Magic bus
Everyone’s over their colds, for the most part. Luke had a persistent cough, but Diane took him to the doctor and got a prescription that seems to be working very well. We’re thankful for that.
Diane and I have been researching Mormonism quite a bit lately in light of Romney’s candidacy and speech last week. Delving into theology, philosophy, cults, sects and different strains of belief, along with cultural studies isn’t exactly new territory for us as a couple, but our emphasis on such things does vary in focus from time to time in response to cultural developments. We watched most of the recent PBS series on Mormonism, and I have been a fan of Walter Martin’s excellent book The Kingdom of the Cults (which includes an extensive examination of Mormon history and theology). Our study has led us to the conclusion that Romney’s Mormonism most definitely does matter in the context of his run for the Republican nomination.
The whole affair is made all the more tricky since Diane and I agree with most of his political views and positions as they currently stand. And while we certainly agree that a person’s specific religion, inasmuch as it is merely a label, shouldn’t have any bearing on the person’s eligibility to become president, we would contend that religious views cannot be isolated from a person’s worldview and character. They impinge on everything to a degree or another. And as far as the history of his religion’s founding is shrouded in deceit, mystery and conspiracy, along with the Mormon leadership’s eager willingness to rewrite “inspired” theological positions for the sake of PR, make the candidate’s claims worth a second look. Joel Belz, in an excellent recent column in World Magazine, sums it up nicely:
…How does a person’s Mormonism affect his or her possible role as president of the United States?
But just because I’m obliged to ask the question carefully doesn’t mean I’m out of bounds in asking the question. I applauded when Romney stressed: “[Some] would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do.” Nor should he; that is part of his personal character.
But this integral and holistic nature of the person is also exactly what makes it not just right, but necessary, to ask—even in detail—just how what this man believes “religiously” affects all the rest of his behavior.
So it’s not bigotry for Americans to ask of Mormons they know: “Why so secretive? Why the necessity to hide so much?” One of the hallmarks of the historic Christian faith—as opposed to some of the cults it has spun off—is its eagerness to say: “Check us out! We may have embarrassing moments in our past, but we have no secrets.” We’re like Jesus saying to Thomas: “Feel the nail prints. Thrust your hand into my side!”
And in the same way it’s not bigotry for Americans in general to ask that of Mormons they know, it’s not bigotry to ask the same question of the man who this year is Mormonism’s most prominent and celebrated member.
* * * * * *
The R.C. Sproul video lecture a couple of days ago pitted Aquinas’ philosophy against Kant’s, and after I wrote Diane recommending the lecture, she found this. Geeky, yes, but cute :)