As for the more abstract point, that sectarians ought to be able to support someone who is not ideologically or theologically pure from their perspective, this type of compromise is the essense of a pluralistic, democratic society and ought to be taken for granted.
His recent full-throated support for the administration’s position on torture and the Geneva convention persuades me that this might not be the case.
Hear, hear.
The anti-Romney gremlins begin to make themselves heard. I’d prefer not to turn this thread into a discussion of the torture issue. I am sure we will have many, many fora in which to discuss this and other election-related issues in the next two years or so.
Frankly, I was surprised at the “discovery” by Charles Mitchell (over at Ev’s for Mitt) of the principle that God might indeed work through those who are not doctrinally pure (or who in fact are completely wrong).
There is, after all, that passage in Isaiah about the king of Assyria (no good guy he):
Isaiah
5 ¶ O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
8 For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings?
9 Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?
10 As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria;
11 Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?
12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Lord hath performed his whole work upon mount Zion and on Jerusalem, I will punish the fruit of the stout heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his high looks.
13 For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:
14 And my hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are left, have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped.
15 Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood.
16 Therefore shall the Lord, the Lord of hosts, send among his fat ones leanness; and under his glory he shall kindle a burning like the burning of a fire.
17 And the light of Israel shall be for a fire, and his Holy One for a flame: and it shall burn and devour his thorns and his briers in one day;
18 And shall consume the glory of his forest, and of his fruitful field, both soul and body: and they shall be as when a standardbearer fainteth.
19 And the rest of the trees of his forest shall be few, that a child may write them.
I’ll just continue rambling without any hope of response…
This post quotes Ezra to show that the Lord works even though “unbelievers” such as Cyrus so there is no reason not to support Mitt even though he is not a traditional Christian.
This logic applies to ANY candidate, and in fact seems to imply that the candidate is at least an unbeliever if not worse.
ARJ, do you presume to think your comments merit response? 🙂 (For the humor challenged, that was a joke).
Regarding your point one, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. The big problem Romney supposedly has is that he cannot garner evangelical support, which is essential to winning the Republican nomination, especially in places like South Carolina. The fact that mainstream evangelicals are rallying behind him is significant and I think helpful to his campaign.
Regarding your second point, I would urge you to read the actual EFM post, which I was summarizing, and perhaps not completely accurately. They do not call Mitt an unbeliever but say he believes in different doctrine than they do, but they also point out that Catholic believe in different doctrine as well. Again, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by saying that the “logic applies to any candidate.” Evangelicals would clearly rally around a fellow evangelical (like George Bush), at least by the terms of a web site like EFM. What EFM is saying is that they support Mitt even though he is NOT an evangelical.
Like the first two commenters, I’m not interested in voting for Romney. I am however interested in seeing how the larger population of Evangelicals (and the general population) treat him as a candidate. Will his religion be larger factor than other candidates? I’m fascinated by his run, and looking forward to seeing how he is represented in the media.
Are mainstream evangelicals rallying behind him or is it just the folks at Evangelicals for Mitt? Evangelicals aren’t organized under on leader like Catholics or LDS are they? So a group in one town could support him, while others might still think he’s the devil. Do you have examples of others that support him? Just curious, I’m not saying the aren’t, I’ve just never seen any of this support you’re talking about.
Sorry, Geoff B, but if you’re going to continue to post pro-Romney posts, you have to be prepared for the so-called anti-Romney gremlins posting.
[OK, so you could be anti-Romney, I suppose, and still write the original post, but only in a hyper-theoretical world that more in line with T&S that M*. If you don’t care about Romney, then you don’t really care about EFM.]
JJohnsen, I think it’s a bit early for high-profile people to announce their support for 2008 presidential candidates, especially since Mitt hasn’t declared yet. And, yes, there is no “pope” among the evangelicals, but there are several hundred well-recognized evangelical leaders who are influential. Marvin Olasky of World magazine is one. He has pointedly said he has no problem with a Mormon in this link here.
The president of the National Association of Evangelicals also says he has no problem with a Mormon
There have been many other comments similar to this by other important evangelical leaders in the last several months. This is not a groundswell of support, but it is worth noting that I have yet to see a prominent evangelical leader say he will not support a Mormon candidate no matter what.
If Mitt Romney becomes the GOP’s nominee, I plan on voting for Mitt. Out of the candidates that I have looked at so far, Mitt Romney is by far my 1st choice for President in 2008.
Geoff B,
Both of my points still stand, and so far without response. Your statement about a “very, very good thing” encapsulates so many assumptions and logical leaps that it really merits both more detail and substantial justification.
Second, I have read the post, and it seems to me that the same logic could be used to support any non-Christian and it specifically doesn’t claim that Romney is a Christian. In terms of LDS-Evangelical relations this isn’t a sign of any progress. In terms of political support for Romney (which I guess we are assuming is a very very good thing for now) it isn’t a particularly effective argument in that it can apply to anyone. Taken to an extreme you could use it as an excuse to simply not worry about who is elected since God can use anybody.
And I’m not saying any of this to bash Romney. I am one of the few people participating here that actually voted for him when he ran for governor. I’m not sure if I’ll support him for president or not, but he keeps doing things that make me nervous. I’m saying the above because I don’t see the logic behind the statements being made.
Thanks for the links Geoff.
Geoff, I know what you mean when you say, “how many times do I have to tell them that Jesus Christ is my personal savior before they believe it?” I’ve recently learned something about that that has helped me; it might help you too.
I run a blog with a friend who is an evanglical Christian, and we mostly explore the issue of Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and its impact on his candidacy. After a fair amount of dialogue with my co-blogger and other evangelicals, I think I understand better what is going on. Mostly, it’s a matter of combining nit-pickiness about definitions with terribly broad generalization. Here’s a snippet:
Here’s my post about that:
http://www.article6blog.com/2006/06/28/a-note-on-terminology-mormon-and-christian/
I hope it makes sense, and would welcome everyone’s comments.
Lowell