Speaking as a former evangelical anti-abortion leader, I note that if it boils down to a choice between the Mormon or the adulterer for the Republicans in 2012, the Evangelicals who drive the Religious Right will climb the walls. Do they vote for a heretic or a lying philanderer?
As Ross Douthat writes in "The Tempting of the Christian Right":
More than any other Republican constituency, religious conservatives have good reasons to be wary of Newt Gingrich... As Speaker of the House, he undercut their claim to the moral high ground by carrying on an extramarital affair even as his party was impeaching Bill Clinton for lying under oath about adultery.
...
Now his path to the nomination depends on this conversion paying off... The real issue for religious conservatives isn't whether they can trust Gingrich. It's whether they can afford to be associated with him. Conservative Christianity in America, both evangelical and Catholic, faces a looming demographic challenge: A rising generation that is more unchurched than any before it, more liberal on issues like gay marriage, and allergic to the apocalyptic rhetoric of the Pat Robertson-Jerry Falwell era...Rallying around Newt Gingrich, effectively making him the face of Christian conservatism in this Republican primary season, would ratify all of these impressions. It isn't just that he's a master of selective moral outrage whose newfound piety has been turned to consistently partisan ends. It's that his personal history -- not only the two divorces, but also the repeated affairs and the way he behaved during the dissolution of his marriages -- makes him the most compromised champion imaginable for a movement that's laboring to keep lifelong heterosexual monogamy on a legal and cultural pedestal...
His candidacy isn't a test of religious conservatives' willingness to be good, forgiving Christians. It's a test of their ability to see their cause through outsiders' eyes, and to recognize what anointing a thrice-married adulterer as the champion of "family values" would say to the skeptical, the unconverted and above all to the young.
And then there is Mitt Romney.
He is a Mormon.
As John W. Kennedy noted for evangelical mainstream magazine Christianity Today, though some evangelicals concede that Mormons are good neighbors, the theological chasm is wide. Mormons profoundly distance themselves from orthodox Christianity in that they:
- Do not interpret canonical Scripture as being solely the Old Testament and New Testament. They add the Book of Mormon and founder Joseph Smith's other works, The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants.
- Do not believe in the Trinity. Mormons believe God the Father and God the Son have fleshly bodies and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit man.
- Teach that God was once a finite being who achieved his exalted rank by "progressing."
- Based on supernatural visitations in the 1820s, Smith believed he was called to restore the true Christian church that had been lost 16 centuries earlier. According to this great apostasy, God told Smith that all churches -- with specific reference to Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians -- were wrong, and to join none.
"On every major doctrine, the fundamental teachings of evangelical Christianity and Mormon doctrine are diametrically opposed," says Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminary.
If you think that in their hearts any evangelicals can vote comfortably for what they'd call a heretic or worse, think again.
And so the great evangelical disaster of 2012 is on the way.
And here's the supreme irony: the man the evangelicals who have hijacked the Republican Party hate most -- President Obama -- is a faithful married man, good father and professing Christian who has described his born-again experience in detail.
But he's "liberal," black and perhaps "not born in America," or a "Muslim," or "communist," or "the Antichrist," or something else pretty terrible: actually Christ-like in his compassion for the poor!
This is considered a great sin by evangelicals now that most of them are actually followers of Ayn Rand, not Jesus.
So the evangelicals will be voting for either Romney or Gingrich holding their noses. This bodes badly for the Republicans.
In fact some evangelicals may even be forced to sit out the election and/or just deny it's happening at all just as they already deny global warming.
Maybe they will take to a hilltop and await the Return Of Christ and/or the return of Sarah Palin, whichever comes first.
Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His latest book is Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway
Follow Frank Schaeffer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_schaeffer
Michael Sean Winters: Falwell's Legacy: Why Evangelicals Oppose Romney
Perhaps Washington, (George, that is) may have left a few hints as to what the top job is about, and how these Unites States, in the 235th year of our Independency from Britain, should behave internally, and internationally.
He did just that in his 1796 Farewell Address.
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?"
That, and the rest should be read by everyone. Especially by Presidential wannabees. May just keep us out of more foreign entanglements... .
Available at Yale Law Shool's Avalon Project.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
And what does YOUR religion have to do with spending and budgets? YOUR religion should not affect the lives of anyone else. What's good for YOU may not be good for everyone else.
