A minor controversy has erupted over comments by the brilliant Christian apologist Ravi Zaccharias regarding the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Before I get in trouble myself, I need to say Romney is not my favorite choice. But the topic at hand was whether conservative evangelical Christians should support a Mormon for president. Ravi says it all quite well in the first paragraph...
What we want is a politician who will understand the basic Judeo-Christian world view, and on the basis of that the moral laws of this nation are framed, and then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted: the sanctity of every individual life.
In other words, as I have stated elsewhere, we don't live in a theocracy. One's view of eschatology or even Christology will likely not have a significant effect on decisions about economics or foreign policy. What matters is a more generalized understanding that human rights are not endowed by the state, but come from someplace higher. What matters is a belief that guy in the top job in the nation is not God and cannot willy nilly make up the rules according to his whims or the latest polling data.
Unfortunately, many comments have been posted criticizing Ravi for not criticizing
Mormonism. That is unfortunate. The topic is politics, not faith. They overlap, but are not one and the same.
It should be noted that nowhere in the brief article did Zaccharias endorse Romney. He does seem to imply he would prefer a Mormon to those with specific other worldviews:
"I think we should ask the hard questions of everybody, be it Mitt Romney or anyone else and see if the framework of the value of human life and the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian world view, (which is the only moral framework under which this country could have been framed. It was not framed under a Hindu framework. It was not framed under a Muslim framework, not framed under a Buddhist or a naturalistic framework) that we are all created equal, that liberty and justice and all of those terms that I’ve given only make sense within the Judeo-Christian world view.
"Created? Equal? Naturalism does not tell us we are equal. Naturalism does not tell us we are created. Liberty? Islam does not believe in the total liberty of the individual. Equal? Hinduism believes in the caste system. The Judeo-Christian world view is the only world view that could frame this country. And so I think as we elect, we go before God and see out of the candidates who will be the best one to represent the values and at the same time be a good leader for the country whose first responsibility should be to protect its citizens."
In other words, whatever you think of Mormonism, conservative evangelicals have less in common with an atheist, and less in common with a representative of the Taliban. Given that choice, Romney's commitments are preferrable.
Ravi hits the right nail on the head. What matters most is a general worldview that says there is something or someone higher than man. Human beings are accountable to someone. Romney is a Mormon. Jefferson was allegedly a deist. Reagan was only an occasional churchgoer. Each can be a good public servant - far better than a despot who believes morality is what he decrees.
If there is something higher than man, then morality, public and private, is not something that can be changed by majority vote or presidential decree. There are principles built into the fabric of reality, that even politicians need to be accountable to. And the dignity of the individual is one of those principles - that individuals cannot be seen as fodder for the collective machine, whether that machine is atheistic communism or theistic totalitarianism. I don't think a Romney presidency is likely to lead to a Mormon theocracy.
Does theology play a role in shaping a worldview? Of course! But does theology directly effect most of the decisions a president has to make for a country? No. Lots of bad theologians are good at economics, diplomacy and urban planning. If folks want to oppose Romney based on his Mormonism, they need to show specifically where that Mormonism directly effects his policies. Show how it would stop the trains from running on time or harm national security. Otherwise, take a stance on Romney on the basis of his positions and record. I don't oppose Hillary Clinton because she is a Baptist. I oppose Hillary because she is a pro-abortion socialist and cynical political opportunist. Her theology is rather incidental at that point.
Like I said, I think I would prefer, at the moment, maybe Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson as a candidate. If the choice was between Thompson and Romney, I'd probably choose Thompson, so I'm not endorsing Romney. But if the choice is between Romney and Hillary or Obama or Edwards, I'd definitely go with Romney. That doesn't make me an apologist for Mormonism.
No comments:
Post a Comment