|
Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, delivered a speech last week in which he hoped to neutralize the growing popularity of Mike Huckabee, an evangelical running for president, and concerns surrounding his own Mormon faith. Did he succeed?
- First, in his speech, Romney argued that “liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” He also argued that “we do not insist on a single strain of religion—rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.” On Jesus Christ, he exclaimed that “What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.” He also attacked the “religion of secularism,” which he believes is the root problem for so many of our cultural struggles. So, he embraced “our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty.” In many ways, the speech was a masterpiece. For that reason and others, Wayne Grudem, evangelical theologian at Phoenix Seminary, has endorsed Romney’s candidacy. He has done so not on the basis of theology but on the basis of suitability for office.
- Second, the problem with Romney’s speech is that once he opened the door of his theological convictions about Jesus, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. What does he believe about the controversial aspects of Mormon theology, to which I alluded in last week’s Issues in Perspective. Can we not legitimately ask him to explain these for us? Since he brought up the matter of theology, I believe we can and should ask him.
- Finally, listen to David Brooks: “In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really?” Romney wants religion in the public square—and I agree with that. But he then insists that theological differences do not matter and are irrelevant, something with which I strongly disagree. Romney defended liberty in terms of faith well, but in doing so, he watered it down to the point of irrelevancy—something with which I strongly disagree as well. For me, his speech raised more questions than it answered.
See David Brooks in the New York Times (7 December 2007); ChristianityToday.com (7 December 2007); and EJ Dionne, Jr. in the Washington Post (7 December 2007). |
