The Pilgrim’s Protest

By Caleb Wimble
Despite still being more than a year away, the upcoming presidential elections are certainly hot on the media radar. As expected, there’s plenty of controversy to go around, especially given the unprecedented level of diversity among the lineup of candidates. And, equally as expected, the evangelical community is once again struggling with the proper Christian approach to the elections, more so than ever thanks to a surprising new twist in the formula. Having received higher than an 11% ranking on the most recent Gallup presidential poll, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney currently finds himself the third most favored Republican candidate by a respectably close margin. Not only have his Gallup rankings almost invariably increased in percentage over the course of the race, but he has also emerged as the landslide “victor” in the Straw Polls. Romney’s list of endorsers grows more impressive by the day, and his level of support among the political right is nothing short of astonishing. The only true obstacle standing in the way of his aspirations, it seems, is the issue of his faith. As most politically active Americans are aware by now, Mitt Romney is, in fact, a Mormon. Which, of course, begs the obvious question: should evangelical Christians be willing to give their presidential vote to a Latter Day Saint?

The answer is far from an easy one. On one hand, Romney gives every indication of being the “quintessential” conservative Republican in terms of his political standpoints. By his own admission, he is a firm supporter of Bush, the Iraq War, an aggressive anti-terrorist policy, Guantanamo Bay detention, and the pro-life movement, as well as appearing to be a staunch opponent of gay marriage rights, gun control, and universal health care. His family life seems beyond reproach: he’s been married to his high school sweetheart for nearly forty years, has five sons (who, incidentally, have apparently never been involved in substance abuse, extramarital affairs, or anything the press might construe as scandalous), and attends church services faithfully. On top of all that, he has plenty of life experience ranging from extensive business entrepreneurship to a successful history as governor of Massachusetts. In fact, lack of military experience aside, he could hardly seem more qualified for the job. And then we come to the “other hand.” Romney is a lifetime member of the Church of Latter Day Saints. That alone is enough to give many evangelicals pause, if not to outright reject him as a candidate altogether. Many Christians to this day consider the LDS to be nothing more than a radical cult, despite its continued proliferation and widespread contributions to society. Common attacks of Romney are based on such a preconception, often to the effect of: “He’ll push his Mormon agenda on Americans through legislation,” or “Anyone gullible enough to believe in something as ridiculous as the Book of Mormon lacks the good judgment needed for the presidency” – both of which, incidentally, are paraphrases of numerous quotations by students here at CIU.
Is there merit to these accusations? Ironically, they mirror almost identical attacks upon Christian leaders given by non-believers. The assumption is that a politician’s personal beliefs are of vastly greater importance than his policies. And perhaps there is merit to such an assumption. If character is the ultimate criterion of a person’s leadership skills, then should we not search for a candidate whose character is based upon a Christian worldview and which reflects his biblical beliefs? Maybe so. But what are we using as a basis for such a judgment of character? In an anonymous poll of twenty students here on campus, seventeen stated they would support Mitt Romney for the presidency over Hillary Clinton, with two remaining undecided and only one supporting Hillary. The irony of these results is nothing short of astounding. In some cases, the same students who had just declared they would not support a Mormon candidate stated that they would vote for Mitt Romney, an unapologetic Mormon, over Hillary Clinton, a self-proclaimed born-again Christian and a member of the United Methodist church. Obviously something fails to add up here.
Perhaps we should all consider re-evaluating our approach to the entire issue. Is it truly right to support or oppose a candidate solely on the basis of their personal spiritual beliefs? Words are cheaper than ever these days, and could it possibly be that a person’s life is an altogether much better standard than their religious affiliation? Looking only at Romney’s political positions and lifestyle, it would seem fairly safe to assume he was a conservative Christian. All evidence would appear to point directly to such a conclusion. The moment the word “Mormon” is introduced into the equation, however, our perspective on the man seems to shift fundamentally, and we are quick to discard any other information related to his political integrity. Compare his background, for instance, to Senator John McCain, a Baptist and self-proclaimed Christian, who nonetheless possesses a character of, shall we say, “questionable” quality. The man is surrounded by volatile controversies and personal criticisms to an arguably greater extent than any other potential candidates. Not only is his personal life highly suspect (particularly in regards to his highly publicized divorce), but he maintains a record comprised of racial slurs, offensive personal attacks on opponents and celebrities, the Keating Five scandal, confirmed lies to the press regarding military and civilian safety in Iraq, off-color bomb threats (to both celebrity John Stewart and the nation of Iran), and public cursing of another Senator. Despite all this, McCain manages to maintain a considerably higher Gallup rating than Romney. Why is this? Why, out of two men with such similar political platforms, is the one of dubious moral character so much more popular among those nationally polled?

Taking this into consideration, along with the student poll results regarding Clinton and Romney, the issue becomes even more complex. The choice of Romney over Clinton is predictable in a Christian setting, given how incompatible Clinton’s political platform seems to be with the world view of most conservative believers, but the nationwide conservative support of McCain over Romney certainly invokes confusion in my mind. If we are willing to differentiate between Clinton and Romney on this basis rather than stated religion, then why are we apparently unable to do the same with, say, McCain – or any other Republican candidate for that matter? It would seem apparent that not all world views are necessarily derived from a person’s religion itself, and the thought occurs to me that they might be better understood through observation of character.

Thankfully, another poll of CIU students indicated a much more positive trend than we have seen on a national scale. Out of twenty students who were asked whether they would support Romney or McCain for the presidency, thirteen responded in favor of Romney, despite his Mormonism, while six were undecided and only one in favor of McCain. It would seem, again, that students of this university (at least based on these particular polls) tend to place a much greater deal of importance on a candidate’s character – or on his policies – than they do on his religious beliefs.