Thank you again for yet another rewarding read: informative and insightful. Oh, and I also found it now and then highly amusing, particularly your closing sentence. Too bad for those evangelicals waiting on mountain-tops if they're anticipating the arrival of Sarah Palin... considering how much of her time she spends far below those heights, mired in the muck of her own failed rhetoric.
There is no "new" dilemma this election.
The evangelical "motto" I guess you could call it, is "anyone but Obama.. and Romney".
Newt is the better choice of the two. At least he's claimed repentance and asked for forgiveness. Actually, this a great opportunity for Christians to show one of the many virtues of Jesus' teachings.
"But he's "liberal," black and perhaps "not born in America," or a "Muslim," or "communist," or "the Antichrist," or something else pretty terrible: actually Christ-like in his compassion for the poor!
This is considered a great sin by evangelicals now that most of them are actually followers of Ayn Rand, not Jesus."
These leftist false anti Christian Conservative accusations have run their course already. You all are going to have to come up with some other lies and distortions.
It's excruciatingly absurd to claim that Evangelicals are against helping the poor. This is the ultimate example of desperation of the Left. And the proof is in the fact that it's the Conservative Evangelicals who give MORE to help the needy than the liberal Left. Many studies support this.
And as for the sooo tiresome and old racist accusation.. anyone with any capacity for honesty would
cont.
To make a claim that "they" don't like Obama because he's black, insinuating that it is a majority view, instead of making sure to point out that this is a small minority (fringe that is present in all groups)... is dishonest and wrong. And it hurts the very people that the accusers present themselves as being concerned for. It's blatant hypocrisy and reveals the lows that the Left will stoop to to "win".
To repent means to turn and go in the opposite direction--it means to show humility. After Newt's serial hypocrisy he should step down from ALL leadership positions and quit seeking the limelight. His actions in the past and in the present show a frightening ignorance of what leadership is all about. It's wounding to see how Newt along with others "play" with their positions of power while there is such deep suffering in the world.
"The earliest known proponent of the Holy Trinity was Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century. The new concept gradually gained adherents throughout the third century but also faced opposition, particularly from Arius, a popular Libyan priest at the beginning of the fourth century. The Trinity was adopted as Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicaea in 325, but the Church remained divinded until Emperor Theodosius made belief in the Trinity a requirement for all Christians, around 380 CE."
This means that the Trinity is "Man" made doctrine , like may others. Christ, often referred to as "The Word" often referred to himself as being "One with the Father". When talking on Marriage He Says, "The Husband and Wife ...SHALL BE ONE"!
Maybe Heretic could apply to many other religions depending on who is right in the eyes of God not man.
Just a thought.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_long_has_the_doctrine_of_the_Trinity_been_taught#ixzz1g2PuFghB
Join the rest of us with a thinking brain! All this religious talk and proving their Christian faith from the candidates is a lot of bunk. We are, after all, going to be electing a Commander In Chief, NOT a preacher in chief.
One can hardly doubt that the majority of Mormons live an admirable family life. And their beliefs, while whacky, aren't any whackier than mainstream Christianity. But I've heard rants from evangelicals about the Mormons, calling them everything but Satan incarnate.
If Romney is nominated it'll be fun to see how the Robertsons et all spin this one.
If historic orthodox Christianity means mainstream Christianity of today then I would agree that Mormonism is not historic Christianity; at least not in every doctrine. Although Mormons have much in common with other Christians Mormons also believe differently than historic Christians in some key areas. But the real questions to ask are 1) What is original Christianity? 2) Is mainstream Christianity of today the same as original Christianity?
Mormons are not supposed to be Christian because we have some doctrinal differences with other Christian groups of today. The foundation for the beliefs of these other groups is the creeds of the 4th. 5th, and 6th centuries and so on.
It is claimed that Mormons are wrong because they believe in extra-Biblical revelation and scripture. Yet much of Christianity believes in extra-Biblical creeds and councils formulated centuries after the time of Christ and the Apostles. Most of the wording formulations in these creeds cannot be found in the Bible. This is often the excuse used to exclude members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from being Christian. It is well known to historians that Christian doctrine changed over time and across different Christian groups.
Had a talk with a self-professed libertarian friend the other night, a very intelligent person. His proposal was that we just do away with all of the government agencies except defense and infrastructure. But then we go through the specifics of what the eliminate: The EPA? Maybe not. OSHA? Maybe not. Repeal child labor laws, the 8 hour work week, anti discrimination laws, etc? Maybe not.
You get the picture. Their Libertarian Heaven is as realistic as the Second Coming. And just as unlikely.